Speaking of movies, have you ever seen a tear-jerker before?
;o)
I vote break!
Cool. Let's break it.
Hollywood is still making money. And if they put less toward cinema releases, avoiding the print/distribution/advertising costs, and do pay-per-view and DVD releases, etc., the only people getting the short end will be the exhibitors. Hollywood will still make money and produce the same biased garbage. They'll just do it more cheaply.
I will continue with my pledge to stay out of movie theaters in '06.
the number of pervs out there to go see that crap are not so many that the creeps on the left coast can continue to make a killing for very long
unless of course they can have the public edu/dumb-u-cation system require viewing of such twaddle as necessary for graduation...
However, I also don't like to drop $80 or so to take the family to the theater ... especially when the movies stink.
I'm hopeful for 2006. I plan to see End of the Spear this weekend. I'm looking forward to X3, Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest, Cars and Superman Returns. None of those will probably win any awards, but I bet we'll have fun.
There will be more I want to see in the theater than there was last year by exactly one movie.
Maybe after Hollywood collapses we can move the US movie making complex to Austin, TX.
It's really simple. The technology has improved to the point where people don't see the added value over watching the movie in their home. Find a way to sell the movie at a theatre price to people in their homes.
In my case, it is too much trouble to try and locate a babysitter so I can go to a theatre. It's much easier just to wait until it comes out on DVD. That said, I would gladly pay $20 for my wife and I to be able to legally watch a first-run movie at home.