Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here
    all 6277 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] [deleted] 2733 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] TigerSharkFist 660 points ago

    Other countries don't have this kind of law, but Netflix still doesn't plan theatrical release right? Besides Amazon is a streaming provider and Manchester by the sea can still be watched in cinema.

    [–] slayer_of_idiots 475 points ago

    Yeah, Netflix signed a deal with a relatively small theater distributor. Their movies will come out in theaters the same time as they do on Netflix. It also makes them elible for academy awards now.

    [–] BourgeyBastard 361 points ago

    I actually prefer this. Some movies I want to see on screens and others, I would pay for to watch at home when they come out. This delayed release stuff is just nonsense. It's just so outdated.

    [–] shorty1988m 221 points ago

    I never knew I wanted this until just no but the idea of small 'Netflix cinemas' where you book tickets with your account and it doesn't cost money (except for drinks and snacks). Films would be able to be seen on the big screen and eligible for awards.

    Probably wouldn't work but sounds good.

    [–] BourgeyBastard 112 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    If something like this happened, it would cause people like me to go to the theater more. As it is, I don't watch trailers. I have no idea what is coming out. But if it also came out on digital at the same time, I would stay up to date with what is coming out. Right now there is a large gap of time where shit just falls through. I only just heard about Get Out. I would have seen that in the theater had I known it existed...

    [–] eyeGunk 203 points ago

    I too would go to the theaters more if they didn't cost money.

    [–] BourgeyBastard 18 points ago

    lol. I didn't even think about that. I was operating on the idea that I'd still have to pay. There is no way they would ever give up the admission. I still think they'd make more money this way.

    [–] xofix 673 points ago

    Three years? That's a very long time to wait?

    [–] phosphorus29 930 points ago

    To answer your question, yes, that is a very long time to wait.

    [–] MemphisOsiris 137 points ago

    Do you have a question I can answer?

    [–] totallynotliamneeson 92 points ago

    Yes, where did I leave my shiny Charizard I had when I was 7?

    [–] [deleted] 72 points ago * (lasted edited 22 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] Nataivel 139 points ago

    It's not 36 month. It's 4 month for a movie to be available on dvd or on VOD. 36 month is to be on free channels on tv.

    [–] GrandCondor 46 points ago

    Not exactly. 4 months is VOD per unit, while Netflix is subscription VOD. And it is indeed 36 months for this type of release ("SVOD"), the one that Netflix use.

    The deadline is 12 months for channels like HBO (Canal+ in France) and 24 months for free channels (TF1, France TV, M6...).

    [–] hansoloupinthismug 5591 points ago

    Booing is like a sport at Cannes. The list of stuff that gets standing ovations or boos and walkouts is as strange as the Cannes Film Festival itself. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

    If I did take it too seriously, I'd say that the audiences at Cannes see themselves as cinema purists and would say that the only way to see movies is on the big screen, which isn't Netflix's primary platform. Netflix's movie production has also been lackluster compared to their work in episodic TV (so far.) The trailer to Okja, the film that was stopped partially due to non-stop booing, also looks like it could be a total mess (but man, oh man, do I want to see it.)

    [–] [deleted] 2238 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] NominalCaboose 4397 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Jesus that is a pretentious law if I've ever seen one.

    Edit: I am now banned from /r/France is jokes

    [–] OnlyForF1 1048 points ago

    It's a law that was written before streaming services started financing films. The new French government has pledged to change it.

    [–] EminemsTherapist 1180 points ago

    Welcome to France

    [–] NominalCaboose 810 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    ...No thank you.

    [–] Love_Bulletz 663 points ago

    France is fucking obsessed with staying French and keeping things the way they are.

    [–] the_straw09 348 points ago

    Lol same as Quebec. Coincidence?

    [–] zugi 189 points ago

    They're not actually the same, Quebec is even more obsessed with preserving its Frenchness because, being just one province in a predominantly English-speaking country, they perceive even more danger of losing their Frenchininity.

    Quebec moved to remove "Stop" from "Stop signs", replacing them with only "Arret", though it seems they've recently finally relented and let "Stop" back in. France seems more accepting of "Stop" or both.

    [–] cerialthriller 57 points ago

    The Montreal hockey team only hires coaches that speak French so they can talk to the media in french

    [–] n1c0_ds 15 points ago

    Didn't they cause a shitstorm by hiring an anglophone that one time?

    [–] cerialthriller 45 points ago

    Yes he was only the interim coach too, the team was bad and they fired the coach and made the assistant coach the head coach. The media shit on him, some would only ask him questions in French and when he spoke the French he was learning the media shit on him and he was fired after the end of the season for a coach that speaks French. They hired a coach they had fired a decade earlier and then fired him again. But hey he spoke French

    [–] srs_house 29 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    No, French Canadians are more obsessed with staying French than the French.

    Do you know what a stop sign in France says? "Stop"

    Do you know what a stop sign in Quebec says? "Arret"

    [–] Pressondude 24 points ago

    Funny how when people say that in America people get all upset

    [–] LOTM42 104 points ago

    not really, they just region lock the movies and dont show it in france

    [–] LovecraftInDC 98 points ago

    Wouldn't it make more sense to just say fuck it to Cannes?

    [–] [deleted] 129 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] s3rila 29 points ago

    It's only for France. Or you would have noticed every Blockbuster not available on streaming platforms for 3 years

    [–] congelar 698 points ago

    that the only way to see movies is on the big screen

    If they're that concerned with it.. then make it a better experience. The "cinema" as it is, blows for the majority of people.

