WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

James Cameron and 22 Other Directors Speak Out Against DirecTV's VOD Service

Posted: April 21st, 2011 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
James Cameron and 22 Other Directors Speak Out Against DirecTVSubmit Comment
DirecTV just announced that on April 21st it will launch a new VOD service called Home Premiere that will allow subscribers the ability to watch a movie at home only 60 days after it opens in theaters. The rental price is $29.99 per film and expires after 48 hours. DirecTV already has deals with Warner Bros, Sony, Universal and 20th Century Fox.

Now, 23 leading directors and producers have signed an open letter opposing the new service, claiming that it will weaken the movie theater industry. Directors include James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Michael Bay, Kathryn Bigelow, Guillermo del Toro, Roland Emmerich, Shawn Levy, Michael Mann, Todd Phillips, Brett Ratner, Adam Shankman, Gore Verbinski, Robert Rodriguez, Antoine Fuqua and Robert Zemeckis.

The document states:

"In this proposed distribution model, new movies can be shown in homes while these same films are still in their theatrical run. Currently, the average theatrical release window is over four months (132 days).

As a crucial part of a business that last year grossed close to $32 billion in worldwide theatrical ticket sales, we in the creative community feel that now is the time for studios and cable companies to acknowledge that a release pattern for premium video-on-demand that invades the current theatrical window could irrevocably harm the financial model of our film industry.

Major studios are struggling to replace the revenue lost by the declining value of DVD transactions. Low-cost rentals and subscriptions are undermining higher priced DVD sales and rentals. But the problem of declining revenue in home video will not be solved by importing into the theatrical window a distribution model that cannibalizes theatrical ticket sales.

Make no mistake: History has shown that price points cannot be maintained in the home video window. What sells for $30-a-viewing today could be blown out for $9.99 within a few years. If wiser heads do not prevail, the cannibalization of theatrical revenue in favor of a faulty, premature home video window could lead to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue. Some theaters will close.

Further, releasing a pristine, digital copy of new movies early to the home will only increase the piracy problem — not solve it.

As leaders in the creative community, we ask that our studio partners do not rashly undermine the current – and successful – system that encourages movie lovers to see films in the optimum, and most profitable, exhibition arena: the movie theaters of America."

Source: THR


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 106 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Cd_Smith0 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 6:20:19 AM

Oh Boohoo Cameron and friends. They all know this is where the movie industry is heading and home theater systems are generally better than movie theaters.

sh*t they act like they need an extra gold sink or something.
Devil writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 6:30:40 AM

Brett Ratner is a director?
Carpen7er writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 7:06:49 AM

Don΄t we have piracy already ?
Cinemaisdead writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 7:07:05 AM

Yes, it's going the same direction as the music industry even books are getting pirated on amazon, take the money and power away from these c*nts give inexperienced film makers a chance ANARCHY!! ANARCHY!!!
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 7:09:24 AM

I don't know how much a regular movie ticket cost in the States but if you translate 29,90 dollar to Swedish money, it is twice as much as a regular ticket. Maybe if you add candy and gas to the total cost you might get up to 29,90, but most likely not. Would people really be willing to pay double the amount just to watch it at home? Maybe if it was release day, but this is 60 days after. By that time illegal copies can already be downloaded for free.

There's no denying that movie theaters will be replaced with systems like this. But the studios are taking the wrong approach here. I'm willing to stand with the people who wrote the letter this time.
Carpen7er writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 7:14:29 AM

Most of the actual movies suck, so, who gives a f*.. ?...
government_spy writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:19:50 AM

"Would people really be willing to pay double the amount just to watch it at home?"

If my girlfriend and I go to the theatre (not a matinee) and get popcorn and pop, we could easily be looking at $30 just for tickets, and at least another $10 in refreshments.

If we stay at home, and spend $30 on the rental, on my home theatre system, and we can eat our own food and drink our own (alcoholic) beverages. We can pause the movie for "refills" and bathroom breaks, and not have to listen to anyone's cell phones or annoying children/conversations.

yeah, it's worth it.
BadChadB33 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:23:30 AM

29.99 to watch a movie at home after it's been in theatres for 60 days? f*ck that I'll wait the extra month for it to be out on dvd to "own" for 15.99.
Big_Daddy writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:25:51 AM

30 a movie is high for single viewing but like above for you ,wife , girlfriend and kids to all watch together is well worth the price . Buuuuuuttttttt you can always get it for free anyway sometimes before theatrical release
Ronsauce writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:26:08 AM

$60 is definitely not worth it to me. I tend only to go to the theater on cheap days when tickets are $5.
trailertrash writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:29:24 AM

Big-

What do you mean FREE and BEFORE RELEASE, where's that FBI number..... lol
trailertrash writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:35:49 AM

bad-

Same here mate, I buy 95% of all the films i watch (i have a bad habbit there), so for me i would pass on this offer and just wait.

