HorrorMovieFans.com

New sig.

Bundy preferred blondes. Photoshop time!

He's in the knife.

Dunno if anyone has discussed this yet but...

http://www.businessinsider.com/moviepass-faq-2017-8

Thoughts?

this doesn't seem sustainable? unless they happen to have a lot of people who just don't watch the 1 movie a day or something? i'm not sure how it can work. but it seems good for the short run, i guess.

It's a model that lends itself to a short shelf life. They'll lose a lot of money, gain a large customer base and recoup money selling those customers' data. Very 2017.

aka "Netflix Theater"?

No, thanks. Not big on signing up for monthly payments of something that I am unsure of how frequently I'll be using. I might've considered this years ago when it wasn't all superhero movies and animated flicks for kids.

You'd need to see about somewhere around 10 movies in theaters for it to be worth it. 10 dollars a month sounds a lot better than it is.

Probably gonna download it tbh.

netflix works better because it's at your own home, rather than a theater that needs upkeep and such.

It's a great deal for the top 1% of moviegoers. I know people who see a movie every other week.

Headhunter wrote:You'd need to see about somewhere around 10 movies in theaters for it to be worth it. 10 dollars a month sounds a lot better than it is.

Probably gonna download it tbh.

it is incentive to watch more movies. that may be good for awhile. but again short run, because it doesn't seem sustainable. and it also will lead to people expecting that, then it's gone. i don't know.

Headhunter wrote:It's a great deal for the top 1% of moviegoers. I know people who see a movie every other week.

I used to be that way until they started making good movies once a year or so.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You'd need to see about somewhere around 10 movies in theaters for it to be worth it. 10 dollars a month sounds a lot better than it is.

Probably gonna download it tbh.

it is incentive to watch more movies. that may be good for awhile. but again short run, because it doesn't seem sustainable. and it also will lead to people expecting that, then it's gone. i don't know.

It's a blatant short term play by Netflix for some debt and liability relief. Huge influx of customer data is worth quite a bit.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It's a great deal for the top 1% of moviegoers. I know people who see a movie every other week.

I used to be that way until they started making good movies once a year or so.

Lol, it ain't that bad. Granted last year sucked but 2017 has been pretty good.

Wait, Netflix actually is doing it? lol.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It's a great deal for the top 1% of moviegoers. I know people who see a movie every other week.

I used to be that way until they started making good movies once a year or so.

Lol, it ain't that bad. Granted last year sucked but 2017 has been pretty good.

Jackie was good.

Had to wait for it to hit the cheap dollar theaters because it couldn't make the cut at the big theaters. Too many people wanted to see some superhero movie covering 70% of the screens and Moana covering the rest. Fuck 'em.

Jason wrote:Wait, Netflix actually is doing it? lol.

well you pay a monthly fee, but it's not just for 1 movie a day, and it's not in theaters.

if netflix (or amazon or hulu) does go under, does the original content disappear or do they just sell it off to another company? i don't know how much is actually theirs and how much is just licensed to them, but yeah.

The licensing agreements are what has put them in a hole. And the values of those contracts are determined through customers' data. But they aren't necessarily hard to get out of and many shows have agreements with multiple services already.

they also just seem to throw money at talent, to get them to come on board? at least in the case of netflix. i haven't heard it too much from the other ones.