Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 07:08:35 PM
532403 Posts in 40267 Topics by 5039 Members
Latest Member: SEuler
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Remembering how Blockbuster Sucks « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: Remembering how Blockbuster Sucks  (Read 5137 times)
Funk, E.
Guest
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2003, 01:14:12 PM »

Don't despair. It is an avoidable historical trend. Every time the economic model changes (for example from mercantile to industrial) the new services and skills need to capitalize on that change causes the rise of a middle class and creates fluidity between classes. There are smaller versions of this phenomenon as well such as the opening up of the Louisiana territory or the various gold rushes. If these economic changes happen BEFORE the economic infrastructure collapses from excessive skimming by the wealthy then the bloody revolution can be avoided. Otherwise look to our neighbors in South America to see our future. Military dictatorships and wealthy people living in armed compounds.
Logged
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2003, 01:51:52 PM »

Nathan Shumate wrote:
>
>So now your complaint isn't against Blockbuster, it's against any video distributor
> who puts out an "Unrated" version that doesn't have a big explanatory footnote, "This means more breasts"?

Actually, I never complained about the editing or the labelling. My only beef is with the poor selection and service. This was simply an example of someone for whom a label would mean very little, and was part of a larger argument. The big problem with responding to one sentence at a time is that they get taken out of context.

> I'll let you discover the wonderful straightline/punchline
> effect of these last two sentences on your own.

Not sure what's funny about it. These people know nothing about movies, they aren't big film buffs, but they do enjoy a good movie when they see it, including some very non-mainstream stuff. If it were properly released and promoted, they'd rent it. That was my point.

Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Funk, E.
Guest
« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2003, 07:47:13 PM »

So, how's the skiing in Utah this year?
Logged
nshumate
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 79
Posts: 760



« Reply #63 on: January 17, 2003, 07:51:31 PM »

Fine, if you like rocks.

Logged

Nathan Shumate
Cold Fusion Video Reviews
Sci-fi, Horror, and General Whoopass
Funk, E.
Guest
« Reply #64 on: January 17, 2003, 07:54:33 PM »

No thanx, got plenty in my highball glass. So all this snow we got in the Sierra's didn't make out there I take it?
Logged
JohnL
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 2388


« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2003, 10:11:15 PM »

>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?

No, the *PEOPLE* who run theaters, the *PEOPLE* who run newspapers, the *PEOPLE* who run magazines etc. I couldn't think of a blanket term to include all of the above, so I wrote "people". Now that you mention it though, NC-17 does have a stigma with some of the viewing public, which is a result of the theaters, newspapers, and magazines treating it as if it were equal to porn.

>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.

And a good portion of their polling probably was done to theater, newspapers and magazines asking if they would play or advertise NC-17 movies, to which a majority probably said no. Any polls and focus groups that involved the average movie goer were probably skewed by the fact that theaters, newspapers and magazines treat NC-17 movies as being equal to porn.

 See how that works; The MPAA said that NC-17 was equal to the old X rating before it became used exclusively for porn. What most people hear is "NC-17 = X rated", and everyone knows X rated = porn, therefore to a lot of people NC-17 = porn. Theaters won't show them because they equate NC-17 with X, the general public looks at movies theaters won't show NC-17 movies and thinks "See, NC-17 is the same thing as porn, why else do you think theaters refuse to show them?" It becomes self-fulfilling.

>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?

Because you argued that Showgirls was such a high-profile movie that anyone who wasn't a complete moron would immediately know that the R rated version wasn't the same one that was in theaters. So, I picked a difference movie that a person might run across in Blockbusters. They might search it out because of Uma Thurman or they might just pick up the box and like the description on the back. The official release of Henry & June is NC-17, but it's an obscure enough movie that most people probably won't know that. So how are otherwise intelligent people who might want to rent this movie supposed to know that the R rated version isn't the full version?

My challenge stands, ask 10 people you consider intelligent enough to be capable of knowing what they're renting at Blockbuster, but who aren't movie fanatics, what rating Henry & June originally had. Without giving them any indication what their choices are, let me know what percentage of them don't have a clue that it's supposed to be NC-17.

