(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)
amatt - 2005-12-14 12:22:02
Post 9/11, the MTA will never go on strike again. As an MTA friend, (BD) said, they're just "blowing smoke".
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-14 12:43:05
That's pretty much what I figure.
-------------------------------
Baby Party - 2005-12-14 14:55:41
Surely I'm missing something here. I don't see how 9/11 would influence the union's perception of its own interests, or their decision to strike or not strike. Maybe it's as plain as the nose on my face, but someone will have to point it out to me.
-------------------------------
Tom Ronca - 2005-12-14 15:06:55
Re; the film industry changing -- yeah, this is already happening, regardless of how well or badly 'Bubble' does -- The numbers have been crunched, and it's apparent that releasing a DVD as quickly as within 6 weeks of its theatrical release doesn't appear to effect ticket sales one way or another -- so instead of paying for two ad campaigns (one for theatrical release and another for DVD), you have just one, for both. Ergo, greater net profit. I'm okay with it, personally. The movies that I want to see in theater, I will continue to dos so, otherwise, just netflix me.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-14 15:12:43
BP, what I thought Andy & BD were getting at is that a city paralyzed by a transit strike--in which even cabbies are sympathizing--would be a very chaotic and vulnerable place, which is not something the MTA wants to be responsible for.
Tom, I agree.
-------------------------------
Baby Party - 2005-12-14 16:13:29
So the idea is that the MTA would make concesssions to the union in order to keep the city safe? Not sure I would agree that the city is more vulnerable to terrorism without public transportation. Seems like public transportation is a prime target for terrorists; and without public transportation, you have way fewer people pouring into the city each day - and terrorists wants large groups of people as targets. Anyway, I thought BD was suggesting that the union was blowing smoke, not the MTA.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-14 16:24:01
union was blowing smoke, not the MTA
Sorry, that's what I meant. Never post while doing 12 other things at once.
-------------------------------
2fs - 2005-12-15 14:09:38
The film industry wants me to go to theaters? Stop forcing me to watch ads, see crappy prints, pay a zillion bucks for snacks, and put up with yapping kids (and adults) only to see the movie on a screen only marginally larger than one at a sports bar.
-------------------------------
Snack Man - 2005-12-15 15:14:42
The theaters are to blame for the expensive snack prices. They do that because during the opening days of a new release, practically all the Box office goes to the studios. The theaters don't start making money until 2-3 weeks after the movie opening. Considering the amount of time a movie spends in the theater before it gets yanked for DVD release, the snacks are the only way for the movie theaters to make any money at all. I think that may go for the ads as well. I hate it too, but I put up with it, if it keeps movie theaters in business.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-15 15:19:17
Interesting. Didn't know that. Confession: those ads in movie theaters don't really bother me. I see them as just part of the movie experience. Oh, except for the "I want to buy the world a Coke and chill wit' it a while..." which only bothers me because it destroys any lingering happy childhood memories I had of the real "I'd like to Buy the World a Coke" song.
-------------------------------
2fs - 2005-12-15 16:31:33
I didn't know that about theater economics either. Of course, given the huge chaininess of most theaters, their definition of acceptable profit might be a lot huger than it would be for li'l ol' mom 'n' pop theaters... Anyway: I could now rant about my lack of perception of any relation between dollars spent on movie and quality of movie, but really, I like movies, and in a good theater, it doesn't compare to even a very good home theater - so I really do want theaters to survive. But it would be nice if all involved gave serious thought as to how to best do that, what theaters can offer (positively) that DVDs can't, and how to better structure the economics. I can't help but think a lot of that isn't thought much of, and so long as the occasional blockbuster keeps the studio guys and big stars in their palatial mansions, the rest doesn't matter much. (This is probably as dissertaty as Michael's post above...sigh...)
-------------------------------
Snack Man - 2005-12-16 00:52:29
I wanted to provide some back-up for my earlier post
http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-17 12:03:43
"(This is probably as dissertaty as Michael's post above...sigh...)"
Yeeps.
-------------------------------
add your comment:
back to the entry - Diaryland