But like you guys have said the cost of going to the cinema isn't cheap, so i'm sure direcTV will do very well with this.
beepboop writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:44:37 AM

"the current – and successful – system that encourages movie lovers to see films in the optimum, and most profitable, exhibition arena: the movie theaters of America."

As a movie lover I prefer to sit on my couch with snacks that didn't cost a fortune and there's no *sshole coughing or talking or smelling bad and the floor isn't sticky and I don't have to deal with unfriendly people just to get a ticket and I don't have to drive home after it and and and
Trip Maverick writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:48:57 AM

30 dollars for 2 days? thats a bit of a rip off aint it?
markoz writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:58:53 AM

I agree with directors.If I go and see a movie in the theater with my girlfriend I spend(I don't live in US,but I did count in dollars)19,90 and that includes her and mine tickets,double popcorn and two large cokes
achoo writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 9:10:02 AM

this will fail

what aobut 3D films

youll still have to go to cinemas for those!
Big_Daddy writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 9:12:50 AM

@TT

I...er..... don't...download....er........stream...free... I heard...from a friend!! Yeah a friend told me about it.
Big_Daddy writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 9:14:51 AM

@beepbop

no *sshole coughing or talking or smelling bad and the floor isn't sticky

What kind of a theater are you going to? A watch and jerk?
trailertrash writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 9:39:42 AM

^lol,

Sounds like they may have a few glory hole booths there too.
Dre-EL writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 10:04:18 AM

I agree with the directors petition. This kind of VOD service will not only damage but completely destroy the theatre industry. Look what VOD has already done to DVD rental and sales, how could they possibly think this is a good thing.
I have always enjoyed going to the theater, there are some movies I prefer to see on the big screan before seeing it on the small.
I hope the entire industry rises up and protest this cause in the long run only cable tv benefits and pretty soon all movies will be made for tv and video.
SACdaddy writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 10:13:24 AM

To clear things up, full priced tickects in Austin Texas are about $10-$15(3D) each. A small popcorn is $6, regular Coke $5.50, and a small bottle of water is $4. Pretty f*cking expensive if you ask me, but I would still pay it to watch a film when its released and on the big screen. Call me old fashioned, but for all the money, time, and effort that goes into making the modern movie spectacle, I think the final product should be viewed as it was meant to be seen. The best home system still doesn't compare to the theater experience. Not to knock VOD, I'm a big fan of the service. But I would rather see it crush the RedBox/Netflix market than see it effect theater sales. Most of the Same Day as Theater Releases VOD has are usually films that are destined to Straight-to-dvd release or don't really need to be seen on the big screen. Those films are only $10 to rent (for 48hrs) so if they're terrible you don't feel like you lost much. But $30 to rent something that's been out for 2 months already, that's just seems ridiculous. I'm with the JC and the crew but for different reasons. RedBox and Netflix must go!
Big_Daddy writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 10:27:28 AM

^ I don't think anyone is complaining about the overall cost of the movies as a good Friday night with popcorn and drinks is old fashioned and good fun. Its when you spend that amount of money on sh*tfests that everyone is complaining about. The same thing happened with music, the artists got lazy and would put a hit or 2 out of a 14 track album. People rebelled and downloaded for free. Then the industry said wait wait, lets make it a pay per track thing and people embraced. Make good films and the people will get to the theater to watch no matter the cost.
Aingx writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 11:00:26 AM

Have 4 friends over and divide up that $30 cost and ENJOY watching a movie for once. NO screaming kids, NO annoying people who like to provide commentary, NO *ssholes using their phones and NO smelly fat people to sit in front of you...