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

It depends on the choices the company makes, but mostly, yes. And before you ask, no, I don't have a membership with any of the chain video stores. I used to rent from a small local store, but it went out of business when Starship Video moved in across the street.

>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.

What happened to providing better service and a bigger selection?

>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

Because if they didn't carry movies like Showgirls, they'd get a reputation for not having what people are looking for. They also don't want to carry NC-17 movies, so they carry R rated versions and hope that most people are too stupid to realize that they're getting a cut-down version.

Do you really think anyone says "Hey, let's go rent Showgirls, but not the NC-17 version, let's get the R rated one!"? No, Blockbusters hopes that people looking to rent Showgirls or any other movie that was originally NC-17 will come to their store and rent the movie without checking the rating.

>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?

No, I think they made a decision to not carry NC-17 videos without even giving them a chance. Did Blockbuster ever carry NC-17 films and then remove them from the stores when too many people objected? Or did they simply decide right from the start that NC-17 = porn and not even consider carrying them?

>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.

Then why do they carry the Playboy videos? Aren't there people who are offended by anything produced by Playboy simply because of the company's image? If they can carry an entire line of Playboy videos, even if they are R rated, how much difference can a handful of NC-17 movies make? Most people equate the Playboy videos with porn, so what's the difference?
Logged
TC
Guest
« Reply #66 on: January 17, 2003, 11:43:55 PM »

"Then why do they carry the Playboy videos? Aren't there people who are offended by anything produced by Playboy simply because of the company's image? If they can carry an entire line of Playboy videos, even if they are R rated, how much difference can a handful of NC-17 movies make? Most people equate the Playboy videos with porn, so what's the difference?"

Well, the fact that they are produced by Playboy is pretty covert.  The movie company that produces them is called "Eros pictures" or something like that.  If you look at the back of the box, the only real indication you get that Playboy had any hand in the making of the movie is a tiny little rabbit head, somewhere where the credits are listed.   I'm not sure if all of them have it, or if it's something that they still even do.  So, Eros Pictures is a part of Playboy, or is Playboy.  Something like that.  They are indeed put out by Playboy though, as I've seen them listed in the Playboy catalog, except they push the unrated versions (of course).  The difference between these videos and the NC-17 one's?  Simply put, the ratings.  Since these videos are indeed rated R by the MPAA, they are safe.   Blockbuster won't carry anything rated harder than an R (X or NC-17).  That's the difference.
Logged
AndyC
Guest
« Reply #67 on: January 18, 2003, 01:09:23 AM »

TC wrote:
>
> Simply put, the ratings.  Since these videos are indeed rated
> R by the MPAA, they are safe.   Blockbuster won't carry
> anything rated harder than an R (X or NC-17).  That's the
> difference.

Makes sense. Make the rule as easy to apply as possible, so nobody has to make any decisions. This sex film has an R rating, so it's OK. That thriller is NC-17, so it's not. Anyone giving it even a little thought would see that it makes no sense, but the point is that the rule is designed to be applied without anyone having to think.
Logged
AndyC
Guest
« Reply #68 on: January 18, 2003, 01:13:27 AM »

Nathan Shumate wrote:
>
> family-owned outlet.  It tried to avoid controversy and give
> nobody a reason not to walk through the doors.

Well, they gave me a reason not to walk through the doors. I think that's what I find most offensive - to them, I'm nobody.
Logged
nshumate
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 79
Posts: 760



« Reply #69 on: January 18, 2003, 01:32:26 AM »

JohnL wrote:
> Because you argued that Showgirls was such a high-profile
> movie that anyone who wasn't a complete moron would
> immediately know that the R rated version wasn't the same one
> that was in theaters. So, I picked a difference movie that a
> person might run across in Blockbusters. They might search it
> out because of Uma Thurman or they might just pick up the box
> and like the description on the back. The official release of
> Henry & June is NC-17, but it's an obscure enough movie that
> most people probably won't know that. So how are otherwise
> intelligent people who might want to rent this movie supposed
> to know that the R rated version isn't the full version?
>
> My challenge stands, ask 10 people you consider intelligent
> enough to be capable of knowing what they're renting at
> Blockbuster, but who aren't movie fanatics, what rating Henry
> & June originally had. Without giving them any indication
> what their choices are, let me know what percentage of them
> don't have a clue that it's supposed to be NC-17.