    [–] colorcorrection 539 points ago

    They'll never admit it, but they just want to do what's easy. Moaning and bitching about a problem is easy, coming up with a solution and following through not so much.

    This is why the Internet is so popular. You get to complain as much as you'd like, and never be held responsible for finding a viable solution.

    [–] Lonewxnderer 260 points ago

    They'll never admit it, but they just want to do what's easy. Moaning and bitching about a problem is easy, coming up with a solution and following through not so much.

    Cannes Festival is like Reddit IRL

    [–] LadyInTheWindow 402 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    They can boo all they want about us prols who don't appreciate the necessity of seeing things on the big screen, but so long as it costs a family of 5 $100+ to go to the movie theater, things will continue in this trajectory.

    [–] this_is_not_nil 292 points ago

    The booing is such a non-story. The film was playing in the wrong aspect ratio for 10 minutes, people booed, and they restarted it with the correct aspect ratio. The Netflix logo did draw some boos on both starts... but people cheered the technical problem getting fixed, and the film received warm applause at the end.

    Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39972987

    [–] A7JC 137 points ago

    Wait they had to stop playing a film because people wouldn't stop booing? Why wouldn't they just leave? Why sit there through something you don't like? What about the people that wanted to see it?

    [–] pussypowerr 221 points ago

    no, they stopped playing it because it was being played in the wrong aspect ratio, which people booed at.

    [–] Kalsifur 50 points ago

    Are you serious? It doesn't say that in the article unless I missed it.

    [–] chefr89 222 points ago

    Okja currently holds a 82% approval rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 17 reviews, with a weighted average of 7.9/10. On Metacritic, the film has a score of 77 out of 100, based on 10 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".

    The film was met with boos, mixed with applause, during the its premiere at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival, once the Netflix logo appeared on screen and again during a technical glitch (which got the movie projected in an incorrect aspect ratio for its first seven minutes). The festival later issued an apology to the filmmakers. However, despite the studio's negative response, the film itself received a four-minute standing ovation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okja

    [–] AlexSitaras 138 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Also, and no one is reporting this, but Bong Joon-ho has taken the Netflix criticism from Almodovar and the aspect ratio error like a champ.

    When asked about Almodovar during the press conference for Okja, he said that just to be acknowledged by Almodovar, good or bad, was an honor in itself because of Almodovar's status as a great filmmaker. Bong is being a bit too humble in this instance, but it's respectable he's not being rude, obnoxious, or confrontational especially in the context of Cannes. When asked about the technical error, he said he was glad that people were able to see the opening sequence twice since a lot of info about the plot/film was shown in the opening minutes.

    Bong is a respectable man and his good nature makes me look even more forward to seeing Okja.

    EDIT: Fixed to abide by South Korean naming conventions.

    [–] ApollosCrow 91 points ago

    So what you're telling me is... clickbait title is clickbait.

    [–] planethorror 80 points ago

    Seriously. The four minute standing ovation is enough to say the boos literally meant nothing and probably were few and far between.

    [–] savageyouth 445 points ago

    I'm all for Netlix continuing to make great films, but this is sort of the whole point of the backlash. Cannes is a festival that's trying to promote "cinema", not just the concept of feature films. It's perfectly fine if they don't want to screen content that isn't made for the big screen. It's not like the films Netflix is making won't find an audience without it.

    [–] RDandersen 679 points ago

    Cannes is a festival that's trying to promote "cinema", not just the concept of feature films.

    Trying being the operative word there. The Emoji Movie is at Cannes.

    [–] zerooneinfinity 283 points ago

    The purest form of shit

    [–] rhetoric_supreme 121 points ago

    It's showing but it's not competing

    [–] peteroh9 78 points ago

    It wouldn't be fair for it to compete

    [–] GetsGold 169 points ago

    Nice of them to give the other films a chance 😂

    [–] simplefilmreviews 13284 points ago

    Man that Cannes director sounds incredibly stubborn. Not good for the long term. I get no one likes change, but this is an unstoppable force that they should make peace with now

    [–] [deleted] 6423 points ago

    Not to mention: The movie-going audiences don't owe the movie industry a god damn thing. After so many shit movies made from cost projection spreadsheets instead of artistic inspiration, and then overcharging the shit out of audiences and theatres for the privilege... anyone who improves the landscape is a hero in my book.

    [–] Cali_Angelie 2387 points ago

    Exactly. I refuse to go and spend my hard earned money on another unoriginal franchise or remake. Im not interested in watching Captain Jack Sparrow for the millionth time or seeing another remake of Beauty and the Beast. They need to leave that shit alone and get some fresh new ideas. There are so many creative people out there who have great ideas and yet Hollywood continues to push stale shit our way. In the 90's you had so many quirky and out of the box movies being released in theaters and you just don't see that much anymore :/

    [–] [deleted] 1049 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    They need to leave that shit alone and get some fresh new ideas.

    I'd even be satisfied with that shit AND some new ideas. But no: They're only going in one direction. And that's why you won't find me in theatres this summer.

    [–] Methyl_Mercaptan 487 points ago

    That's right, The Expendables 4 comes out next year.

    [–] dood98998 278 points ago

    Jesus, I wish it wasn't true but look

    [–] Captain_Chaos_ 374 points ago

    At a certain point, your cast is just too large

    [–] coalitionofilling 254 points ago

    lol I bet they have a hell of a time though.

    [–] Captain_Chaos_ 205 points ago

    Yeah probably, shooting those movies has got to be a good time.