Sounds like a goddamn dream come true to me AND the reason why I'd pirate.
HISNAMEISROBERTPAULSON writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 11:06:50 AM

Would'nt the studios be entitled to a cut of the $30? if so can't see the problem
nuttie30xx writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:01:25 PM

We all love to see a movie as soon as its released hense all the piracy but i think they should leave it the way it is the more money the cinema makes the more money they make to make amazing films when the odd one comes alnog ☺
Bunny X writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:12:35 PM

Stop complaining!! Sure because 60 days after a movie is out, the seats are still jam packed every night.
BadChadB33 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:13:49 PM

TT-Same here. My schedual's been so busy I haven't been able to go to theatres in months. Plus at the extremely fast rate movies are coming out on DVD, I'm just gonna wait till most of em come out on DVD to see em anyways.
Lulupendragon writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:45:36 PM

I love going to the theater to see a movie, but I like seeing them at home, too. I think if they charged $20 instead of $30, I'd be glad to use this service. For now, though, I'll stick to my Netflix and Hulu to watch movies.
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:01:15 PM

I know Cameron only made $525 million last year so he's pinching pennies... but bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch!

It's not like the people are paying $5. for that 60 day release... they're paying $30. so STFU!
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:04:42 PM

What most have said here...

Watch in the comfort of your home with NO interruptions from others normally found in theaters (less chance of getting shot at home as well).

So $30 and you only get it for 2 days.

Hey Cameron, you whiny bitch. People that don't have decent home theater systems are still going to the theater you greedy f*ck. And the ONLY ones going to see a movie after the first month are likely repeat customers. So again... STFU!
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:14:39 PM

"I'm willing to stand with the people who wrote the letter this time."

You're willing to stand with their opinion that this will hurt theaters but then your entire previous argument works to completely undermine their objections. Do you agree with their objections, or not, and why?

Sounds like they're just worried about less money in the old pockets and sounds like they just want to elminate natural progress. What's next, publishers trying to ban Kindles and Ipads because the new digital distribution model is killing bookstores?

It's called progress.
blinkbomber writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:46:45 PM

I recently watched James Gunn's Super using DirecTV Cinema (VOD) service, mainly because I live in a small town and the film was limitedly released. Granted, it was only 7.99. But still I enjoyed it and could watch it as many times for the next day or two. While 29.99 is a little steep, if ever I wanted to do it I'd just invite more than a few people over and have them pay for the "concessions" (aka booze, pizza, anything else that you can't get at an actual theater).
Fredthesock writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:47:52 PM

MOST films have already made the bulk of their revenue within the first two months of release anyway. If anything this will be ADDED revenue to a film that is probably already on it's way to DVD/BluRay. Even if just 1.5 Million (a relatively modest number) people decide to use the VOD service instead of the theater, that is an extra $4,500,000 that a film could be making on it's 61ST day of release. To put that into perspective, by it's 60th day of theatrical release, the film The Social Network was only pulling in $707,000 in box office sales. From a financial standpoint it makes perfect sense.

As far as the directors whining about 'preserving the theater experience', that sh*t starts with making movies WORTHY of people going out and spending the $30 that it costs to see a movie opening weekend ANYWAY. You want people to care about your films, start making original movies again. Hmm, what's coming out this summer? Scream 4, Pirates 4, Fast Five, Kung Fu Panda 2, The Hangover 2, Cars 2, Transformers 3, Harry Potter 8...
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:48:06 PM

"Some theaters will close."

Oh noooooes!

And I bet this all about their plans to whore out 3D for the next ten to twenty years. Allowing films to move to homes quicker through VOD might ruin their plans to make billions off the new 3D craze.
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:50:50 PM

Well said mink (as usual).

Home theater systems have gotten very reasonably priced. People don't want to go to theaters as much. Sure (I know I'll take a beating for this)... Avatar is best seen in IMAX 3D - that's how I saw it. That's what I paid to see it... no regrets paying for the visual spectacular it was. But I'd be fine watching 99.99% of other movies on a decent home theater system. My crapper down the hall. Beer in the fridge. Less chance of my shoes getting stuck to the floor (unless it's great porn!), getting bit or shot. And avoiding assault charges kicking the sh*t out of some mouth-piece, funny wannabe commentator in the crowd.

Plus (as I have already said) $30 for a 48 viewing window... WTF is Cameron and others bitching about? We don't even get a DVD hardcopy for that.

