Another child is born in India every time you call this number

[vovat]

I think I'm just as out of touch with Hollywood as they allegedly are with Middle America. I caught the tail end of the Oscars, and I hadn't seen any of the movies nominated for Best Picture. This is pretty typical for me, really. I might catch a few of them on DVD, but according to at least two speakers, I'd be committing a cardinal sin in doing so. I mean, the big screen IS better in some ways, but to come up on stage and say, essentially, "The Academy is a bunch of old fogies who don't want to adapt to new technology!" strikes me as kind of dorky. Never mind that theater ticket prices keep going up while DVD prices seem to be going down, so it costs less than twice as much to OWN a movie as to see it once at the cinema. Mind you, I also get annoyed when people insist that everyone always go along with new technology. Try telling that to the people who wasted resources in bringing stuff out on laserdisc! I've downloaded albums from eMusic and iTunes, but it bugs me when people say, "Someday that'll be THE way to get music, and CD's will be totally obsolete!" I don't WANT CD's to become obsolete, at least while I'm still an active consumer of new music. For that matter, even though I don't own a record player myself, I think it's kind of cool when bands release new albums on vinyl as well as CD. And I don't go to the movies much, but I still like having the option. I guess my take is that people should embrace new technologies, but not abandon the old. After all, the goal of a movie-maker or recording artist is to reach as many people as possible, right?

Hmm, that paragraph was a regular fake-out, wasn't it? You thought I was going to talk about the Oscars, and then I talked about technology! I fooled you! {g}

Another thing that bugs me is when people cite statistics like, "More people can name the five Simpsons than the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment!", as if this somehow proves that people care more about TV than their basic rights. It's like when Jay Leno mocks people because they can identify Ronald McDonald, but not Chief Justice Roberts. There are a lot of other factors that aren't being taken into consideration. It's basically another example of people thinking that you can take any two statistics and automatically assume that there's a direct correlation between them. You know, like, "Divorce rates have gone up because they no longer use the Bible in public schools!" or "School shootings are caused by video games!" or "The fact that every one of these irrelevant correlations ends with an exclamation point is what's making kids starve to death in Somalia!"

Finally, how come some LiveJournal members have public entries, but only allow people on their friends list to comment on them? I don't get it.

Comments

[3x1minus1.livejournal.com]

oh, i didn't see any of the movies either. in fact i never do. popular modern movies don't really interest me. i don't know why, but they just.. don't.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't go THAT far, but the kind of movies that usually get the most love from the Academy don't usually interest me that much. They're usually, like, over-the-top dramas and stuff, I guess.

[3x1minus1.livejournal.com]

that's exactly what i meant. the kinda movies i like really don't get such mainstream love.

[jenhime.livejournal.com]

I dislike award shows. I watched the first 20 or so minutes of the Oscars last night, until George Clooney's acceptance speech made me want to hurl from all its "I love being part of Hollywood" schmaltz. The only reason it was on in the first place was that I was cooking dinner and my husband was in charge of the television. Since The Simpsons weren't on, he didn't care what channel the TV was set to and it just so happened that he stopped swtiching channels on the Oscars.

And, I didn't see any of the movies up for Best Picture either.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I have trouble taking anyone with the name "Clooney" seriously. It makes me think of the Shel Silverstein poem about "Cloony the Clown." {g}

It does bother me that there's rarely anything else on opposite awards shows. I mean, I guess there's no reason for the other networks to bother when they know it won't get the ratings. On the other hand, though, it's kind of audacious for the movie industry (or the music industry, or the TV industry, or whatever) to expect everyone else to want to watch their insider parties.

[majellen.livejournal.com]

I like movies in the theatre, but they need to make it practical to go see them. Same with sporting events. When it starts costing over $50 just to go to a game, or more than $30 to go see a movie, it just doesn't make sense for a couple to go. At least, not a couple who are trying to save for a house and pay off massive student loan bills and trying to save up some cash so that grad school doesn't require more loans.

In other words, their target audience.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I'll pretty much only go to matinees nowadays, unless I'm going with someone else who can't make it that early in the day. And even those are too expensive to go all that often.

[majellen.livejournal.com]

Oh, and my guess about people with the friends-only comments? Possibly they don't know they have it set that way, or they are insecure and only want to hear comments like, "U R SOOOOOOO RIGHT!" and "*hugz*" and not comments like, "Are you sure you want to take that course of action? It doesn't seem logical."