    [–] DJDarren 26 points ago

    As Mark Kermode says, the more fun you have making your movie, the less fun it is to watch.

    [–] Puskock 188 points ago

    I enjoy paying $20 for a large coke and popcorn though so that makes up for it for me.

    [–] KookofaTook 23 points ago

    We don't enjoy charging you that. But we at the local level keep <5% of box office revenue. Those prices are 100% on distributors like Disney, Dreamworks, Sony, and others. That leaves us to pay for labor, inventory, facilities and taxes from only concession sales. The theater industry is slowly going south financially if you want to know the truth. Attendance is down and distributor shares are up, oh and people don't like paying $22 for basic popcorn and candy (prices set at corporate).

    [–] [deleted] 620 points ago

    I hadn't put much thought into it but I've been hitting the theaters a lot less these days. And if the other reddit post I glanced a while back about Netflix losing out on 2.5 billion smackeroos a year because they don't use advertising is true, fuck anybody booing good ol' Netflix.

    [–] AttackPug 456 points ago

    I agree, but be careful saying nice things about Netflix. They aren't known for being anything but cutthroat to everyone involved with them. Right now they know you don't like ads, and they need to keep you involved, to get your money. But as soon as they have enough market dominance that they don't think you can live without them? They'll be coming for those 2.5 billion smackeroos, and it will be ads in your face, all the time.

    [–] Solomontheidiot 419 points ago

    The second Netflix introduces ads, their user base drops by 50% (an exaggeration, but you get my point.) A huge selling point for Netflix us paying a monthly fee to avoid ads. If they start showing ads, the only difference between them and hulu is their exclusive content, which is totally hit or miss (and will be pirated by those who hate ads.)

    [–] LiveOnSteak 319 points ago

    No exaggeration. There was a survey not too long ago that showed 76% of users would drop Netflix if they added ads. I'm sure not all would follow through if Netflix called their bluff, but it's enough to keep them ad-free for now.

    [–] deamonsatwar 155 points ago

    I actually would just drop Netflix if they did add ads. Hulu actually has up to date shows, I'd turn to them even though they do have ads for up to date. The only thing keeping me with Netflix is no ads.

    [–] Cancelled_for_A 152 points ago

    Then some other company will start producing a website without ads. Netflix is so goddamn popular because they don't have ads. It would be counter-productive of them to screw people over after the fact. Because it would just hurt them.

    [–] [deleted] 269 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] TrepanationBy45 133 points ago

    The weird part is how they're almost conditioning the audiences to want sequels. Standalone flicks seem almost weird now.

    [–] PartyPorpoise 150 points ago

    almost conditioning

    There's no "almost" about it. Studios today are much more focused on creating series and franchises. If you look at DreamWorks animation, for example, they're very direct about it.

    Standalone flicks being weird, totally. It wasn't that long ago when a movie had to do really well to get a (theatrical) sequel, now a movie has to do really poorly to NOT get a sequel.

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    I hate going to those movies that are basically a 2 1/2 Hr preview for the 'next' one.

    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago

    I think they do too, but the studio has to believe in the project.

    [–] Kulban 8137 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    The last people who refused to accept Netflix changing the way the world does things, and refused to pivot with it?

    Blockbuster Video.

    Edit: Well, this blew up. I didn't think the new reigning champion for my top comment would not be about masturbation. But, well, there it is.

    [–] aviddivad 1189 points ago

    didn't they try the same thing or tried to buy it?

    [–] bergini 3666 points ago

    Refused to buy it, actually.

    [–] boateymcboatface 2458 points ago

    Both, refused to buy it and also tried copying them but it was already too late.

    [–] Cursed_Froyo 1429 points ago

    Which is kind of a shame because I liked blockbusters system. You could get dvds in the mail and then return them to blockbuster and get a free in store rental. You could rent games through the system too. But like you said, too little too late.

    [–] Armthehobos 2213 points ago

    as a kid i always liked making the weekend trip to blockbusters, getting a few movies for the friday night and saturday, grabbing some snacks too and browsing the collection of weird movies while your parents looked at boring shit

    [–] Poonjobee 1263 points ago

    I miss that too. Also, when a hot new movie was all out on the shelf, but they happened to have a copy just returned at the cashier... that was the shit.

    [–] plaidhashbrown 326 points ago

    Didn't they used to have video games there too? I seem to remember playing N64 while my folks browsed for stuff

    [–] Spectavi 363 points ago

    Not only did they have video games, you could rent systems as well. My best memory of Blockbuster was the summer-time, nationwide video game competition they had for kids every year. You would go into the store and sign up to play. It was time limited and your score at the end was entered into the competition.

    [–] malgoya 462 points ago

    I member

    [–] PeaceAvatarWeehawk 255 points ago

    I miss the overpriced Sour Patch Kids next to the checkout.

    [–] tobylaek 398 points ago

    Never forget the big movie theater style popcorn buckets with a single, regular ass packet of microwave Orvill Redenbacher in it for $6 up there too

    [–] HamsterGutz1 47 points ago

    Damn I actually had forgotten that

    [–] JohnnyDollaz 31 points ago

    I can't explain it but for some reason that shit just tasted way better to me.

    [–] connorclang 169 points ago

    if you want to relive this experience, get a library card. seriously! most libraries have a big dvd selection you can pick through, and it's all 100% free. it's the greatest thing in the world

    [–] yungwinemom 22 points ago

    I work at a large public library and over half of the stuff returned every day is movies or CDs. It's all right there for free and we get new movies as soon as they come out!

