For me, O Oblate Reader, movies are like a religion. I truly believe in the whole experience. Some time ago, in my old blog, I made rather cool simile comparing going to the movies like going to Catholic mass in some old-world cathedral. It still holds true for me.
A couple of days ago I watched a couple movies
The Eagle:
Some of you may know that I am a Roman history buff. Love me some Rome. This movie passed the "Pete's a pedantic ass" test with flying colors! I know there were some inaccuracies; but because I know next to nothing about Celtic history, I had to let 'em slide. (NO one knows much about Celtic history. Anyone that says different is lying, selling you something, or one of those daffy new age hippy bastards) For instance, the Scottish actors were speaking Lowland Scots (naturally) not the completely extinct and almost completely unknown Pictish. (seriously, we have a couple of hotly debated Ogham inscriptions and some place names like "Inverness", that's it)
The movie in and of itself was enjoyable if a little shallow. The Director, Kevin MacDonald, has almost completely worked in documentaries, so you would think that the guy could find SOMETHING to get real deep about. But no, it's a pretty staid attempt at a two-guys-from-completely-different-worlds-work-together-toward-a-nigh-impossible-goal-and-find-common-ground-and-mutual-respect thing. But like I've said earlier, sometimes it's not "new" that is important, it's what you bring to the table in terms of honesty and artistry. MacDonald brings both, with one small, tiny objection from me: I love Terrence Malik, the crazy fuck. EVERYONE loves Malik. We know YOU love Malik, so there is no reason to cling to him like an insecure high-school girl in a Denny's. Giving Malik a nod, a quick smootch even, is completely OK. But to try and copy his style is not. You are a very pretty, smart girl, Kevin, and need to focus on how YOU are special, not how Terence makes you feel special.
Wait. Shit. I got my similes, allusions, and reality all twisted. MacDonald is not a high-school girl, as far as I know. OK. we cool?
I also saw Priest. Meh. As a movie, I see why it bombed in the theaters. This is a movie for stealing, not paying money.
HOWEVER you can't if you have any Sony products as your main media player. Sony decided that "free market" capitalism is awesome when there is no competition and it doesn't have to listen to the market in any way, shape, or form. They set up the Priest DVDs and BluRays with a horrible new form of anti-piracy malarkey that doesn't work if you have any computer skills at all. (So I am told by someone that I met once and found to be untrustworthy.)( HEIL, DMCA! Aktiengeschellschaften über Alles! [und so weiter]) This new form of copy protection checks against a database to see if you have the right to watch the movie. If not, it turns the sound off. Here's something to think about, there is no guarantee that this movie will work if you rent it. Think about it - even if you have the DVD from Netflix (those chiseling bastards) if there are too many entries on the DB, or your player isn't connected to the internet, you can't watch it....
I won't go into it too much further, as that would be illegal.
The only way to avoid knowing any more about it is to watch this movie on anything that is not Sony. This advice is legal, here's why:
This lame attempt at security is so easy to circumvent that even seeing it in action immediately alerts any reasonably intelligent person exactly how to circumvent it. Therefore, in an heroic act of cogitation, I came to the flawless conclusion that to save my brethren and sistren the karmic debt of breaking the law, I will simply not allow them to be exposed to the potential situation in any way! Not only am I a legal genius, I am a fucking bodhisattva.
Yeah, Priest. Paul Bettany, And the clenchy guy from the Return of the King and "Bones" in the new JJ Abrams Star Trek movie. What's his name. (Bunny says that he can muster HER Rohirim anytime...the floozy) It has one redeeming feature: If you want to have something on that is loud while snogging on the couch so the roommates can't hear you...there you go. AND ANOTHER reason to make double sure not to watch it on Sony products.
Which brings me to my main point. The Bunny.
Recently, I have been enrolled in her Reeducation Camp for Wayward Spendthrifts, enjoying languorous sessions of electroshock therapy and Assertive Exfoliation Therapy (your bits gets scrubbed with barbed wire. But my skin IS smooth now) all while listening to Her Bunnyness' lectures on the "Five-Fold Path to Home Ownership" and "Up the Bourgeoisie, Down with Renters" blasting from the tannoys. I came up with a BRILLIANT plan. The subtleties of which seem to be lost on her.
My plan is in two parts, it allows for personal recreation and ads valuable income to our coffers.
You ready?
Fuck Bitches, Make Money.
BRILLIANT. Needless to say, Bunny was not impressed.
Boredom encroaches. More next time.