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that makes sense. The thing is, I can definitley understand why you'd want to make it so only people you know can READ something, and I can see why you might want to write something and not have anyone at all comment on it. But letting anyone read something but only allowing a select few comment strikes me as somewhat (and I hate to use this word except when referring to talking lions) cowardly. It's like, "You can READ this, and you might have a reaction to it, but I don't want to know what it is unless I say it's okay!"

[zimbra1006.livejournal.com]

I tried to watch some because I love Jon Stewart, but man.. that was boring last night. I guess it didn't help that I hadn't seen one single movie up for Best Picture or most of the other big awards.

When I was renting movies at 4-5 bucks a pop, it seemed to make more sense to go see a matinee for a couple dollars more, but now that I've got Netflix I see no point. :P Plus I really can't stand sitting still in a theater chair for a long time, and movies seem to be getting progressively longer.

/old man rant.

Oh, and my parents have hundreds of movies on Laserdisc. heh. They got a player when no one new what they were, then for about 10 seconds they were popular and hip, and then they became defunct, rendering laserdiscs very, very cheap to collect.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Netflix definitely makes it harder to justify paying to see a movie at the theater, especially now that it's usually only a matter of weeks in between a film leaving the theater and coming out on video. If I really want to see a new movie, I'll go to the cinema, but it's kind of rare.

It's probably true that movies are getting longer, but it doesn't really bother me if they're good films. I didn't have much trouble sitting through any of the Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings movies, and they were all pretty damned long. And I'm usually a restless person, so they must have done something right. Length does bother me if I have to use the bathroom, but I guess that goes without saying. (I refuse to get up and go in the middle of a movie.)

[zimbra1006.livejournal.com]

That's actually a good point. Harry Potter and LotR were ones I sat through at the theater with no problem at all, too (I even saw each LotR movie three or more times on the big screen). But for the most part, I'll admit my attention span (or really, the point at which I get a tremendously sore ass and am no longer able to concentrate) is about 90 minutes in theaters -- much longer at home when I can sprawl out. It seems like 2 or more hours is much more the norm these days though.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

It's not like live theater has become obsolete because movies were invented either. It's a different medium, a different experience. Sometimes you want to see a movie in the theater just for the experience of "going to the movies." But I'm not going to spend that much money on a movie I only SORT of want to see, either.

I imagine people with "only friends can comment" settings are insecure teenagers. Not that there's anything wrong with insecure teenagers. The nature of teenagerness is to be insecure. But that's beside the point. Anyway, I think it's the insecure teenagers who haven't yet figured out how to not take themselves seriously and therefore don't want to risk any unwanted comments.

[revme.livejournal.com]

I was annoyed that Good Night And Good Luck didn't basically sweep. It should have, because it's an OUTSTANDING film.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Is that the one about Edward R. Murrow and McCarthy? I haven't seen it, but I'm kind of interested in it.

[revme.livejournal.com]

That's the one! And yeah -- it's a must see, definitely. It really, really should have got best picture.

[rockonliz.livejournal.com]

I didn't even WATCH the Oscars. I was going to, but then I had important things to do.

I have similar feelings about Hollywood as I do about sports. Can we say, OVERPAID?? Like, all you do is entertain, which is nice and I do like to watch movies, but COME ON. That whole world is nothing but a bunch of people who consider themselves better than others becuase they look good and have money. I almost never go to the movies. I don't even think movies are better in the theater. I kind of think the opposite, because you can be at home and eat dinner or invite friends and talk during it if you want to, or whatever.

I bought a VHS of a rather new movie for ONE DOLLAR yesterday. Now THAT'S how much money I am willing to give Hollywood, lol.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

It amazes me sometimes how obsessed our culture is with celebrities, to the point that so many people find them fascinating even when they're doing mundane things. Gossip about celebrities doing really stupid things can be amusing, though, if only because they make people like me think, "Well, I might be poor, but at least I know better than to drive with a baby on my lap!" And celebrities do seem to do a lot of dumb things. Since irrelevant correlations are one of the principle discussion topics in this post, though, I feel obliged to point out that I'm not sure whether celebrities actually do more dumb things, or we just hear more about their dumb activities because they're famous.

Movie stars definitely tend to be overpaid, although I suppose it could be argued that, with people putting so much money into the entertainment industry, there's no reason they shouldn't be. Still, it's ridiculous that some stars can make more from acting in one movie than I'll ever see in my entire life. And then they ask for even MORE money for their next movie!

There are advantages to going to the theater and to watching movies at home. I suppose that, if you have one of those huge projection TV sets, there's really no reason at all to go to the movies, except possibly to see the films earlier. I doubt I'll ever have one of those, though. {g}