"Supposed to be."  That's right, God wants it to be NC-17, and anything else is an affront.

First, I'd have to ask 10 intelligent people, "Have you heard of the movie Henry & June?"  Then I'd have to ask, "Do you remember anything about it, and who was in it?"  And if they remember neither of those things, how do I count that in my averages?  Does it matter?  They pick up a box, they see that they're getting an R-rated movie.  Does the fact that it there was a different version of the movie released theatrically somehow make the one they're holding a lesser product?  They're getting exactly what they're reading on the box.  And with most people, all they know about Henry & June is what they're getting off the box anyway.

> >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.
>
> What happened to providing better service and a bigger
> selection?

Obviously it's not as big a deal to most consumers as you think, or else people wouldn't be throwing enough dollars at Blockbuster that it can outcompete the Mom'n'Pops.  The things most people rent -- the forty-copy new releases -- don't NEED great selection or customer service; the average renter can walk in and find the five shelves of J-Lo's latest just fine on their own.


> >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
>
> Because if they didn't carry movies like Showgirls, they'd
> get a reputation for not having what people are looking for.
> They also don't want to carry NC-17 movies, so they carry R
> rated versions and hope that most people are too stupid to
> realize that they're getting a cut-down version.
>
> Do you really think anyone says "Hey, let's go rent
> Showgirls, but not the NC-17 version, let's get the R rated
> one!"? No, Blockbusters hopes that people looking to rent
> Showgirls or any other movie that was originally NC-17 will
> come to their store and rent the movie without checking the
> rating.

Despite the fact that the cover is different than the one everyone's seen, and it says "R-rated version" right there on the front.  Wanna check it out? http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6303913903.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif  Somehow, these are the same people who are supposed to respond to "Unrated Director's Cut" on the cover, but when it says "Director's R-Rated Version," you want me to assume that suddenly people don't see the words.  (Oh, wait -- I made a valid point concerning Showgirls, so I imagine you're going to change it to another movie now.)

> >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?
>
> No, I think they made a decision to not carry NC-17 videos
> without even giving them a chance. Did Blockbuster ever carry
> NC-17 films and then remove them from the stores when too
> many people objected? Or did they simply decide right from
> the start that NC-17 = porn and not even consider carrying
> them?

According to people I know who have worked for Blockbuster, it was entirely a position of IMAGE.  They wanted to appear family friendly to the people who weren't going to be renting NC-17s anyway.  These words are sounding familiar; how many times have I typed them now?

> Then why do they carry the Playboy videos? Aren't there
> people who are offended by anything produced by Playboy
> simply because of the company's image? If they can carry an
> entire line of Playboy videos, even if they are R rated, how
> much difference can a handful of NC-17 movies make? Most
> people equate the Playboy videos with porn, so what's the
> difference?

The Playboy videos they carry AREN'T the "Playboy's Wet'nWild" type that have the rabbitears on the front cover.  They're marketed by the Eros label, and you have to look really close at the fine print on the back cover to see that Eros is an imprint of Playboy.  As I've said before, and I'll apparently have to say several times before it sinks in, it's a matter of IMAGE.

Look, with all of the dithering and changing of questions and changing of movie titles and whatnot, I've completely lost track of whatever point you may have had to begin with.  You want to restate it, taking into account what's already been discussed here?

Nathan
Logged

Nathan Shumate
Cold Fusion Video Reviews
Sci-fi, Horror, and General Whoopass
nshumate
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 79
Posts: 760



« Reply #70 on: January 18, 2003, 01:34:25 AM »

Not nobody, just not a big enough demographic to go after.  You occupy the same position at McDonald's, at Wal-Mart, at any mega-corporation.  They cater to the predictable mainstream and leave specialty retailers to mop up the leftovers around the edges.

But since you already knew you weren't mainstream, you shouldn't be offended when they acknowledge that.

Nathan

Logged

Nathan Shumate
Cold Fusion Video Reviews
Sci-fi, Horror, and General Whoopass
Fearless Freep
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 13
Posts: 2324


« Reply #71 on: January 18, 2003, 02:04:13 PM »

But since you already knew you weren't mainstream, you shouldn't be offended when they acknowledge that.

