Remembering how Blockbuster Sucks

[nshumate]

Agreed in all regards.  As someone who is probably meant to be identified by the "pro-Blockbuster" description, I need to clarify:  I am NOT pro-Blockbuster.  I don't rent there.  I haven't for years.

But if you're going to criticize them, for heaven's sakes, criticize them for REAL reasons, not the misapplied label of censorship or the charge of "editing" which is so far from reality as to be almost comical.  If Blockbuster is evil, it's not particularly so -- it merely embodies the general evil inherent in the for-profit-only capitalist corporate culture.  It's not the player, it's the game; Blockbuster merely plays the game well.

Nathan

[Funk, E.]

And that's why capitalism sucks!

*ducks*

8-P

[nshumate]

No ducking required.  Capitalism, at least as presently constituted hereabouts, sucks mightily.

I could write a lot on this subject, I recently DID write a fair chunk in one of those cross-blog discussions, so I'll just refer any interested party to what I already wrote:
http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/weblog/archives/00000095.html

[slax]

bash them for good reason?

how about being put in to collection for $11 for a fee that wasn't more then 2 weeks old

Blockbuster sucks for anything but J6P

[Bernie]

Well, if you're going for a larger-view critique, the power that a Blockbuster wields does influence what gets made (to the detriment of original filmmaking) -- just like the power that a McDonald's wields influences (whether directly or indirectly) the farm and agricultural policy not only of the U.S. but of poor nations where their currency is so immediately needed that the long-term damage to the environment of providing for a McDonald's (i.e., clear-cutting forests for cattle grazing lands, etc.) has to be ignored.

The power of a Blockbuster's can mean either that less adult (adult in the old-fashioned sense of "for adults") and challenging films will be made, or, if made, will not get into wide home distribution.

But this kind of stuff's been a problems since the inception of mass (as opposed to rich-patron-supported) media.  In the 30s through the 50s it was organizations like the Legion of (So-Called) Decency influencing what films got made and what could be shown in them.  

Even as everything changes, nothing changes.

Oy.  Don't get me stahted.

[TC]

Blockbuster is just another corporate giant.  I don't expect it to tend to my viewing tastes, because mine falls outside the tastes of mainstream movie watchers.  Blockbuster has a limited amount of space inside each store.  With the sheer amount of movies released (more movies are released on a weekly basis now than ever before), Blockbuster has to make a choice what movies to carry.  Sure, people in this thread have complained about the lack of horror movies that Blockbuster carries.  However, working there, the only time I hear this complaint from a customer is around Halloween when everyone wants to rent horror movies.  In the years I've worked there, I can safely say I'm the only person that rents the cheesy horror, sci-fi, and blaxploitation movies at our store (besides one or two disturbingly creepy lonely men that I would rather not put myself in the category with)  and that's no exaggeration.  Blockbuster carries what it assumes will bring in the most number of rents.  Sure, I would salivate if it carried a larger selection of cheesy horror and science fiction films.  But, my tastes are in the minority and are not what are going to bring in the bucks.   Blockbuster's target audience is that towards the mainstream.  Is that a good thing?  Not for me and you.  However, it works for them and it works for the family or couple coming in to rent the "hottest" new release on a Friday or Saturday night.  It's just the nature of the beast.  

As for lack of choices, I think that point could be made for a number of services.  You don't see Mom and Pop grocery stores, drug stores, barbershops, and pizza parlors like you used to.  That's just how corporate America is now.  People have given up personal service and friendliness for conveniance and speedy service.  I don't have any other choices when it comes to my cable service, and it's just something I have to live with.  I would love to be able to get VH1 classic and be able to watch Hall and Oates music videos all day, but my company doesn't carry that channel.  Does it suck?  Sure.  Is it something I can live with?  Yeah.  My life isn't really that much worse off not being able to rent "Madman" on DVD.