So suck it James... SUCK IT!
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:52:18 PM

Think of the environment Cameron. Mother Earth you're always so concerned about. My vehicles have V8's (engines... not the drink). Now think of my reduced carbon footprint staying at home to watch movies... you hypocritical f*ck!
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:53:17 PM

"Even if just 1.5 Million (a relatively modest number) people decide to use the VOD service instead of the theater, that is an extra $4,500,000 that a film could be making on it's 61ST day of release. To put that into perspective, by it's 60th day of theatrical release, the film The Social Network was only pulling in $707,000 in box office sales"

Yeah, but the 1.5 mil ffor VOD is over it's entire run, whereas the 700 grand is perhaps per day. You would have to speak of RATES for day and not simple numbers to make any sense of where more money would be made, and for films not nearly of the calibre and rep of TSN, the situation changes more.
Fredthesock writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:53:36 PM

*^$45,000,000
Fredthesock writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:09:21 PM

Minkowski - i'm talking at least weekend earnings. Social Network made $707,153 in box office sales for the weekend of November 26th, 2010. This would have been right around it's 60th day in theaters (the total box office gross at that point was around $90 Million). Now lets say that 1.5 million people decided that they would wait until that same weekend to watch it on VOD, the film would have pulled in $45,000,000 that same weekend, roughly half of it's total gross for the 9 weeks it had already been in theaters.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2010/SOCIL.php
HideousSecretion writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:12:01 PM

Yes, James Cameron speak out against technology. No hypocrisy there. The world is changing and these fossils can't adapt. I understand their fear but VOD isn't going to destroy theatres. The chattering teenage girls kicking my seat are. So are people who wait to the most important moment to open the krinkly plastic wrapper on the 5lbs of candy they bought at concession. So is the *sshole checking his cellphone down in the front row ever 10 seconds. The world has bred *ssholes and the remaining humans don't want to share a theatre with rude distracting sc*m.
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:17:20 PM

Yeah, but you're assuming 1.5 million people would choose to watch it on the little screen for $30.00 a pop rather than $9.00 a pop on the big, big screen.

And yeah, concessions are expensive, but they're enot mandatory. If you can't go 90 minutes without eating, you shouldn't be sitting down anyway.

I think the real issue is that theaters pay handsomely to screen hollywood films and I think that under the VOD moedl, revenue gets diverted from Hollywood into the VOD service provider instead.

There has to be a very good reason people like Cameron are up in arms. As Ranger said, it's actually better for the environment to have less people driving to the theater, not that Cameron has ever been consistent, but I don't think this is about their concern for the theaters for the theater's sake; it's about them, and it must be about money, their money, so the real question, for me anyway, under the VOD model, how much revenue is getting diverted from them into the VOD service provider versus the old theater model?
rabid writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:28:56 PM

Amaon.com offers pre-theatrical releases on demand... and I love it. I watched Hobo With a Shotgun, Monsters, Skyline, a few others before they hit theaters. Some of the films didn't even play locally, but I only got to see them because I rented them.
I understand that Hollywood is quaking. The internet changed the name of the game, and the best save tactics Hollywood bring in a lot less money than the theater-seat-system.

Some films are just fun to enjoy in a theater, but ever since my home setup began to match the might of the theater, my ass is much less beholden to the fuzy stadium seats. Plus I can have a beer and a spliff at home if I choose, but I have to go to the dirty dozen homeless theater if i want to do that in public. Funky place. I remember watching Corky Romano as a guy in front of me got head from a hooker.
If theaters really want to hook people on the leaving-home-experience, they should consider renovating the nation's drive-ins and perfecting outdoor projection and sound tech.
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:31:35 PM

... and offer HoD - Hookers on Demand.
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:32:59 PM

"I remember watching Corky Romano as a guy in front of me got head from a hooker."

That's called 'ambience'.
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:36:08 PM

"If theaters really want to hook people on the leaving-home-experience, they should consider renovating the nation's drive-ins and perfecting outdoor projection and sound tech."

Some of that IIRC was already looked into. And they calculated it would cost billions, and with some theater chains barely scraping by, they don't have the liquidity to do that right now. Or so I read.

Down in Hell, I mean Texas, they have this place I went to one time where it's basically a decent diner in front of the big screen. You have a table and a waiter and oh god the food was good.
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:40:02 PM

Studio Movie Grill it was called, and I say the food was great only because my stomach is doing a Lohan right and begging to get stuffed.
Inception writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:40:40 PM

"Watch in the comfort of your home with NO interruptions from others normally found in theaters (less chance of getting shot at home as well).

So $30 and you only get it for 2 days.

Hey Cameron, you whiny bitch. People that don't have decent home theater systems are still going to the theater you greedy f*ck. And the ONLY ones going to see a movie after the first month are likely repeat customers. So again... STFU!"

@Ranger:

My friend you have hit the nail on the head. I still like the whole theater experience, nothing like it. But some people are still greedy as f*ck. Oh and if not mistaken they are still gonna make money from all of this.
Inception writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:43:23 PM

Looking at that picture of Cameron just makes me want to beat the living hell out of him.
GuyBushwithWood writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:43:51 PM

I don't know, I've been going to the Cinema since I was a kid and I always loved the atmosphere minus the kicks into the back of my seat and people with big hair sitting infront of me and missing 5 minutes of the movie at a pinacle moment to take a piss but other than that I would miss traditonal cinema viewing.