Bingo -  I don't shop at Blockbuster, not because I having anything against them, they simply don't carry much of what I'm interested in: Sci-fi, Anime and some horror.  They target a certain audience and I'm not it and I know that and they not that so who cares?  

But I'm a nobody to them, but we're all nobodies to them anyway.  At the numbers they are talking about in terms of populace, they can only do like Hari Seldon's Psychohistory; people can only be treated as populations statistically, not as individuals.  I'm a nobody at Blockbuster and so are you, but then I'm a nobody at Wal-Mart and Mc Donald's and I actually fit in their targert group.

I don't think Blockbuster has any great moral or ethical consideration in themselves for what they rent or don't rent out.  It's the perception of what they rent and how that plays to the majority of their customers that they think about and care about.  Apparently, it works

And even if someone at Blockbuster  did sit down and decide "we're not going to show NC-17 movies because we think they are morally bad", so what?  It's their store, they can rent out what they want and if nobody likes it and they fail, that's their problem and everyone likes what they do offer and they succeed, that's the American Way.

Logged

=======================
Going places unmapped, to do things unplanned, to people unsuspecting
raj
Guest
« Reply #72 on: January 18, 2003, 06:38:35 PM »

Hmm Nathan, I'm actually very pro-Capitalism
(I've been job interviewing in Toledo the last few days, so I wasn't able to keep up with the thread.)

I actually have no objection to Blockbuster editing the movies (or demanding studios edit, if they want BB to carry their movies).  (Well, I do, but it is on a purely philosophical level)  That is capitalism, as is BB running Mom & Pop stores out of town-- it just means people need to support those stores enough to keep them in business, I do and don't go to BB for many reasons (bad selection, desire to support other places, et al.,).  Netflix is a great way to get around BB.  

My only objection is that most people, when the rent a movie, expect it to be the same as it was in the theater.  Obviously they should read the box to see if it is the same.  Usually "Director's cut" or "Unrated version" is a bonus, you get more.  But if a movie gets edited down, that should be stated somewhere on the box so people now that it isn't the theatrical release.    If BB does that (I don't go there so I don't know) then fine, there is no fraud.
Logged
JohnL
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 2388


« Reply #73 on: January 19, 2003, 02:36:53 AM »

>"Supposed to be." That's right, God wants it to be NC-17, and anything else is
>an affront.

To anyone who doesn't like others deciding what they can and can't see, yes it is.
Studios already bow down to the holy MPAA to get their movies blessed with their stamp of approval, because NC-17 movies are un-distributable and now when a studio does release an NC-17 movie, you have to go out of your way to see it uncut because Blockbuster and the other idiotic chain stores exert enough influence to force the studio to release an R rated cut of the film. You can't just go to a different store either, since Blockbuster not only competes with smaller stores, it intentionally tries to force them out of business.

Yes, I know, this is business, but intentionally putting small stores out of business is an incredibly sleazy business practice.

>First, I'd have to ask 10 intelligent people, "Have you heard of the movie Henry
>& June?" Then I'd have to ask, "Do you remember anything about it, and who
>was in it?" And if they remember neither of those things, how do I count that in my

You don't ask them that. That's the whole point. You claimed that most intelligent people would be able to look at the rating on the case and know what version they were getting.

>averages? Does it matter? They pick up a box, they see that they're getting an
>R-rated movie. Does the fact that it there was a different version of the movie
>released theatrically somehow make the one they're holding a lesser product?

Would it make it a lesser product if I sold you a book with 3 of the chapters ripped out of it? How about a copy of Romeo & Juliet with the whole ending removed so that it seems like they ran away together and lived happily ever after?

>They're getting exactly what they're reading on the box. And with most people,
>all they know about Henry & June is what they're getting off the box anyway.

So as long as people don't know there's more than what they're seeing, it doesn't matter whether or not they get everything that others have gotten?

Going back to the book example, it would be ok for a book store to sell novels with entire chapters missing as long as the people buying them weren't aware that those chapters existed? Oh, and as long as they had some kind of a rating on the back, even though most people wouldn't know that it meant chapters were missing...