[TC]

You make a good point, but I think the problem is that Blockbuster's bottom line is not the quality of films it distributes.  Since it's a company on the stockmarket, (BBI or BBE or something like that) Blockbuster Video has only to answer to it's stockholders.  Everyone involved is only concerened with the bottom line, which is profit.  They couldn't care if they put a Carrot Top movie out on the shelves, as long as it rents good.  And believe me, it's way more profitable for them to invest in a crappy movie like Eye See You, with a name-recognizable star in Sylvester Stallone than a challenging, thought-provoking independent movie with "no one" in it.  You may think that I'm giving the public way too little credit, but after working there for a few years, I know what's going to rent out.  Most people tend to go for star name recognition or what they've heard by word-of-mouth.  Blockbuster knows that too, so that's what they give a wider distribution to.  I have seen an encouraging trend in that they are giving a little wider distribution to certain independent movies, that I've really enjoyed.  "Double Whammy" is a recent one that comes to mind.  I thought it was an extremely funny and intelligent movie.  Although, now that I think of it, it probably got that distribution because it features Elizabeth Hurley (and one of her nipples) and Dennis Leary.  Still, an excellent movie though.

[Funk, E.]

Nathan hit upon a point. I don't think the executives of major corporations are plotting the down fall of quality in America. They are profit motivated which means they are driven by forces as basic as mating. Get as much as you can for as little invested as you can. Charge as much as you can get away with for the product that's going to sell the most. Pay your employees as little as you possibly can work them as hard as you are able. Buy in bulk.

Universality create comfort and a consistent product is easiest to achieved by eliminating variables. Thus the easiest food to sell nationwide is the blandest. the movie that's easiest to sell is the one that's least controversial. Big = bland

It's the mega-corporation nature of it that I avoid. I vote with my dollar by consciously trying to spend it locally as much as possible. If I don't want my world to homogenize I need to support as much local color as I possibly can.

I do NOT (repeat NOT) support terrorism or violence, but I have to admit it brought a smile to my face when some torched the Walmart that was being built on Height Street. A lot of the neighborhoods have passed ordinances against large chain restaurants and stores in their area. Where I live now there is no Blockbuster OR Hollywood Video We have 3 locally owned and operated video stores. I know the owners by name. It is possible to hold Starbucks and Walmart at bay, but you have to actually change your spending habits to do it and then back that up with legislation and local action.

[Bernie]

Of course the bottom line is the only motivator.  But that's the problem -- even the moguls of Old Hollywood at least paid lip service to "noblesse oblige" -- that is, their desire to serve up a certain amount of 'edifying' fare.  (Whether they actually did so is another topic entirely.)  In our time, that sense of obligation from the powerful to the powerless (nebulous though it may have been) has completely evaporated.  Even the lip service is gone.

What's the answer?  Revolution?  Passive resistance?  Apathetic capitulation?  A Darwinian scramble where we all climb over each other's bodies to grasp at the crumbs being brushed off the table? (I believe the last is called "supply side economics".)  I don't know.  I just can't see the growing inequality in the system (which is what this discussion comes down to) going on forever without something in society cracking wide open.

As I've said before, it all comes down to what your metaphor for society is, a jungle or a family...

[Funk, E.]

Yet another random topic waxes philosophical :-)

I agree. As our society stratifies the wealthy begin to view the working class as more of an inconvenience than a necessity of economics. We go from a society based on growth to one based upon stagnation. The wealthy want more, but they no longer want to have to work for it themselves so they start cannibalizing the economic infrastructure that made their wealth possible. Eventually they so undermine the social environment around them that it destabilizes and you’ve got yourself martial law followed by a nice little revolution.

"He who has the gold makes the rule." At first gold is made by ambitious and industrious people. Later their children inherit the gold and with it the right to make the rules. The problem is there is nothing genetic about being a good ruler so you get an atrophy of leadership. That incompetence causes friction between classes “The I was born rich so why the f**k should I have to be responsible with/about it. It’s my BIRTHRIGHT.� The same historical model that lead to the fall of the Roman Republic and the monarchy of France apply to corporate America. The titles and apparent governing mechanism change, but the rolls do not. Every Senator is a millionaire. Over 500 members of congress ran companies and bankrupted them! By the people, of the people, for the people is becoming by the rich, of the rich, for the rich.