A probably short-lived chronicle of how I screwed up, Linux, and my life in general.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Amygdala, Economics, and What I Would Do To Julie Andrews
Today I read an article on one of my feeds that sparked off an actual thought process, for once. (Please note that I don't normally think about things. Most of my friends can attest that I just usually make up my mind about a subject based on conjecture, prejudice, and what the guy I talked to at the bar said.) Instead of working this morning, I was reading my news feeds and came across a Readers'-Digestion (© , me. Just now) on /. (slahdot) about how movie/music pirates are not parasites, dragging down the aforementioned industries. A decent analysis of the German original can be found on geek.com. Please read it and come back. I'll wait here.....
Back?
Awesome.
Essentially, the matter of the piece suggests that pirates spend WAY more than "honest people", per capita.
However, that's not the interesting thing. What got my poor synapses all angried up was in two parts
Back?
Awesome.
Essentially, the matter of the piece suggests that pirates spend WAY more than "honest people", per capita.
However, that's not the interesting thing. What got my poor synapses all angried up was in two parts
- They're union and I was thinking while drinking coffee, technically a coffee break. My amygdala filed a grievance. (Neuroanatomical jokes? In my blog? It's more common that you think)(I'll explain it for a dollar)(Hint: it's not a pun)
- Money - The other day, I spent about 39.2 BILLION dollars to watch a movie, "Thor" (Sweet god, it was terrible)(not the point. Sorry, ADD totally kicks my ass) later that week, my dad mentioned that the first time he came to the US (1965) a movie cost 25¢.
TWENTY FIVE FUCKING CENTS?!?! Yup. OK. so that's in "nominal monies" (not adjusted). A 1965 dollar would be $7.02 today. So...um...7 x .25 would be.... um..... carry the two... hold on... I got this.... um.... a buck seventy-five.
Therefore, we can extrapolate that the price of a movie, adjusted to the value of the dollar today, is right about six times more. Now I'm no economist (see previous post), but Jesus in a Jeep....that's more. (again, I should qualify my previous statement: I am no economist AND I'm a little daft; so when I say "more" it could, in fact, be a LOT more. A professional would have to weigh in, to be sure)
Let's look at that as a percentage of income.
Average income throughout the 60s, per the US Census Bureau: $4,800 Source HERE
Adjusted for 2011 money - $33,700 (about)
SO as a percentage of income, a movie in 1965 would be: 0.00005% (note the four zeros.)
Today's average income: ($61,521 2008 census, so let's say 62000) $62,000
Movie ticket two weeks ago: $10.50.
Percentage of Income = 0.00017 -ish percent. (one less zero)
So from THIS we can extrapolate that a movie is three-ish times the financial burden it was 45 years ago.(all figures do not include popcorn. Again, people NOT an economist. And I don't like popcorn).
What do we get for thrice the cheddar? That's too subjective to get into, so I will!
not
a
damn
thing.
I picked 1965 for a couple reasons:
Therefore, we can extrapolate that the price of a movie, adjusted to the value of the dollar today, is right about six times more. Now I'm no economist (see previous post), but Jesus in a Jeep....that's more. (again, I should qualify my previous statement: I am no economist AND I'm a little daft; so when I say "more" it could, in fact, be a LOT more. A professional would have to weigh in, to be sure)
Let's look at that as a percentage of income.
Average income throughout the 60s, per the US Census Bureau: $4,800 Source HERE
Adjusted for 2011 money - $33,700 (about)
SO as a percentage of income, a movie in 1965 would be: 0.00005% (note the four zeros.)
Today's average income: ($61,521 2008 census, so let's say 62000) $62,000
Movie ticket two weeks ago: $10.50.
Percentage of Income = 0.00017 -ish percent. (one less zero)
So from THIS we can extrapolate that a movie is three-ish times the financial burden it was 45 years ago.(all figures do not include popcorn. Again, people NOT an economist. And I don't like popcorn).
What do we get for thrice the cheddar? That's too subjective to get into, so I will!
not
a
damn
thing.
I picked 1965 for a couple reasons:
- I have both documented AND anecdotal evidence of the prices. (My pop, remember?)
- My favorite American car is the 1965 Lincoln Continental. It's bitchin'
- SOUND OF FUCKING MUSIC ANYONE?!?!?
<lascivious aside, avert your eyes> OH Julie Andrews, with that smoking hot baby-dyke haircut and the pinafore, the things I would do to you are.......horrible and wonderful and illegal in most western countries. Your sweet, sweet body pressed against mine and the fields would be alive with the sounds of gettin' it ON </lascivious aside> (sorry, sorry. This happens to me whenever I mention.....her. My honey is coming to terms with it.)
also, "Thunderball" happened. I love that movie.
I grow bored, more later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)