>Despite the fact that the cover is different than the one everyone's seen, and it
>says "R-rated version" right there on the front. Wanna check it out?

Despite what you might think, there are probably *SOME* people who don't know that Showgirls was NC-17. There are probably some people who would see that and think it was the spiced up version.

>Position of IMAGE. They wanted to appear family friendly to the people who
>weren't going to be renting NC-17s anyway. These words are sounding familiar;

And how exactly does carrying a handful of NC-17 movies make the store unfriendly to families? Are NC-17 movies like Showgirls known to attractive large crowds of sleazy guys in raincoats? Do child molestors like to hang around the NC-17 movie section? Has there been a high incidence of overly macho guys picking up NC-17 movies and yelling across the store "I found that titty movie that everyone was talking about!!!"? Are teenagers likely to go to school and tell their friends "You're not going to believe this, but Blockbusters is carrying NC-17 movies! That's real porn!!!"?

What exactly is it about the type written characters "NC-17" that turns a video store from a family friendly place into a dangerous pit of sin?

>The Playboy videos they carry AREN'T the "Playboy's Wet'nWild" type that
>have the rabbitears on the front cover. They're marketed by the Eros label, and
>you have to look really close at the fine print on the back cover to see that Eros
>is an imprint of Playboy. As I've said before, and I'll apparently have to say
>several times before it sinks in, it's a matter of IMAGE.

And carryng a line of videos with scantily clad women in lingerie on the covers and titles like Web of Seduction project a family friendly image because they're only rated R, whereas Showgirls being NC-17 just screams PORN?

Do they have the Eros videos next to the Disney section because they're so family friendly?

>Look, with all of the dithering and changing of questions and changing of movie
>titles and whatnot, I've completely lost track of whatever point you may have had
>to begin with. You want to restate it, taking into account what's already been
>discussed here?

That Blockbuster along with others who do the same things, is a bad company because they intentionally force small stores out of business, so that you'll have no choice but to rent from them, where you may or may get the same movie as you saw in the theater since they use the threat of not carrying a video to get studios to sell them specially censored version of movies.
Logged
nshumate
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 79
Posts: 760



« Reply #74 on: January 19, 2003, 12:03:56 PM »

JohnL wrote:
>
> >"Supposed to be." That's right, God wants it to be NC-17,
> and anything else is
> >an affront.
>
> To anyone who doesn't like others deciding what they can and
> can't see, yes it is.

Then you're screwed, because any time you watch any movie, someone else is deciding what you're seeing.  Any time you listen to music, someone else is deciding what you're hearing.  Any time you read a book, someone else is deciding what you're reading.  The only way to get around this affront to your person is to make your own movies, perform your own music, and write your own books for yourself.

> Studios already bow down to the holy MPAA to get their movies
> blessed with their stamp of approval, because NC-17 movies
> are un-distributable and now when a studio does release an
> NC-17 movie, you have to go out of your way to see it uncut
> because Blockbuster and the other idiotic chain stores exert
> enough influence to force the studio to release an R rated
> cut of the film. You can't just go to a different store
> either, since Blockbuster not only competes with smaller
> stores, it intentionally tries to force them out of business.
>
> Yes, I know, this is business, but intentionally putting
> small stores out of business is an incredibly sleazy business
> practice.

This is agreed.  Capitalism without conscience is bad.

> >First, I'd have to ask 10 intelligent people, "Have you
> heard of the movie Henry
> >& June?" Then I'd have to ask, "Do you remember anything
> about it, and who
> >was in it?" And if they remember neither of those things,
> how do I count that in my
>
> You don't ask them that. That's the whole point. You claimed
> that most intelligent people would be able to look at the
> rating on the case and know what version they were getting.

Wait -- the whole point?  You asked me to find out, out of ten people, how many know what the rating on the movie is without looking.  Somehow it's irrelevant how many of them have actually heard of the movie before?  You're really confusing me.

> >averages? Does it matter? They pick up a box, they see that
> they're getting an
> >R-rated movie. Does the fact that it there was a different
> version of the movie
> >released theatrically somehow make the one they're holding a
> lesser product?
>
> Would it make it a lesser product if I sold you a book with 3
> of the chapters ripped out of it? How about a copy of Romeo &
> Juliet with the whole ending removed so that it seems like
> they ran away together and lived happily ever after?

