«

Aaron J. Bossig wrote on [Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:52:01 -0500]:
> "Tad Bitt" <> wrote in
> news:gl5kc.4363$ e.rogers.com:
>
> You could also buy it and return it telling
>> them it's defective and you would like a different title. If they say
>> no, just tell them it's the second defective copy you have had and
>> that you think your machine just won't play this particular title. I
>> have no problems about doing this since the entertainment industry
>> scams and reams us all the time.
>
> That makes no sense. By doing that, you're not hurting the entertianment
> industry, you're hurting the retail store. Why not direct your action
> toward the party you feel wronged by?

Because that's what you call rationalising immoral activities.

Mark B. <> wrote:


> I don't get this - why would anyone purchase a film they've never seen?

Well, let's use Big Fish as an example.
My wife and I are interested in the film, being fond of Burton's other
work.

So, if we go to the theatre:
Admission: 2 x $10
Childcare: 3 hours @ $5 each
- so we're looking at $35 minimum. No popcorn, no snacks. That's just
to go out to see the movie, once.

If I buy the dvd:
Big Fish: $23
We can watch it when we want to, as many times as we want to, and we're
saving more than $10. Why wouldn't I buy it?

RWiersema wrote on [Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:51:15 -0700]:
> Mark B. <> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't get this - why would anyone purchase a film they've never seen?
>
> Well, let's use Big Fish as an example.
> My wife and I are interested in the film, being fond of Burton's other
> work.
>
> So, if we go to the theatre:
> Admission: 2 x $10
> Childcare: 3 hours @ $5 each
> - so we're looking at $35 minimum. No popcorn, no snacks. That's just
> to go out to see the movie, once.
>
> If I buy the dvd:
> Big Fish: $23

$23. I take it you're not in the USA.

Why didn't you rent it?

In article
<1gd05d2.1c5qiqs1p05ploN%robertwiersema@hotshitand rockinmail.com>,
(RWiersema) wrote:

> Big Fish: $23
> We can watch it when we want to, as many times as we want to, and we're
> saving more than $10.

No. You didn't save. You still spent.

Do you work at the grocery store by any chance?

Derek Janssen <> wrote:

> RWiersema wrote:
> >
> >>I don't get this - why would anyone purchase a film they've never seen?
> >
> >
> > Well, let's use Big Fish as an example.
> > My wife and I are interested in the film, being fond of Burton's other
> > work.
> >
> > So, if we go to the theatre:
> > Admission: 2 x $10
> > Childcare: 3 hours @ $5 each
> > - so we're looking at $35 minimum. No popcorn, no snacks. That's just
> > to go out to see the movie, once.
> >
> > If I buy the dvd:
> > Big Fish: $23
> > We can watch it when we want to, as many times as we want to, and we're
> > saving more than $10. Why wouldn't I buy it?
>
> ...Because you could rent it on Netflix?
>
> Derek Janssen (Now, here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the Man From
> 1999--Clinton is still president, and gas is still $1.25 a gallon)
>

Really? Last I checked, Netflix wasn't available to Canadians...

Urra Dipschitt <> wrote:

> In article
> <1gd05d2.1c5qiqs1p05ploN%robertwiersema@hotshitand rockinmail.com>,
> (RWiersema) wrote:
>
> > Big Fish: $23
> > We can watch it when we want to, as many times as we want to, and we're
> > saving more than $10.
>
> No. You didn't save. You still spent.

By that token, it wouldn't matter if I bought, rented or watched it on
broadcast tv - I would still be spending. Are you saying that I should
be sneaking into theatres for my movie fixes?
I saved from what it would cost to see the movie in the theatre. In
answering the question as to why someone would buy a movie they haven't
seen, I'm pretty satisfied with my explanation...

The math:
Buy a movie you haven't seen: $23
Go to a theatre to see a movie you haven't seen: $35
Buy a movie you like, having seen it in a theatre: $58
I'm satisfied with my choices. YMMV.

Derek Janssen <> wrote:

> Robert Wiersema wrote:
>
> >>>>I don't get this - why would anyone purchase a film they've never seen?
> >>>
> >>>If I buy the dvd:
> >>>Big Fish: $23
> >>>We can watch it when we want to, as many times as we want to, and we're
> >>>saving more than $10. Why wouldn't I buy it?
> >>
> >>...Because you could rent it on Netflix?
> >>
> >>(Now, here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the Man From
> >>1999--Clinton is still president, and gas is still $1.25 a gallon)
> >
> > Really? Last I checked, Netflix wasn't available to Canadians...
>
> Okay, okay, whatever they have instead of Blockbuster--
>
> Point is, we DO live in a world now where you don't *have* to buy DVD's
> you're interested in watching and then sell them when you're
> finished...The industry LIKES us now.


No, the point is that we also live in a world where I can buy a dvd of a
film, with supplements, etc, more cheaply than I can see the movie in
the theatre...

I don't buy instead of renting, I buy instead of attending...

<<> Exactly. Why do people buy CD's without having heard them first? Sure,
> you might be a big fan of the artist, but that doesn't mean you're going
> to like the album.>>

There are certain artists who have never really disappointed me and I will
continue to buy anything they put out before hearing it.
Poor Old Lu
Starflyer 59
Pedro the Lion

they can do no wrong by me.

Lookingglass wrote:

>
> One of you asked why I would buy a film I had never seen...

Well, I do that all the time. I often miss theatrical releases (even
those I'm interested in) and will then pick it up on it's DVD release
unseen.

It usually has to be a film that critics I trust and people I know have
seen and liked.

I've bought Master And Commander and Big Fish and have not seen them
yet.

Mike

"Aaron J. Bossig" <> wrote in message news:<>...
> (Jordan Lund) wrote in
> news: om:
>
> > Frequency was good, but Big Fish works on so many different levels...
> > plus I found the ending to be so incredibly sad...
>
> Sad? Well, it did push for a few tears, but there was a real
> sense of the beauty of this man's life, and who he touched. I'd
> call it more "bittersweet".

Well, I guess it depends on your interpretation... I saw the ending as

(spoilers for Big Fish...)
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

The culmination of a man's life built on fantasy to such an extent
that even as he lay dying he still couldn't confront reality. His son
had to fantasize the end of his life just has he had done the rest of
his life. If that makes any sense...

The movie is kind of like an inverted "Forrest Gump", where you had a
guy living a fantastic life and yet thought it was all ordinary, in
"Big Fish" you have a guy living an ordinary life and he portrays it
as fantastic...

- Jordan