[JohnL]

>Wait -- so who's the big ee-vil in this case? When a distributor comes back and
>says, "Sorry, NC-17 doesn't play well in Des Moines, we can't distribute anything
>above an R or we'll lose money" -- are they somehow being evil by (gasp)
>trying to stay in business?

No, the entire ratings system is evil for keeping NC-17 movies out of the theaters. Do you think anyone really did any research to see if NC-17 movies would make money or if people would protest them? The MPAA said that NC-17 was equal to the old X rating, and all theaters, newspapers and magazines heard was NC-17 = X rated. Theaters refuse to play them, newspapers and magazines refuse to advertise them because they don't want to be known for showing/advertising X-rated movies. Never mind that NC-17 movies aren't the same as porn, that's how most people see them. As far as I know, the only 'research' on NC-17 was the release of Showgirls, a really crappy movie that just about everyone hated. Everyone looked at the box office results of Showgirls and in their single-digit-IQ brains, the failure of Showgirls was directly the result of the rating. This is because studios and such can't judge quality.

>Oh, come on. Anyone who remembers Showgirls remembers it entirely because
>of it being the first theatrically-distributed NC-17 title in a decade. There's a point
>at which you should assume some minimum of intelligence in the renting public.

Pick 10 people you know, who are just average movie viewers, but reasonably intelligent people, and ask them what rating Henry & June had. Please post the results.

>See above note on fully accomodating idiots. (And by the way, these versions
>are rarely created exclusively FOR Blockbuster. The first place I saw a rated
>version of Showgirls was on the shelves of Hollywood Video.)

Same difference, another faceless chain store...

>If Blockbuster is evil, it's not particularly so -- it merely embodies the general evil
>inherent in the for-profit-only capitalist corporate culture.

Of the small video stores that used to be in this area before they were all forced out of business by the big chain stores, they all used to carry adult videos in the back. And by adult, I don't mean the Skinemax crap, I mean full, uncensored pornos. This is in the suburbs and there were never any protests or picketing that I knew of. Since these stores did a decent business and there's clearly a market for more adult stuff (as demonstrated by people renting the tame stuff at BB), why don't they carry fully X-rated movies? For that matter, do the people in charge really think their profit margin would take a nose-dive if they carried the few NC-17 movies that have been released? If it's just a matter of the rating on the side of the case, are they really going to have people picketting the store if the Showgirls box says NC-17 instead of R? Neither is supposed to be rented to anyone under 18 anyway, so what's the different? Is the box art more explicit for the NC-17 version? Have teenagers suddenly developed the ability to view video tapes by simply touching them?

>Blockbuster has a limited amount of space inside each store. With the sheer
>amount of movies released (more movies are released on a weekly basis now
>than ever before), Blockbuster has to make a choice what movies to carry.

Then why doesn't Blockbuster just refuse to carry movies like Showgirls? This is just my opinion, but I think they're hoping that people will just overlook the rating so they can look like they carry everything without most people realizing that they're getting censored versions.

[nshumate]

JohnL wrote:
>
> >Wait -- so who's the big ee-vil in this case? When a
> distributor comes back and
> >says, "Sorry, NC-17 doesn't play well in Des Moines, we
> can't distribute anything
> >above an R or we'll lose money" -- are they somehow being
> evil by (gasp)
> >trying to stay in business?
>
> No, the entire ratings system is evil for keeping NC-17
> movies out of the theaters. Do you think anyone really did
> any research to see if NC-17 movies would make money or if
> people would protest them?

Okay, let's just refute your case here with your own sentence a little further in the same paragraph:

> Never mind that NC-17 movies aren't the same
> as porn, that's how most people see them.

So you're saying here that it's the people themselves who equate that rating with porn. Then you're saying it's the ratings system is the evil one for assigning the rating.  Do you see any problems here with your line of thinking?

> As far as I know,
> the only 'research' on NC-17 was the release of Showgirls, a
> really crappy movie that just about everyone hated. Everyone
> looked at the box office results of Showgirls and in their
> single-digit-IQ brains, the failure of Showgirls was directly
> the result of the rating. This is because studios and such
> can't judge quality.