As long as it said "Happy ending version" on the cover somewhere, go for it.

> >They're getting exactly what they're reading on the box. And
> with most people,
> >all they know about Henry & June is what they're getting off
> the box anyway.
>
> So as long as people don't know there's more than what
> they're seeing, it doesn't matter whether or not they get
> everything that others have gotten?

I really don't understand your reasoning.

> Going back to the book example, it would be ok for a book
> store to sell novels with entire chapters missing as long as
> the people buying them weren't aware that those chapters
> existed? Oh, and as long as they had some kind of a rating on
> the back, even though most people wouldn't know that it meant
> chapters were missing...

Guess what, doofus.  They have those.  It says "abridged" on the cover.  People of reasonable intelligence knows what that means.  Is picketing Readers Digest Books the next on your social-conscience agenda?

> >Despite the fact that the cover is different than the one
> everyone's seen, and it
> >says "R-rated version" right there on the front. Wanna check
> it out?
>
> Despite what you might think, there are probably *SOME*
> people who don't know that Showgirls was NC-17. There are
> probably some people who would see that and think it was the
> spiced up version.

Well, by all means, let's gear our society for the most ignorant lowest-common-denominator, because the assumption of a modicum of intelligence might offend the idiots.

> >Position of IMAGE. They wanted to appear family friendly to
> the people who
> >weren't going to be renting NC-17s anyway. These words are
> sounding familiar;
>
> And how exactly does carrying a handful of NC-17 movies make
> the store unfriendly to families? Are NC-17 movies like
> Showgirls known to attractive large crowds of sleazy guys in
> raincoats? Do child molestors like to hang around the NC-17
> movie section? Has there been a high incidence of overly
> macho guys picking up NC-17 movies and yelling across the
> store "I found that titty movie that everyone was talking
> about!!!"? Are teenagers likely to go to school and tell
> their friends "You're not going to believe this, but
> Blockbusters is carrying NC-17 movies! That's real porn!!!"?

Look, I don't know what little world you live in, but I DO know people who would rather rent from stores where they know their little kids can't wander over and look at the covers of the "Playboy's Girls of Summer" series, and their teenagers can't "accidentally" rent the unrated cut of a Surrender Cinema skinflick.  I'm sorry if those people don't live in your universe.

> What exactly is it about the type written characters "NC-17"
> that turns a video store from a family friendly place into a
> dangerous pit of sin?

If you can't understand the power of image yet, I'm not sure anyone can explain it to you.

> >The Playboy videos they carry AREN'T the "Playboy's
> Wet'nWild" type that
> >have the rabbitears on the front cover. They're marketed by
> the Eros label, and
> >you have to look really close at the fine print on the back
> cover to see that Eros
> >is an imprint of Playboy. As I've said before, and I'll
> apparently have to say
> >several times before it sinks in, it's a matter of IMAGE.
>
> And carryng a line of videos with scantily clad women in
> lingerie on the covers and titles like Web of Seduction
> project a family friendly image because they're only rated R,
> whereas Showgirls being NC-17 just screams PORN?
>
> Do they have the Eros videos next to the Disney section
> because they're so family friendly?

You know what?  Trying to impress a point upon your brain really isn't worth the effort.

> >Look, with all of the dithering and changing of questions
> and changing of movie
> >titles and whatnot, I've completely lost track of whatever
> point you may have had
> >to begin with. You want to restate it, taking into account
> what's already been
> >discussed here?
>
> That Blockbuster along with others who do the same things, is
> a bad company because they intentionally force small stores
> out of business, so that you'll have no choice but to rent
> from them, where you may or may get the same movie as you saw
> in the theater since they use the threat of not carrying a
> video to get studios to sell them specially censored version
> of movies.

Bully for you.  You've discovered Marketing 101.  Pat yourself on the back before you go back to fuming about the unfairness of the world.

I'm done here, folks.

Logged

Nathan Shumate
Cold Fusion Video Reviews
Sci-fi, Horror, and General Whoopass
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Remembering how Blockbuster Sucks « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.