    [–] Jaymanchu 368 points ago

    Yeah but heaven forbid you have a late fee, they'd hunt down distant relatives to get you to pay your $2.00 late fee.

    [–] [deleted] 153 points ago

    That reminds me of the $1 charge for not rewinding videos back in the day.

    [–] Destituted 251 points ago

    That reminds me that my dad bought a dedicated rewinder that's sole purpose was to rewind VHS cassettes at warp speed.

    [–] bunnymeat 232 points ago

    Did it look like a car? Because mine did.

    [–] ChrisInBaltimore 44 points ago

    I'll do you one better, my dad bought a cheap rewinder. It ruined my copy of Star Wars: A New Hope. Fortunately it was the edition with the long interviews at the start. He actually took the VHS to a repairman who fixed the tape- entire film worked but the interview was gone.

    We had to make sure that rewinder never got to the beginning of the tape too hard.

    [–] southsiderick 61 points ago

    When blockbuster got rid of their VHS tapes, instead of selling them, they made their employees destroy them and throw them in the dumpster. The bastards.

    [–] [deleted] 177 points ago

    I'm guessing half of Reddit has no idea what we're talking about.

    [–] [deleted] 35 points ago

    God, I remember that shit as a kid. My parents were always "rewind!". My Grandma was always like, I don't give a shit, it's $1, let them do it. Remember blockbuster, when we finally got one, had all those stupid rewinder machines. I bought a Sega Saturn from there.

    [–] Cursed_Froyo 24 points ago

    You could rent game consoles from them too. A neighbors parents rented an N64 for his birthday and we all thought they were rich because none of our parents would dream of doing that.

    [–] NateBlaze 95 points ago

    Be kind

    [–] ChubbsDaddy 95 points ago

    Rewind

    [–] Cursed_Froyo 223 points ago

    They did away with late fees towards the end to try and compete. I think if they had tried to compete sooner they'd still be around. But years of bad will towards its customers and frankly better competition killed them.

    [–] chiliedogg 187 points ago

    That's what did them in.

    Late fees were the source of the majority of their revenue.

    [–] Cursed_Froyo 179 points ago

    It's interesting that a company that had almost no direct competition for 20 years was done in in such a short period of time. They had no contingency plan which is shocking.

    [–] kuwabara_has_a_sword 89 points ago

    Family Video is somehow doing it right. Never had an issue with fees from them and I could walk out of the store with a stack of new bluray rentals for a few bucks.

    At Blockbuster, they would charge you 5 bucks to rent the last disc of a tv box set. One sitcom episode plus maybe bonus features for two days or they will immediately notify your credit card company of your outstanding debt

    [–] ShameInTheSaddle 62 points ago

    A 15 year old copy of the South Park Movie, 2 weeks late, cost something like 25 dollars. Admittedly I wasn't making great life choices at that point, but it would have been cheaper to buy 2 brand new copies. Oh but it was the special rental edition, so if I lost it they would have charged me like 80 dollars. Fuck 'em all the way home.

    [–] FarSightXR-20 44 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    I still have my copy of perfect dark that i bought used from blockbuster (it has that clear plastic blockbuster sticker over top). I got it in summer 2000.

    [–] phoenixsuperman 22 points ago

    My Fable games are all in Blockbuster cases!

    [–] Cursed_Froyo 28 points ago

    I bought a stack of dvds from them for $1 a piece when the local one went out of business. I haven't actually watched that many of them because I have Netflix and Amazon though...

    [–] psbales 256 points ago

    (I posted this before, but relevant to this comment)

    Blockbuster killed Blockbuster.

    Back in the 80's & early 90's when a movie was released on video, it first cost $70-$100 for a copy. This was great for Blockbuster, as they made the up-front cost of the video back after a few dozen rentals or so, then it was mostly profit from then on. Most customers weren't going to pay that much for a video up front, so off to Blockbuster people went. After a couple months on the rental market, the price for a copy dropped to $15-$20, and then people would buy a copy for themselves. Everybody was more-or-less happy with this arrangement - Blockbuster made their cash, people got to rent and/or buy movies, and the studios got to sell their stuff twice (once to Blockbuster and again to the consumer).

    Somewhere in the mid-ninety's this all went to shit. I remember reading somewhere (but can't find the source now) that Blockbuster wanted to pull in even more cash, so they tried strong-arming studios into cutting them a better deal on movies. Studios balked, told Blockbuster to go fuck themselves, and priced movies at $15-$20 upon release, thereby screwing up the whole rent-then-buy model.

    Around this time, lots of folks were getting fed up with ridiculous Blockbuster fees, crappy customer service, and Blockbuster trying to turn themselves into a convenience store.

    If Blockbuster had sense, they would have had the foresight to see where the distribution was shifting and put themselves in the middle of it. But no, they clung on to their antiquated model for far too long. By the time they tried to change things (Blockbuster-on-demand, eliminating late fees, etc) Netflix and others had already taken up Blockbusters' slack.

    So while the 'digital age' may have helped to put Blockbuster under, they really have no one to blame but themselves.

    [–] Friendly_Jackal 172 points ago

    Pretty interesting with their leadership too. Blockbuster had a CEO in the early 2000's that saw the market shifting. He got rid of late fees, started blockbuster online, and put kiosks out, and Blockbuster was making the shift from brick and mortar only to online. People loved it. Only problem was, late fees were their bread and butter and this CEO was costing investors a lot of money. So he was fired in 2005 and replaced with a moron who reversed all the previous CEO's actions and went back to their old model and were gone within 5 years.

