avatar

Jovay (324)


Posts




Replies


Yep and prices were dropping then plus there were high end and low end models, however $771 was the average price by 1980, so likely around $699 by 1981. <blockquote>https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/12/business/innovations-spur-boom-in-vcr-sales.html <i>From: November 12, 1984</i> The first VCR, introduced in 1975 by Sony, carried a list price of $1,400. Five years later, according to figures compiled by the Electronic Industries Association, a Washington-based trade group, the average price to dealers was down to $771 a unit. In 1982 it dropped to $640 and then to $528 in 1983. Manufacturers, retailers and industry analysts all agree that the most important factor contributing to surging sales growth has been plummeting prices. The average suggested retail price for a VCR today is about $500, but the spread between the low-end and the top-of-the-line is wide: a deluxe VCR can cost as much as $1,500 or more, while a basic unit can be bought, discounted, for just under $300. <b>Here in Australia it was similar but way dearer in the beginning:</b> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-01/vcr-a-final-farewell/7676598 In 1981, only 3 per cent of Australian households (150,000 homes to a population of 14.93 million) had a VCR. That number rose quickly, and by 1993 to 80 per cent of Australian households (4.5 million homes to a population of 17.67 million) had a VCR. One reason for the rapid uptake was the dramatic drop in price of VCR technology. In 1976, the average price of a VCR was AU$4,684 (AU$8,838 in today's dollars). By 1993, the average price was less than 10 per cent of the 1976 price, at AU$446 (AU$842 in today's money). The number of movies available also skyrocketed, from a measly two films in 1978 to 33,000 titles in 1993. The uptake of VCRs began to slow by 1995</blockquote> Having said that I do know that some people justified it by saying they could save by watching movies at home and not going out, especially for families vs cinema visits. Probably more a continuation than sequel and maybe about Brooke's redemption as they did have her escape a lot during those first 5 episodes, so one last escape is probably not out of the question. Plus given it's only a 9 episode season and there's four to go there isn't a lot that can happen and it is called 1984 so can't skip ahead to next summer and have it all happen again like a Jason in Camp Crystal sequel. Yeah I was going to say similar above and then sidetracked myself, as for instance if he wants narrative over action then a Jessica Jones film to name but one Marvel property would be able to be done Joker style, same as a lot of the streaming ones that were on. It's the old argument if those films weren't raking in the dollars over the years then they would not have been continued to have been made, in the last year there have been two exceptions to that in Bohemian Rhapsody and Joker, meaning the mood of the cinema has maybe changed and they want more variety. It wasn't so long ago you couldn't fart in an elevator without a Romantic Comedy coming out, there were the disaster blockbusters that lasted for a few years like Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, Twister, 2012, Deep Impact and etc., action films like Die Hard, Taken and that ilk, lately it's been the mega Superhero ones, what people watch ebbs and flows and we're likely at that tipping point now. Note: Just saw the edited in bit, the above was before that and I will add that I believe the future for some films like say the Cohen Bros, Jim Jarmusch and those types make will be on streaming services (Tarantino will end up there one day as well), it fits better than a cinema and the majority of consumers if they have a streaming service will have a large screen anyway. Basically I think it is more to do with the cinema experience now and not so much the film, before all the multiplexes going to see a narrative type film was good, now it's better as an in-home experience (less chatter going on and you can focus in more). This bit: <i>Several years ago he said that movies were dead, and that the “young kids today don’t understand”.</i> That's why some of the more narrative ones on streamers like Legion, Jessica Jones, Daredevil, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, etc. do so well in a field that is predominately the 16-39 demographic because they don't understand, even series like Fargo do well in that demo. It's like you say he's out of touch it's like the talk shows now, not my cup of tea however they aren't going to be because they are appealing to those who stay up late. Someone like Craig Ferguson isn't going to speak to what that age group is experiencing now, James Corden does. Film wise a story about an Italian or Irish Mob Family isn't going to appeal to the younger crowd because it is not what their lives see around them, they grown up with terrorism this, terrorism