Here’s the deal: His new stuff is so staggeringly shitty it’s going back in time and making his earlier work worse.
3 Likes
We’ll throw in Rob Schneider and David Spade as a bonus if you give us back Bowie. Now that’s a 3 for 2 deal we’re offering right now!
2 Likes
I stopped seeing anything of his after 50 First Dates. Honestly, if you watched a Sandler movie after that, you deserve whatever you get.
2 Likes
That’s the problem with flat-fee licensing, you can’t take advantage of the long tail. If they charged a smaller subscription fee, then charged maybe $0.49 per movie, there would always be a percentage to kick back to the studios when someone watched a film, and no reason to ever take a film off line.
I think he’s like Jim Carrey (with Eternal Sunshine, perhaps a couple of other things) - he showed once or twice that he could do something good (Punch Drunk Love, Funny People, maybe?) - as long as someone else was doing the creative heavy lifting, but has zero inclination to go back and do something like that again, and would rather churn out mindless pap. And as long as idiots keep paying him to do it, why not?
3 Likes
Possibly, but I suspect that if they charged per movie the service would be a lot less used. I know I probably wouldn’t bother with Netflix at all if they charged me $3/month but also charged me a micropayment to watch the TV shows or movies I wanted to watch. The only thing that makes the streaming service worthwhile at all is that it’s a fixed cost for a large library that I don’t have to think about whether an individual movie is worth my money or not but instead can consider the aggregate - take that away and I’ll just go back to buying DVDs.
(The Hulu model I can tolerate - they charge me a micropayment in the form of my time to watch an ad. But since I was raised to be a tightwad wasting money causes physical pain while wasting time is why I’m probably watching TV in the first place.)
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