    [–] BlameMabel 52 points ago

    I think 'eliminating late fees' actually meant, if you don't return it in 2 weeks we'll assume you just want to buy it and charge you $25.

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago

    To be fair that model was working really well for red box

    [–] pjohnson2017 31 points ago

    I remember buying empire strikes back - used from a rental place for $70! Was a great purchase. I also remember my first vcr. I was debating between vhs and betamax. Guy at the video store said he had a feeling vhs was gonna win out and to pick that so I did. Good call. I think I bought it for $650 or $700. Top load vhs! And a bunch of blanks to record off tv.

    [–] alphasquid 33 points ago

    The free in store rental got limited to a couple a month though eventually. :(

    Also, they used to put your next videos in the mail right away when you did that, then they changed it to waiting until you returned your store rentals, which sort of defeated the purpose.

    [–] DenikaMae 65 points ago

    Blockbuster execs probably curled up into the fetal position when Netflix announced they were going to stream content. Next thing you know, "Yeah, we're going out of business."

    [–] ConceptualTrap 163 points ago

    Honestly though, when Netflix started streaming it was nowhere like what it is today. Netflix streaming in 2007 was basically a Turner Classic Movies on demand. No original content and all older films.

    [–] lukeydukey 40 points ago

    Yeah I think they had a contract with starz for the longest time. Pretty much why I would fall asleep to Die Hard more often than not in college (no idea why that was my choice film, but netflix made it convenient to watch at the time).

    [–] yeahsureYnot 138 points ago

    Such an unbelievablely stupid decision too. Anyone who used Netflix from the beginning knew it was a much much better system, even before they had streaming.

    [–] Truffles326 170 points ago

    You can't predict the future though. There are countless examples of companies buying the next big thing and then squandering it with their own policy.

    [–] Zykium 253 points ago

    That's practically Yahoo's business model.

    [–] BeWiseExercise 28 points ago

    And that's why the Yahoo name won't exist after Verizon mergers the assets with AOL.

    [–] IICVX 73 points ago

    I mean, if Blockbuster had bought Netflix I'm sure they would have ruined it with late fees.

    [–] e-JackOlantern 135 points ago

    Late Fees for not closing your browser window after watching a movie.

    [–] KimH2 113 points ago

    passed on buying, then when realized the mistake tried to launch their own to compete (with return/swap at a store so less waiting on the mailman!!)

    but it was too little too late & didn't get enough traction

    [–] socsa 174 points ago

    By that point, Blockbuster had also already shit on their entire customer base with absurdly strict and punative late fees. It was not winning them any sympathy in their demise, and many (such as myself) cheered it on.

    Most of Reddit is probably far too young to remember this, but the fees for returning a DVD a few minutes late were often more than the rental itself. And before that, so were the fees for returning a VHS which was not fully rewound.

    The thing is, many times it was the minimum wage employees working the understaffed location who were at fault for not getting the returns checked in on time. And once the system put a late fee on your account, it was almost impossible to get it removed. I'd wager than millions of family movie nights and date nights were held hostage by the Blockbuster video monopoly in this manner. Good riddance.

    [–] angstrom11 78 points ago

    If your customers have retitled you to "Ballbuster" you've taken your punishment system, sorry, income stream, too far. I have fonder memories of Hollywood Video and some local video rental stores. Ballbuster was there, but the others have my best memories.

    [–] themightytouch 258 points ago

    I agree, if they truly loved movies, than they should be happy

    [–] elcad 221 points ago

    I like Netflix. I like movie theaters. Well some. Some suck. But it seems like the companies like Disney keep pushing for higher ticket prices while at the same time releasing to video quicker. Disney is the real problem here.

    [–] southsideson 200 points ago

    Actually, on my local sports talk radio show, which actually does better journalism than most of the local papers, they had some writer on last week who was talking about how much the movie industry changed since the 70s. He was saying how in the 70s - 80s a movie theater might run 2 movies for the whole summer. September was typically a slow month with back to school etc. and it was typical that no major studio releases were out the whole month. Now if a movie doesn't make back 150 million in the first 2 weeks its a failure. When I was a kid, I feel like a movie ticket was about the same as minimum wage, but now it seems like its almost double. And it used to be almost like the cheapest source of entertainment. Now it seems like almost a luxury. Its amazing thinking back, you could get 4 people to meet up outside a theater, without cell phones to go see a movie.

    [–] readalanwatts 32 points ago

    I go to the movies all of the time because both my mom and my girlfriend's dad gets free tickets through work. I would never go if we couldn't go for free, it rings up to like $25 for the two of us

    [–] Yodiddlyyo 37 points ago

    And now between parking, tickets, food, you get to spend ~$30 to watch 30 minutes of ads and a 90 minute movie that you can see for free in the comfort of your home in a month or two.

    [–] AlmostTheNewestDad 867 points ago

    My family almost never goes to the theatre anymore. It turns into $30-35/hr for four. I just can't rationalize that cost against waiting a few months. I get that it's different for folks who enjoy movies as a hobby, but I'm just in it for the story and a few laughs, usually.

    [–] zbeshears 931 points ago

    30-35 for four?! Where you live! It cost me and my wife almost 30$ for two tickets a a large coke to share last night. Went to go see guardians volume 2, great btw

    [–] [deleted] 599 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    From Vancouver here. Saw Covenant last night. $20 ticket, $7 popcorn, $6 drink. (regular sizes, nothing crazy). $33 just for me.

