Movies Will Be Apps


Didn't Apple just announce that this wouldn't be allowed? That movies, books, et al had to be offered through the appropriate channels, and not the app store?
$10-$12!!?? AYFKM!?
I might be willing to pay $10 to watch everyone involved in the making of "Inception" and "The Dark Knight" die in a fire, though.
No, @2, they just said it wouldn't be easy.

Just use your docking device to host the torrented iTunes-compatible movies, Newscorp TheDaily hacked stuff, etc.

It's like Amazon not collecting local, county, and state taxes - it's not that hard, they're just lazy and like to live off of the taxes from others, kind of how most Net users are lazy as heck and if WSLCB sold MJ people would buy it there even with lots of taxes instead of grow it, due to their extreme laziness.
@4: Really? The Dark Knight? Didn't see Inception, know I probably wouldn't particularly like it.. but TDK was a bloody excellent movie (probably the best with a budget of its size, in my opinion).
Fnarf, you are one weird cat. The only directors/producers I'd enjoy seeing die in a fire are in the Bruckheimer/Bay crowd. I guess I can understand not liking Nolan's movies in theory, as much as I love them, but actively wishing him dead is an unusual reaction.

That said, I still regret spending cash money on the 2-3 DVDs I do own.

@6, it's a fucking Batman movie, how good can it be? How about some movies for grownups now and then? And its budget was $185 million; you could make twenty excellent movies for that if you had a clue.

@5: February 16, 2011: the day Will in Seattle heard about torrents.
Will they price match The Pirate Bay?
So the choice is: re-buy movie I own in a different format to work on my device or rip movie I own to work on my device. Clearly the one that costs me more money than I've already spent wins out!

@2: Actually they said just the opposite. That providers had to offer purchase in-app if they offered it outside-app and that all in-app purchases get the 30% Apple fee.
@7, I wish everyone in Hollywood was dead.
@11 give the America-hating Tea Baggers time, Fnarf.
So, Fnarf, what is your example of a "movie for grownups"? Technically, any movie is a waste of money/resources, Hollywood, foreign, classic or independent...
@13, I saw "Another Year" the other night. It was great. Cost $8 mil to make.
@14, okay, so Mike Leigh deserves money and Nolan doesn't, because one director's movie is set in the real world and one makes movies set in a cartoon reality?

Nolan's "Memento" cost $9 mil - I'm sure "Following" cost a lot less. Did he become a monster by making movies that a lot of people would pay to see ("Another Year" was technically what they call in Hollywood a "box office bomb", making only about a quarter of its money back, according to Box Office Mojo)?

I haven't seen Another Year yet, though I do like Leigh's movies. I also like popular swill like Dark Knight and No Country for Old Men...

Ahh, the old "genre movies are for kids" argument. I agree: apples are way way better than those smelly oranges.
@15, if dollars are the only thing you see when you look at movies, I can't help you.

Yes, the real problem with the American movie business is the stupidity and tastelessness of the American movie audience. I don't give a shit. I just want better movies. Even "intelligent", "realistic" American movies are almost always annoying as crap. They used to be able to do it, before the infantilization of everything took over. They still do it in other countries. They still do it in America, on TV.

You're wrong about "Another Year", by the way. US box office is not the same thing as total box office. $13 mil on a budget of $8 mil isn't bad, and the DVD and rental figures haven't even started.
Fnarf, YOU were the one going on about $8 mil movies being somehow better than special effects blockbuster genre flicks...sounds like YOU see dollars, not Brody. Me, I like movies that entertain or are unique or valuable in some other way, regardless of genre or budget. Are you going to dismiss something like "North By Northwest" because it wasn't a Fellini film? I love Mike Leigh ("Nuts In May" is one of my favorite films period) but I don't see how "Inception" did anything but entertain and do what it set out to do. And if it makes its money back and them some and employs a shitload of people, what's the problem? There are plenty of good movies...if you're not into stuff like Nolan's been putting out recently, watch something else. Or go to the video store or online and watch practically anything from the entire history of film...gotta be a few you missed.
@17, fair enough, I'm obviously not a Hollywood accountant. I apologize for misreading and retract my incorrect box office figure above.

I really don't think that dollars are the only thing I see when I look at movies, but it's the only thing (most) investors in a movie see. The Dark Knight cost a lot of money, but it and Inception made a lot of money, too, unlike most everything else screened in theaters in the last few years.

I don't even necessarily disagree with you, I think, in your general opinion about Hollywood fare. What made your snark stand out is that I think, like g above, that Nolan's movies were refreshingly original and emotionally involving, for high concept thriller fare. I would love to see more movies like those, myself, but it took the success of Nolan's Dark Knight to bankroll Inception, a big budget movie about a reverse heist taking place in dreams within dreams. I'd love to see more small budget movies get made, too.

Also, I happened to be listening to Zimmer's soundtracks to those movies when I read your comment...
@18, North by Northwest is exactly the kind of movie I'm talking about, that Hollywood used to make, with interesting characters, good actors, skilled cinematography, and quality writing. None of those things exist in American movies today. You can find them on TV, but not in theaters. Theaters have been wholly given over to horsecrap.

I mentioned $8 million because someone else mentioned how remarkable it was that a movie like The Dark Knight was for a film of its budget. As I said, you could have made twenty good movies -- better movies -- for that price. Money ruins movies, and it ruins movie people.
Sorry for the snark overload, Fnarf. I just wonder if some of what we do when we look to the past is revisionist. First off, the shitty movies tend to fall away from memory for the most part. And even the non-shitty ones like North By Northwest - I love it, but it's also a popcorn movie with a plot that makes very little sense. Yes, the dialogue is witty and the performances are overall pretty great, but one could make at least the latter point about Nolan's Batman flicks also. And maybe Hitchcock was a bad example...although I think we do think of him quite differently than people did when he was active, as far as his films being art.

Where I disagree with you mainly I think is the notion that something would have to be bad if it's a "a fucking Batman movie"...I think there's good and bad, artistically successful or not, in all genres, even including superhero.
And I also don't agree about money and movies...there are a LOT of crappy low-budget movies. And if we erase all the Batman-type films and channel all the money to low budget dramas, then we lose a unique type of larger-than-life cinematic experience, one that's been part of the equation since the birth of cinema. Anyone can walk in and be dazzled by a visual experience that just isn't the same as watching a great drama, whether that's the old-style thousands-of-extras epics, or something modern like "Inception" or "The Incredibles" (the latter something that just plain couldn't exist if not for merchandising and large sums of money, and to me that would be quite a loss).
This just gives me more a reason to pirate it. How much money do they want before I get to see everything? If there's 80 different payment plans to go see one movie, count me out. I'll wait for the pirates, I have patience now that I'm older.
Your escapism is not my escapism. Meh. And wishing that anyone die in a fire doesn't equal not giving a shit.