Follow TV Tropes
I mean, you could always play it as a black comedy/horror comedy with a family of 5 being manipulated by a vengeful god.
Personally, I view Sims as a "Slice of Life Simulator", so it'd be any sort of slice-of-life work.
They could do something like Matrix meets Pleasantville.
This is REALLY BAD.
Disney is placing fox films in their vault so they can sell them later for inflated prices
The article isn't about home releases. It's about theaters being denied the ability to screen these movies, even if they'd already booked the showings before Disney said no.
I mean, that was already reported before, wasn't it? How Disney wasn't letting theaters do their annual showings of certain movies (like Die Hard) because they are now owned by Disney? Presumably, if a theater already booked a film, however, Disney would refund them their money, since they wouldn't be getting it. If that's the case, then, I still don't see the big deal.
The big deal is that their available choice of screening gets smaller, especially for indie theaters.
Last week I went to a re-showing of Alien, produced by Fox, which looked fantastic on the big screen, and it would really suck if we weren’t allowed that experience because Disney suddenly pulled the copyright.
But you were able to see Alien, right? It seems as if Disney is only putting some films in the vault and letting others stay. And odds are, they will shift which ones, meaning theaters will have to wait a bit, but will eventually be able to show the films they want.
“I don’t want to live in this house with an imminent threat of a volcano erupting underneath it.”
“But it didn’t erupt yesterday, did it?”
Edited by Tuckerscreator on Oct 24th 2019 at 11:45:41 AM
I thought Disney did do re-releases of their old films?
They do,it just takes ages for some of them and they're usually more expensive
Edited by alliterator on Oct 24th 2019 at 12:39:30 PM
The point is the threat of imminence.
If something can be cut for no reason, there's nothing to prevent it from being cut entirely in the future.
Edited by Tuckerscreator on Oct 24th 2019 at 3:33:59 AM
Yeah, this is a practice that doesn't benefit theaters or audiences. I'm not sure what argument could be made that this is an improvement over the old model.
To quote Ross Scott, "There are no good reasons, only legal ones".
And yours is a Strawman's Argument.
This topic is an example of the problem with Disney turning movie-making and distributing into a monopoly where they're the dominant player.
Edited by alliterator on Oct 24th 2019 at 4:59:21 AM
But making people aware of the problem allows them to choose not to support Disney. Arguing that we shouldn't bring it up because "we already knew that" is besides the point, and the specifics of what is happening is new information that should be reported on.
Additionally, the article isn't alleging this is certain select films like you are suggesting, but the majority of the back catalogue. Smaller independent theatres I care about use the showing of older films as a source of revenue to keep their business going.
It also feels significant that major directors will complain about how Netflix's business is somehow preventing people from seeing new films on the big screen, or how big-budget superhero films are killing culture, but when it comes to making older films available to new viewers in that format, they appear to be keeping real silent.
On a completely unrelated note, I did have to laugh at this comment on the article, which is peak old man yells at cloud/'technology is ruining our lives.'
Only once every like 20 years. They place a
Moratorium on a movie for artificial scarcity to drive up interest when they do release something.
A vast majority of the time nowadays all it does is piss people off and drive up Ebay/reseller prices which Disney makes no money off of.
I'm not sure they will do that for non-Disney movies, though — after they bought both Marvel and Lucasfilm, they've kept both of those companies' movies in circulation.
Those two studios have only around a dozen films, nearly all of them blockbusters. Fox’s library goes well into the hundreds. Disney might be wary to risk fan backlash if they hid Return of the Jedi, but not so from hiding The Phantom of the Paradise.
Edited by Tuckerscreator on Oct 31st 2019 at 4:22:43 AM
Yes, but then again, how many times has Phantom of the Paradise been released on DVD? I see that Shout! Factory released a Collector's Edition Blu-Ray back in 2014, but nothing since then.
20th Century Fox has a large library yes — but that also means that they tended to released DVD/Blu-Rays from their archive sporadically, too. For every Aliens Quadrilogy boxset, there is, what, let'see, 15 Maiden Lane, a 1936 movie that, by googling right now, I found has no DVD.
Disney will probably release all of the blockbusters and franchise films and then release the cult classics if there is fan demand (as I suspect there was for Phantom of the Paradise).
Happy 1800th post, y'all!
Hulu will be the official streaming home for FX Networks. Thereby making Hulu the mature version of Disney+.
Which I thought was an odd thing to announce, because weren't there FX stuff on Hulu already?
Disney+ will also be available on Amazon Fire and Samsung TV's. (Funnily enough, Netflix announced they were getting rid of itself on Samsung TV's earlier this week. This must have been why.)
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?