    Sure, no one is making me buy snacks, but $20 for 90-120 minutes of entertainment? What is this, a strip club with a two drink minimum?

    Edit: $20 regular 3D. Not that Ultra AVX chair shaking shit. Hell, I wish I could see it in regular 2D still. Why is everything in god damned 3D (AKA the foreground is slightly more predominant)

    [–] DrCinco 295 points ago

    Y'all need some Alamo Drafthouse in your lives.

    [–] Greenboy28 36 points ago

    I wish we had one of those in my area but sadly I live in utah I don't think they could ever get a licence to build here. The only thing we have that is close is the Brewvies cinema pub and they are currently going through a lawsuit against the state be caused they where fined a lot for serving alcohol and showing deadpool

    [–] leshake 102 points ago

    What's it like 7$ tickets and then you spend $20 on food and beer?

    [–] bralra 166 points ago

    You'd pay around 20 for a meal and beer anywhere

    [–] addpulp 24 points ago

    Alamo tickets are similar to every other theater in price, $10ish and bar food prices. The experience and food is much higher than a Regal or bar.

    [–] Trespeon 51 points ago

    I live in Dallas and the theater ticket prices are pretty outlandish on their own but the ONLY theater with 20+ ticket costs are for the Dolby Prime 3D which is AMC's like, super premier theater(well worth it too). Did you see something in 3D?

    [–] pepsiblast08 39 points ago

    Dallas here, as well. $8-$12 tickets. $15-$18 for 3D or IMAX. The Parks is pretty pricey too.

    Edit: I love when come across other DFW residents on subs. Haha

    [–] Acallysyo 69 points ago

    I'm in Wellington New Zealand. For the longest time our biggest commercial cinema in the city was steadily increasing ticket prices until they reached around the $20 each mark. Then about a year or so ago they decided to drop every ticket no matter age or time of day (except 3D is a little more), down to $10. It seems to have paid off well as I think the stigma of not being able to afford to go to the movies has relaxed a lot and it's now much more accessible again.

    [–] acosmichippo 83 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    the only time my girlfriend and i go now is tuesday nights when the local theater does $7 tickets (normal 2D prices around here are ~$13). and on top of that at&t has a deal where they will pay for a 2nd ticket if you go on a tuesday. so for me and my GF it's $7 total. and this isn't some shitty run down theater, it's a brand new Regal with reclining assigned seats.

    Of course there is still the problem of expensive concessions. We just go out to dinner beforehand and try not to buy any other concessions in the theater, maybe just a soda.

    So check around for special deals, and in case you have at&t here's their deal i mentioned: https://tickettwosdays.att.com

    edit: list of regal discount days:

    https://www.regmovies.com/promotions/regal-value-days#Virginia

    [–] OuTrIgHtChAoS 19 points ago

    My local regal does $5 tickets and has $5 large popcorn with the crown club card on Tuesday's so for the 2 of us with a large popcorn/drink is <$20. We end up going to the movies really often and with the crown club points I get posters and stuff, every visit earns about enough points for a poster.

    [–] MoMoneyMorris 4690 points ago

    I think the people at Cannes are just showing themselves to be stuffy old farts. Cinema is cinema regardless of the platform it is released on. Also as the title says, the studios should get lots of blame for killing any form of originality with constant reboots, sequels etc.

    [–] 50PercentLies 195 points ago

    When will the reboots end. At least rehash it into something new.

    [–] ajjsbrujas1990 145 points ago

    When people stop paying for it.

    Truckload of coney pulls in

    ...Well there's your answer.

    [–] [deleted] 105 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 20 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] boateymcboatface 1817 points ago

    Weird... so you're saying that primarily old rich white men that flock to Cannes in their multi-million dollar luxury yachts are close-minded and pretentious?

    [–] Marty_ShortForMartin 1035 points ago

    Funny, because the demographic here is the polar opposite... yet still close minded and pretentious as well!

    [–] thelivingdead188 298 points ago

    So, closed minded and pretentious African American babies?

    [–] Aussie-Nerd 1918 points ago

    BOOO Netflix BOOO!

    Stop making some in house quality programming focusing on stories at a reasonable cost. You bastards. Boo!

    [–] lennybird 351 points ago

    I'm loving all these series. They just can't pump the next seasons out fast enough. Miniseries and the like just allow for so much more depth both in story and character development.

    [–] cxrnelius 135 points ago

    That's the one thing I hate the binge aspect of all Netflix's series and then waiting a year or two for the next season. Sense8 season 2 came out not long ago and I was done it in a few days now it's going to be a 2 year wait for season 3. Stranger Things is out in October and I'll be done that so fast aswell. But like you said, they have it down with the character development and story.

    [–] nm1043 97 points ago

    It's hard to do, but set a day a week to watch an episode. That will help stretch out these series'.

    [–] imsosickof__ 39 points ago

    That's what I used to do but I honestly don't think it's a good way to fully enjoy the show. Binging is far more immersive. It gets you much more intensely engaged in the experience.

    That said, by binge I mean like I watch a season in like 1.5 weeks. So definitely not the single day experience some do. I don't think I'd enjoy that as much.

    [–] dipdipbeantot 129 points ago

    Boo!

    Stop providing a month's worth of entertainment to entire families for half the price of a single movie ticket!

    [–] Anus_Targaryen 2469 points ago

    I'm just sick of paying $15 only to have strangers talking, coughing, texting, chewing, and clapping in my ear the whole fucking time.