that so little wonder they take solace in a super hero film, the news is real enough most times. Yep the mix is way different as like here in Australia you get a lot of UK and European Films coming through with our own which are much more of a narrative variety than a lot of the US action blockbusters. Yes we get those as well and they do really good business, however here, the UK and Europe those are still made as the culture is there for them still. For instance here in Australia have a Free To Air channel called World Movies which airs all those kinds of movies 24/7, some subtitled some not and Joker would fit right in on that channel (because say Taxi Driver would). It will depend on how Disney handle it all when their Streaming kicks into full gear and I mean probably a year or so down the track yet. As there is still some time to be served on some characters yet from the cancelled Netflix ones before they can be used again, plus likely other distribution and various other contracts that would have to be tidied up. As if they are still talking Disney + to be Family and Hulu to be the more mature fare along with FX still doing some, it's whether they decide to take the movies down the Legion, Jessica Jones, Daredevil, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, etc., route or keep them for the streaming side is the question. Back in June this year Noah Hawley talked Legion and he had this to say about doing R&D for Marvel. <blockquote>https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-noah-hawley-legion-fargo-20190624-story.html June 24, 2019 The question is, do we need another thing that is the usual fare? I sat down recently with [Marvel Studios head] Kevin Feige and told him I see myself as Marvel’s R&D department. What else can you do with this genre that is not being done already? When I grew up reading “X-Men” and comics and genre fiction in general, it was the places you could go, the fantastical nature of it, the conceptual leaps that were the most mind-expanding. On some level, all of that has been reduced to action. I just wanted to bring it back to its Phillip K. Dick origins, where so much of the story is about the journey, not the destination.</blockquote> Plus this was said in August: <blockquote>https://deadline.com/2019/08/marvel-jeph-loeb-interview-disney-legion-netflix-runaways-ghost-rider-howard-the-duck-hulu-1202666578/ <b>Marvel TV Boss Jeph Loeb On Secret ABC Series, Disney+, ‘Legion’ End, More Crossovers, ‘Ghost Rider’ & Hulu Plans.</b> <i>August 12, 2019 </i> <b>Loeb:</b> It’s a remarkable show created and visualized by an extraordinary filmmaker. Noah carried this from the start — told us how he wanted the show to begin and how he wanted it to end — and we’ve respected that. Having FX as our partner made it very exciting as well from both a creative and marketing stand point. As to the future, that world and those characters will always be there. It’s our hope that Noah will want to return to them in any capacity he thinks is worth telling. FX remains a huge priority for us because we can tell those unexpected stories there and John Landgraf is something of a visionary himself. They “get” us and we “get” them. We like all of that.</blockquote> That means there may be a chance Noah will get to do his Doctor Doom film after all given he's been talking with Kevin Feige and Marvel in general. Which could be a good thing given Hawley was saying basically the same as Scorsese 4 months ago and with Joker doing so well it may mean that it won't just be TV and Streaming that get the grittier ones. I was replying to the bad handwriting comment of AP's not any spelling or grammatical mistakes, granted you can only tell if you follow the light grey of the reply tree up though the way replies get placed here. Yep exactly won't know until it's out and it's all because of Twilight 7-9 years ago, interestingly he's going to be in Christopher Nolan's new film Tenet as well. Yeah I think both films are great in there own right and why I brought up Ledger as you have to remember how many people shit on him being selected to play Joker before it was released. So it is an example of how you just never can tell and just because one does a great job doesn't mean another couldn't in most cases. For instance for one I think in Joker Crispin Glover would have brought just as much to the role. Sure they can get casting wrong at times however I think in both instances whoever they selected would work because they had a certain vision. For instance in my mind casting Johnny Depp in either film would have been tragic however you never really know such is the way it goes, at the point of John Travolta being in Pulp Fiction not many thought he'd be capable of that type of role...yet he was and his career was resurrected. So I will repeat my last sentence then as it applies equally to both: so really who knows someone else may have brought just as much to the role. View all replies >