What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Movies 52 - 1917: Sonic the Bad Boys of Prey

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah Netflix paid a fortune for them...because Netflix burns through money like a NASCAR driver burns through fuel.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
You guys are feisty
Click to expand...

Nah I just think Netflix is unsustainable. They are so worried about all of the other streaming services controlling all of the content (like Disney+, HBO Max...etc) that they are overpaying to have content. They green light pretty much everything n o matter the cost and basically bank on people either being too lazy to cancel or the stock price keeping them afloat.
 
Handyman said:
Nah I just think Netflix is unsustainable. They are so worried about all of the other streaming services controlling all of the content (like Disney+, HBO Max...etc) that they are overpaying to have content. They green light pretty much everything n o matter the cost and basically bank on people either being too lazy to cancel or the stock price keeping them afloat.
Click to expand...

I got the impression that the tidal wave of crap we see on Netflix is in the can before those guys even approach them. They give them an outlet, but they don't actually put any money into it. I know they themselves actually also try to produce stuff, and some of it is pricey, but it isn't like the 300 movies that come out a month are them. They're like Dump: they just throw their name on it.
 
Handyman said:
Nah I just think Netflix is unsustainable. They are so worried about all of the other streaming services controlling all of the content (like Disney+, HBO Max...etc) that they are overpaying to have content. They green light pretty much everything n o matter the cost and basically bank on people either being too lazy to cancel or the stock price keeping them afloat.
Click to expand...

They are paying prince Harry and his wife money to produce crap- truly an astonishing waste of money because no one with a brain gives a flying fuck about what those two overprivileged whiny spoiled twats think
 
Kepler said:
I got the impression that the tidal wave of crap we see on Netflix is in the can before those guys even approach them. They give them an outlet, but they don't actually put any money into it. I know they themselves actually also try to produce stuff, and some of it is pricey, but it isn't like the 300 movies that come out a month are them. They're like Dump: they just throw their name on it.
Click to expand...

Some of it is that...but they find a lot of crap too. They are desperate for new content especially tv.
 
Handyman said:
Some of it is that...but they find a lot of crap too. They are desperate for new content especially tv.
Click to expand...

Netflix has huge stockpiles of foreign stuff, too; they're leaning hard into the K-pop stuff. My wife watches a ton of Korean shows on there, which at the least are original and not Disney superheros part 25 or other Hollywood mega sequel.
 
Handyman said:
Nah I just think Netflix is unsustainable. They are so worried about all of the other streaming services controlling all of the content (like Disney+, HBO Max...etc) that they are overpaying to have content. They green light pretty much everything n o matter the cost and basically bank on people either being too lazy to cancel or the stock price keeping them afloat.
Click to expand...
Amazon Prime budgeted $465 million for their Lord of the Rings series. That’s for a single season.
 
St. Clown said:
Amazon Prime budgeted $465 million for their Lord of the Rings series. That’s for a single season.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Amazon is not Netflix. They have revenue streams that can fund that without blinking. Prime Video could lose money every year and it wouldn't matter one bit to Amazon's bottom line. The money they make off their Cloud service alone is out of this world ridiculous. It is why Bezos is a POS for how he treats his employees.

Netflix can't be like that unless they keep offering more stock and the price holds. (or they up their plans again) It is why I still maintain a major studio will buy out Netflix in the next five years. Universal Studios could use Netflix as a loss leader as could Paramount.

There is a reason Netflix offered so much trying to keep Friends on the platform. They need stuff like that to keep people coming back for more. The problem they have is Di$ney/WB...etc. want the same thing for their services and they own the content. They can make Netflix pay high premiums to show it or just keep it themselves to bolster their numbers. Netflix's only collateral is their customer base and if there is nothing to watch that goes away fast as options are out there.
 
Amazon would drop its Prime Video if they don’t deem it viable. Bezos wants his company to become a sort of modernized Sears from the early 20th century, but he won’t hemorrhage large sums of cash just to say he’s in the streaming video game. He has to see it as a potential profit maker down the road. He’s shown a willingness to take mid-term losses for potential long-term profits, but $465 million is a huge number for a single season.
 
If film noir(most around here: what's that?!)is your cup of tea check out Noir Alley on TCM at midnight on Sat and replayed at 10am on Sun. Hosted by Eddie Muller he delves into the story, the players and the people behind the camera before and after the movie.

https://noiralley.tcm.com
 
Finished the Rollin vampire cycle. In all honesty they are all almost the same movie. Shiver had the best sets and production, Requiem has a 20-minute sequence of pure hardcore pornography. (To be fair, it fits the story, so I guess: not gratuitous?) I'm glad I've seen them, I get why he was considered A Thing, but it's all so dated now it's mostly an experience about hey look what counted as a racey intellectual French art film in 1969?

The constant return to the same cemetery and beach and castles actually makes it comforting. You get the idea that the people who made the movies were delving into one another's and their own psychotropic experiences with child like curiosity.

And the girls are cute, despite the armpit hair.

I give the whole thing a B-. I don't really recommend it (it's expensive AF).
 
The Photographer of Mauthausen. Based on the real story of a photographer trying to preserve evidence of the horrors committed inside a Nazi concentration camp. I'm going to borrow some review commentary because I think they do a better job than I could trying to describe how wonderful of a film this is.

Set in a concentration camp, the film balances Hitchcock-like suspense with stark illustrations that some horrors cannot, and will not, be trivialized.

The Photographer of Mauthausen's major achievement lies in documenting a period in Spanish history that’s received shorter shrift.

Mar Targarona's suspenseful, unrelentingly graphic depiction of the horrors of absolute evil juxtaposed with hope, purpose, and compassion is both searing and heartening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top