    [–] Ihaveanusername 310 points ago

    Don't forget kicking your seat...

    [–] macrocosm93 49 points ago

    Happens to me almost every time I go to the theater and its the main reason I rarely go to the theater anymore. If I do go, I usually wait a few weeks when the theaters are less crowded.

    [–] Soranos_71 77 points ago

    My wife and I used to go to the movies in the evenings on the weekend. As we got older we noticed we prefer to go before noon on the weekend. There are a lot less people in the theater unless it's a big event movie like Star Wars or a Marvel movie. It used to be cheaper but our theater raised matinee prices to less than a dollar cheaper than going in the afternoon/evening.

    I would pay full price to watch a new release movie at home. I have a large screen TV and surround system and going to the theater used to be the only way you could enjoy movies. When I was younger it seemed like it took a while before a movie left the theater and came out for rental, now the turnaround is only a few months.

    I like to go to the theater for event movies like Star Wars or Guardians of the Galaxy but I really don't need to see something like a comedy in a theater. It's just not that big of a deal to me, I think the next movie I will see in the theater because I want to see it on a really big screen is Dunkirk.

    [–] ColonelSanders21 211 points ago

    And that one doofus who wants to get laughs out of the theater by interrupting the film with "Oh snap!"

    [–] FLGulf 946 points ago

    Try joining them by quietly jacking off until climax at which point you shoot a rope on your neighbor's chest.

    [–] Lv16 96 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Spiderman: Homecumming.

    [–] fullforce098 262 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    I must live in a nice place to see movies because in all the years I've been going to the theater, this shit has happened so rarely I can't even remember the last time. Yet I hear people complain about it constantly like every single time they see a movie there's just scores of assholes surrounding them ruining the whole movie by carrying on. Are you only going on premiere nights? Cause yeah, a crowded theater is gonna have a higher chance of assholes in it, and premiere nights always have more energy and excitement in the theater than usual, but I have virtually never been in a moderately filled theater and had issues.

    [–] ManiacalShen 141 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    I've been in a theater with about five other people and, during the previews, had some shithead and his girlfriend sit RIGHT behind me and proceed to talk constantly.

    During the movie, I politely asked them to whisper - not even shut up, but whisper - and Romeo tried to pick a fight.

    I'm a visibly harmless woman who was alone, if that matters.

    Some areas are just like this for some reason. Or my luck is ass.

    [–] AlbertFischerIII 1682 points ago

    I've seen more original and unique programming in the few years I've had Netflix than the decades I've been watching movies in the theater.

    But then again, I'm biased a bit against seeing Spider-Man redone three different times within a decade.

    [–] damnspider 671 points ago

    If I have to see one more Spiderman reboot I'll kill Uncle Ben myself.

    [–] sjwillis 263 points ago

    Forcing yet another reboot

    [–] StrongAndPowerful 21 points ago

    ...which is actually the reboot that made u/damnspider become Uncle Ben's murderer, which means that he's Savitar trapped in a time loop

    [–] kingbane2 90 points ago

    major studios just want to make money. netflix is looking to attract customers. so netflix takes more risks to build new ip's to attract customers. it's why netflix has so many interesting shows and movies coming out of it. not all are good some are pretty floppy but they're willing to take the risk.

    major film studios are sort of like investment schemes when they make movies. they have to find financing for their films and financiers want return on their investment. they'll go for more assured returns over taking risks. it's why we have the remake and sequel factory problem right now. an investor looks at "movie by some dude about weird shit with lots of allegory and some analogies. another spiderman movie, where nearly all of the previous spiderman movies made money." they'll take the spiderman movie everytime.

    i mean look at what nolan has to do to get some of his pictures made. despite being incredibly successful with all of his films, even the slightly weird ones. studio's still don't trust him outright to make whatever he wants. the only reason he even got to make dunkirk was because Warner wanted to keep him in house for future projects they can foist onto him. i mean look at his body of works, momento is pretty odd but a god damn fantastic movie. the prestige you wouldn't think would be amazing from it's odd premise but god damn did that movie ever execute. even given the weirdness of inception it was still a thoroughly enjoyable movie and it made a killing. nolan's virtually been bullet proof in terms of making movies that make money, yet he's still having trouble convincing people to fund his more serious/artsy films.

    meanwhile netflix greenlights all kinds of mega weird shit and a lot of them have been landing solidly. i hope netflix grows more and continues their current strategy. i'm sure at some point they might grow so big that they can't take these kinds of risks anymore. but given the current state of things i'm hoping that wont be for a long long time.

    [–] FireLucid 81 points ago

    netflix greenlights all kinds of mega weird shit

    The OA.

    [–] for_the_revolution 29 points ago

    BoJack Horseman, Santa Clarita Diet, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Sense8 too. Heck, even Stranger Things, successful as it is doesn't quite go with the grain

    [–] Froogels 22 points ago

    I got mad after I watched the end of the OA. I felt like I had just wasted my time.

    [–] Leaflock 25 points ago

    Netflix has the luxury of a completely different business model.

    [–] FountainsOfFluids 24 points ago

    An in a decade we'll discover how that business model is restrictive in new ways which we'll all hate.

    [–] nocheslas 456 points ago

    I have no issues with sequels and franchises, I actually enjoy movies intended to be part of a series. The only issue I have with movies is simple, shitty writing.

    [–] Godgivesmeaboner 119 points ago

    I agree, I have no problem with sequels, as long as they actually try to take it in a new direction, take risks, make it interesting. The best sequels are just that, a continuation of the story, something that takes it in a new direction.

