The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[payn]

Netflix paying for those rights was a bit more than licensing an already-made show or movie for streaming. It was more like bring a substantial amount of the budget for the production of the show. They just had size that budget bid based on how well they thought they could make a return on that investment for the duration of the license.

It was a good bet, even with the risk. I stayed around for those shows and a few others. Netflix now though is drying up.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Another thread discussing idyllic. I guess different folks mean different things by it, because the picture that just came across my Twitter feed is way to crowded for that descriptor!

View attachment 258985

Yeah, to me that looks like something I'd see in a Jaws movie, not an offer of idyll.

 

[payn]

I mean, I'm not saying that digital services ruin everything either. I'm subscribed to multiple of them, and the scale of content that they provide is only something you can get with such a service. So I agree that they're plentiful and cheap.

But I also appreciate keeping the important things in a personal archive and I feel like people who grew up in the post-Netflix world don't really have that reflex. I think both personal ownership and digital services are really wonderful if they coexist, but live services seem to be supplanting personal ownership and that worries me. Right now when there's money to be made, it works, but in a few decades, we might have a digital wasteland where nothing is really available because all the major digital services were shut down and the hundreds of dollars worth of content people "had" in them are gone forever, at least for their personal access.

I just dont see it. That content is money to print. They are still making money on NES titles, decades old albums, hundreds of year old books, etc... I just dont see companies shutting off that cash spigot. Now, driving it digital only so you have to have the service? Yeap, thats likely to happen. Though, ill be dead then.

 

[billd91]

It was a good bet, even with the risk. I stayed around for those shows and a few others. Netflix now though is drying up.

Oh, I agree it was a good bet. I'm not sure I'd describe Netflix as "drying up" though. There's still good stuff on it - it's just that everybody wants to get in the game now and that means there's a lot more competition for hosting the content. And that means that now I have to decide what services to buy to get my fix for Star Trek (Paramount+), the MCU/Star Wars/Pixar (Disney+), Stranger Things (Netflix), Reservation Dogs (Hulu), House of Dragons (HBOMax), and Tolkien stuff (AmazonPrime), etc when initially it was just Netflix. ! Is it really that many?!?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It kind of drives me crazy when people agree with a villain in a movie that is very obviously wrong and take their quotes out of context because they like how they sound.

The reason they're saying those things is because they're the villain. The point of having them say those things is to show how wrong they are. I'm sure this happens a ton with a lot of different villains, but there are quite a few where it's pretty egregious.

 

[payn]

It kind of drives me crazy when people agree with a villain in a movie that is very obviously wrong and take their quotes out of context because they like how they sound.

The reason they're saying those things is because they're the villain. The point of having them say those things is to show how wrong they are. I'm sure this happens a ton with a lot of different villains, but there are quite a few where it's pretty egregious.

Is it life in general you think is white hat black hat, or just your expectation of literature/film?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Is it life in general you think is white hat black hat, or just your expectation of literature/film?

I'm sorry, I don't take your meaning? Are you saying that sometimes the villain has a point? Because with that I agree. Thanos had a point that the universe will eventually run out of the resources necessary to sustain life. But his actions make him the villain, because he was crazy and thought killing half of all life in the universe one time would somehow solve that problem.

Villains that are supposed to be "morally complex" (so a lot of more modern ones) typically can identify a big problem with the world or heroes or whatever but are really bad at fixing the problem. The Riddler in The Batman correctly identified that Gotham's institutions were corrupt and needed fixing, but for some reason thought that flooding the city would fix that. Zemo is correct that having a ton of superpowered people running around would be bad for the world, but he decided that killing them was the only solution.

A lot of the time, the villain is the villain because they're correct about the problem but wrong about the solution. That's why taking their phrases out of context and using them to support an internet argument bothers me. They don't get that the villain is wrong. That's why they're the villain. If they weren't wrong, they wouldn't be called the villain.

 

[payn]

I'm sorry, I don't take your meaning? Are you saying that sometimes the villain has a point? Because with that I agree. Thanos had a point that the universe will eventually run out of the resources necessary to sustain life. But his actions make him the villain, because he was crazy and thought killing half of all life in the universe one time would somehow solve that problem.

Villains that are supposed to be "morally complex" (so a lot of more modern ones) typically can identify a big problem with the world or heroes or whatever but are really bad at fixing the problem. The Riddler in The Batman correctly identified that Gotham's institutions were corrupt and needed fixing, but for some reason thought that flooding the city would fix that. Zemo is correct that having a ton of superpowered people running around would be bad for the world, but he decided that killing them was the only solution.

A lot of the time, the villain is the villain because they're correct about the problem but wrong about the solution. That's why taking their phrases out of context and using them to support an internet argument bothers me. They don't get that the villain is wrong. That's why they're the villain. If they weren't wrong, they wouldn't be called the villain.

The line between hero and villain is measured only in success.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The line between hero and villain is measured only in success.

Then Thanos is the hero of Infinity War?

 

[CleverNickName]

The line between hero and villain is measured only in success.

And it's drawn by the status quo.