The Goat Pen

AlabamAlum wrote:It's R-rated, correct? How old is she?

14

she picked it out - I wanted to take her to the Insurgent movie but she had read the books and didn't like how they turned out, so she suggested a Will Ferrell movie.

Btw, while I laughed at a few scenes, overall its not a movie you should pay money for.

The question is, did your 14 y.o. laugh at anything...and did her laughter teach you anything?

I have a standing rule: I refuse to pay for a movie less than 55% on Rotten Tomatoes, and I won't miss one greater than 85% if I can help it. Everything in between is dependent on how much the plot interests me.

Get Hard was 30% last looked. That means there is high reliability that it will be a dog.

oh she laughed at everything

Yeah, they hear worse stuff at school.

AlabamAlum wrote:I have a standing rule: I refuse to pay for a movie less than 55% on Rotten Tomatoes, and I won't miss one greater than 85% if I can help it. Everything in between is dependent on how much the plot interests me.

Get Hard was 30% last looked. That means there is high reliability that it will be a dog.

Wait, is this the same guy who chastised me for citing positive critical response in defense of GWTW?? Say it isn't so...

What are you on about? You aren't making sense...

I do not like GWTW. A critic will not change my view. That's idiotic now, and it'was idiotic when you first trotted out.

I go to movies at the theater based on an aggregation of critics' high ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, and I avoid paying for movies if it's low. That said, there are movies that I see that are highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes that I do not like, and I have caught one or two on cable that were at or below 55% that were decent.

So, in short, had never seen GWTW, and it was at the theater, I would go see it based on its rating (95%). And on the way out, I would have grumbled to myself that no plan is perfect and Rotten Tomatoes let me down this time, as it has on one or two other occasions. But, all-in-all, it's a decent system to avoid throwing away money on bad movies.

Now, at home on HBO, I will give a dog a chance if I'm surfing channels and vegging out.

ECat is raising a whore

Still thinking on how this will shake out. The article says that subscription for HBO on the Apple device is 14.99 a month. If all other networks are in that same ballpark, won't an Apple TV be more costly than current cable or DTV subscription? I know you can select which network you want to have, but it seems you would have to have less than 10 networks you want to watch for it to be cheaper. Am I missing something?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/0 ... 88816.html

My youngest spent the night at a friends who had Apple TV. It was out most of the night.

sardis wrote:Still thinking on how this will shake out. The article says that subscription for HBO on the Apple device is 14.99 a month. If all other networks are in that same ballpark, won't an Apple TV be more costly than current cable or DTV subscription? I know you can select which network you want to have, but it seems you would have to have less than 10 networks you want to watch for it to be cheaper. Am I missing something?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/0 ... 88816.html

yea I said that on another thread at KSR and people dogged me.

If HBO is setting the standard for each streaming channel to be $15, then how will it ever replace cable in a bundle?

Only HBO and ESPN will be able to command fees of that amount and higher. I would expect something like Discovery (bundled with Animal Planet, TLC, AHC, and all that) and the A&E bundle to be like $5 or whatever at most. Most of these type channels have subscriber fees in the range of like 20 to 50 cents.

They would end up costing more per channel in that scenario to the people that want them (currently they are being subsidized since everybody must pay for them), but no way could they command $14 on the market.

Jungle Rat wrote:My youngest spent the night at a friends who had Apple TV. It was out most of the night.

I wonder what they did to entertain themselves? I'm guessing drugs and sex...

You are a single young guy so you don't understand the demand for other channels. Sowtime will follow suit with HBO. If ABC will charge $15 for ESPN, then they will certainly charge $15 for Disney. Your wife will certainly want Lifetime/Hallmark. The NFL channel? They will charge $25 because they are bastards. Just thank goodness Jeremy Clarkson shit the bed or BBC would be $15.

I do agree that other channels will be cheaper but how much more? currently no one charges below $9 a month for anything.

Even at rates of $5, it creates an environment where wanting 30 channels would be considered absurd at $150 but I easily watch more than 30 channels now in a week with bundling.

I am not sure of the HULU option as I have never used it but if they could work a deal where you get most or all the popular channels but stuff that is delayed like 48 hours for like 25-50 bucks a month, I think that would be successful.

I'm sure you don't mind a 48 hour delay. It takes you that long to turn around...

BigRedMan wrote:I am not sure of the HULU option as I have never used it but if they could work a deal where you get most or all the popular channels but stuff that is delayed like 48 hours for like 25-50 bucks a month, I think that would be successful.

The market will come up with some model that supports the demand but its disappointing to me that HBO set the bar at $15.

The second pisser on this is that about 70% of high speed internet delivered into households in America is via their cable company and with Time Warner/Comcast wanting to merge into the customer services aids virus, its going to take a massive influx of capital to compete with them - and until that happens they'll simply convert their pay cable losses into increased internet bandwidth fees - FCC be damned

hedge wrote:

Jungle Rat wrote:My youngest spent the night at a friends who had Apple TV. It was out most of the night.

I wonder what they did to entertain themselves? I'm guessing drugs and sex...

It's no wonder you went to prison for raping 10 year olds.

HBO is $15 now. I don't see why they would charge less to get it another way. If you want to keep cable, you're still going to pay $15 for HBO.

As far as having cable, I like flipping thru channels but I'm considering just killing cable and getting a digital antenna. Then trying to find ways to keep Cartoon Network and maybe AMC. ESPN would be nice but I really don't watch it that much. Truth be told, I watch 90% of the TV I watch from midnight to 3 a.m. after I get home from work and I'm just staring at whatever is on, trying to unwind from work. My kid watches Minecraft videos on youtube via our streaming device, along with Cartoon Network and I think my wife watches everything on Bravo mostly.

We pay $90 for basic cable (about 100 channels) and Internet from Greenlight fiber optic. I'd like to see that drop down by a third.