So you're saying that Hollywood, the gigantic marketing machine that it is, did NO other market research aside from looking at the one movie's returns?  Please, you're embarrassing yourself.  Hollywood markets, focus-groups, and polls EVERYTHING.  Just because no one told you about any market research is scarcely enough credible evidence for its absence to base a case on.

> >Oh, come on. Anyone who remembers Showgirls remembers it
> entirely because
> >of it being the first theatrically-distributed NC-17 title
> in a decade. There's a point
> >at which you should assume some minimum of intelligence in
> the renting public.
>
> Pick 10 people you know, who are just average movie viewers,
> but reasonably intelligent people, and ask them what rating
> Henry & June had. Please post the results.

Why are we suddenly talking about a different movie?  We were talking about Showgirls, I think you recall, and you were contending that most people were unaware of the rating.  What bearing could the rating of Henry & June possibly have on this discussion?

> >See above note on fully accomodating idiots. (And by the
> way, these versions
> >are rarely created exclusively FOR Blockbuster. The first
> place I saw a rated
> >version of Showgirls was on the shelves of Hollywood Video.)
>
> Same difference, another faceless chain store...

Which just proves my point -- it's NOT Blockbuster that you've got a problem with, it's mass-marketing as a whole.

> >If Blockbuster is evil, it's not particularly so -- it
> merely embodies the general evil
> >inherent in the for-profit-only capitalist corporate culture.
>
> Of the small video stores that used to be in this area before
> they were all forced out of business by the big chain stores,
> they all used to carry adult videos in the back. And by
> adult, I don't mean the Skinemax crap, I mean full,
> uncensored pornos. This is in the suburbs and there were
> never any protests or picketing that I knew of. Since these
> stores did a decent business and there's clearly a market for
> more adult stuff (as demonstrated by people renting the tame
> stuff at BB), why don't they carry fully X-rated movies? For
> that matter, do the people in charge really think their
> profit margin would take a nose-dive if they carried the few
> NC-17 movies that have been released? If it's just a matter
> of the rating on the side of the case, are they really going
> to have people picketting the store if the Showgirls box says
> NC-17 instead of R? Neither is supposed to be rented to
> anyone under 18 anyway, so what's the different? Is the box
> art more explicit for the NC-17 version? Have teenagers
> suddenly developed the ability to view video tapes by simply
> touching them?

As has been explained before, it's all a question of image.  To compete with a Mom'n'Pop store, Blockbuster tries to cultivate an image of "even more family-friendly" than the family-owned outlet.  It tried to avoid controversy and give nobody a reason not to walk through the doors.  

> >Blockbuster has a limited amount of space inside each store.
> With the sheer
> >amount of movies released (more movies are released on a
> weekly basis now
> >than ever before), Blockbuster has to make a choice what
> movies to carry.
>
> Then why doesn't Blockbuster just refuse to carry movies like
> Showgirls? This is just my opinion, but I think they're
> hoping that people will just overlook the rating so they can
> look like they carry everything without most people realizing
> that they're getting censored versions.

Okay, you're really losing me.  What are YOU saying that the reason Blockbuster carries rated versions is?  (I refuse to use the word "censored" here, because the connotation is that they're taking it upon themselves to bowdlerize the work of a third party without consent, which is very obviously NOT what is going on.)  You're discounting all possible market-driven rationales, which are the reasons that a mega-corporations do ANYTHING, so are you ascribing it to some kind of neo-fundie conspiracy?  A hidden agenda to intentionally de-breast every movie they can get their hands on?

Look to any huge corporation, and you'll find the same marketing strategy:  APPEAL TO THE MIDDLE.  The most profitable part of the bell curve is the crest of the bell.  Blockbuster's fine-tuned their market approach to appeal to the mainstream, and they find that avoiding anything which might offend anyone is a part of that strategy.  Blockbuster is the counterpart to Wal-Mart or McDonald's.  They target the widest possible demographic, and let other retailers fight over the scraps.

Nathan

[Bernie]

Too true.  Okay, now I'm depressed for the rest of the day...

[Funk, E.]

Hey Nathan:

Keeping banging your head against that wall and you'll get a headache ;-)

[nshumate]

It's that Quixotic idealism in me.  (Or Male Answer Syndrome, one or the other.)