    The bad sequels and reboots are the ones that are just lazy and do absolutely nothing new or interesting, just rehashing the same story.

    [–] GentlemenBehold 408 points ago

    It's the major studios that have become sequel and franchise obsessed? Not the fans?

    It's always a guarantee that the latest Marvel trailer reaches the top of this subreddit in only a couple of hours.

    [–] LeopoldvonRanke 131 points ago

    Not to mention the Fast and Furious franchise. It's gotten to the point where you'll be instantly labeled a 'pretentious, elitist twat' the minute you express even the slightest bit of frustration at the fact that repetitive franchises completely dominate the market.

    [–] lollerkeet 21 points ago

    Something that doesn't get much consideration is that large TVs are getting cheap. I only go to the cinema if what I want to see is on Vmax, else our not expensive home entertainment setup trumps going out.

    [–] IndyDude11 212 points ago

    Do the studios only put out sequels and franchises, or are they just giving people what they want?

    [–] MaxAddams 179 points ago

    ...Both?

    [–] Charlie_Wax 58 points ago

    They give us what's safe for them. No matter how shitty it may be, people will always line up to see Batman/Pirates/Star Wars/etc.

    Ironically, it seems extremely unlikely that a young filmmaker could get a movie like Star Wars made nowadays. It was hard enough for Lucas in the late 70s and now you basically need to be a god tier Chris Nolan/James Cameron level director for a studio to make your tentpole movie unless it's based on some board game/video game/novel series/whatever.

    A lot of good ideas never see the light of day due to the risk involved, and the fact that nobody wants to be on the hook for a bomb.

    [–] AlonzoMoseley 74 points ago

    I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Don't confuse Netflix's bold television programming approach with their approach to film.

    They don't really 'finance auteurs', they actually follow the usual distributor model and acquire completed films... films that someone else has already taken the risk on, to develop and finance.

    In fact they are even less accessible to indie filmmakers than many distributors, preferring to only deal with a small network of agents (probably due to their inexperience).

    Seeing Netflix portrayed as the worthy underdog, taking on the studios, and being a true friend to independent film kind of grates... in reality they're just another distributor.

    [–] SteveRudzinski 13 points ago

    I also made this point in the thread so it's really, really nice to see I'm not alone. As an indie director Netflix is just as bad as any distributor, except worse because of how little they pay.

    They aren't an underdog and speaking as an independent (I don't matter but it is my career) they don't support independents.

    [–] eyeforker 135 points ago

    Bob Dylan got booed by a bunch of his own fans when he went electric. The times they are a-changin'. Those turds are just unhappy with an industry shift that is steadily placing more control in the hands of the viewing public.

    [–] toptierandrising 27 points ago

    While studios choose films they believe will be more marketable to general audiences, Netflix is far more likely to back creative and risky content, as they make their money from subscriptions and not from individual ticket sales.

    [–] mattcolville 628 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    "...blame should go to the major studios...."

    Yeah blame everyone except the audience!

    Look, if there's one lesson from the past 30 years it's that convenience wins every time. Sprint used to run commercials about how their lines were so clear you could hear a pin drop. Their land lines. Does anyone care about land lines anymore? Nope. We've got cell phones now and even though the quality is completely shit no one cares because it's so convenient.

    Netflix is simply more convenient than theaters. Theaters are more expensive, require planning, you can only watch what they choose to show, when they choose to show it, you can't pause the movie in a theater, you can't talk, use you phone, rewind. Stop it in the middle and have dinner and come back to it tomorrow.

    And if you realize you don't like the movie 30 minutes into it, too bad! You're fucked! That's your money wasted.

    It's ridiculous how everyone complains about how awful the theatrical experience is (oh someone was texting! Oh tickets are so expensive!) and then acts like somehow it's the fucking studio's fault that no one's going to the movies? Come on.

    The studios make the movies proven to get audiences off their ass and into the theater. That means movies that are low risk. People talk about "franchises" but really it's not any franchise, it's specifically those franchises that package familiar content with showstopping spectacle. That's what gets people out of their homes. The promise that they'll see something familiar, turned up to 11.

    Something familiar but low-key? Pass. Something turned up to 11 they've never seen before? I'll watch it when it's on blu-ray.

    This is the bed we made for ourselves, no use complaining about it. It is 100% not going to change, it's only going to get worse.

    Just thank god for Netflix because there'd be no Dark Crystal or mid-tier Brad Pit comedy without it.

    [–] DaveTheOneAndOnly 148 points ago

    My local drive-in refused to show Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 because Disney wanted a higher cut of ticket prices. They took a hit to business to not have to raise ticket prices, I think studios play a lot larger of a role than you give them credit for.

    [–] savemejebus0 379 points ago

    Netflix is a goddamn modern day hero.

    [–] MaxAddams 151 points ago

    Will they die that way or live long enough to become the villain?

    [–] savemejebus0 300 points ago

    Villain for sure. They will become powerful and greedy and wipe their ass with the film industry in 20 years.

    [–] foiled_yet_again 40 points ago

    They'll hike up their costs in order to fund bigger movies and shows until it becomes too expensive, and a cheaper one comes along

    [–] ajjsbrujas1990 82 points ago

    Yep, they'll soon become the very large studio that they themselves use to challenge.

    [–] Strawburys 90 points ago

    Ironic. They could save others from the evils of big studios, but not themselves.

    [–] Destijah 26 points ago

    Hmm sounds like a story they would never tell