It took me ages to get use to the cinema going digital, no gate weaving or scratches, just pure clean quality.

However people may like or dislike the idea of this, it's probably the way it's going to happen eventually anyway. But I can't afford a good set of Surround speakers yet so i'll have to keep buying tickets...
Inception writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:46:56 PM

BTW Cameron can stick his trajectory up his ass. Give him a low budget and some unknown actors to see if he can pull something now days. He will starve to death.
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:50:59 PM

"Oh and if not mistaken they are still gonna make money from all of this."

Yeah, but less than before, and it also potentially crunches the nascent 3D film market, especially when Sony and others are working on delivering 3D to home televisions.

Besides, does it make sense that you would avoid seeing a film within the first sixty days for nine bucks, only to pay thirty to see it two months later? Nine bucks now, 30 later. Yeah, I'm not sure that's even going to work.

True theater at home, first day, for cheap. Now that's something they probably truly fear. No more punching-bag theaters to rape.
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 2:54:56 PM

@Inception, thank you and yes and yes.

Like... Green Lantern in 3D will get me to a theater. Anything with Owen Wilson (for example) won't.

As for the 'theater experience'... anyone can bitch about 3D, but some movies are made for it... GL is one of them.

Otherwise, I'd rather sit at home, order a pizza from my favorite place, sit on my own toilet when the need arises, beer in the fridge... it's all good.

Keep whining theaters... you've been doing it for decades.
technoreaper writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:09:19 PM

The movie theaters are a ripoff, and everyone knows what can be done to improve them. Lower prices and stop being so greedy. Cut the budgets for a lot of these movies. Tell the CGI companies to lower their rates. They'll have to if the studios look for lower cost options.

It's just not fun to go to the movies anymore. If anything, I'd support a movie club option where you can spend $100 or $200 a year to become a member and pay favorable pricing for snacks and movie tickets. That way, you could keep the trash out too.
rabid writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:12:33 PM

The only reason drive-ins are still in existence around here is because they're not policed. So you can take a date to a movie, cook hamburgers on your hibachi, bring a beer cooler, spark a blunt, and then do her in the back seat. I'm not sure people really go for the films.
I'm pretty sure the omnipresence of passive 3d tvs and large wall montors within five years is going to destroy the theater industry. I just don't see 3D going away anytime soon. Once the glasses are gone later this year, people will embrace the tech and the manufacturers will find a way to stretch the parallax angle so a room of people can watch. The latest rumors are that convex screens are the future.
Inception writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:16:19 PM

@Mink:

"Besides, does it make sense that you would avoid seeing a film within the first sixty days for nine bucks, only to pay thirty to see it two months later? Nine bucks now, 30 later. Yeah, I'm not sure that's even going to work."

Over here is six bucks, from 6 to 30, now that's a pretty big jump. I like the idea but the price is a little too expensive for only 1 person. If your having some friends over or you are going to another one's house where there 6 people and everyone puts 5 dollars, then it's not a bad bargain. But still for a movie that has been released for more than 7 weeks, I still feel in some way getting stab in the back.

"True theater at home, first day, for cheap. Now that's something they probably truly fear. No more punching-bag theaters to rape."

lol, true. I bet, that's their major concern.
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:16:55 PM

@rabid (and others) - what do you know for sure about 3D home TV's and the glasses disappearing for good (facts, time-frame, etc.)?
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:20:36 PM

James, if you are reading this: 'BLOW ME!'
trailertrash writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:22:39 PM

He will want $60 bucks for that ranger
BadChadB33 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:24:08 PM

^ Correction-Just smile and Blow me!!!
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:25:10 PM

Figures.
trailertrash writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:25:41 PM

Forget all these Hollywood direcors , I'm worried about dodgy dave from the pub and how this will affect his boot leg film business.
BadChadB33 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:25:44 PM

TT-60 bucks and let him shoot in 3D
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:26:58 PM

I can see how the a slightly convex screen would work to adjust to fix parallax issues in large rooms for multiple viewers watching 3D, but I don't see that becoming the widely used norm.

Prohibitively expensive for one thing, rooms large enough to justify convex screens and the simple niche appeal of 3D aren't going to cause people to build bigger homes and apartments, nor will floor plan designers incorporate large convex screens into floorplan considerations.

Also, I haven't seen any plans to build modular screens. It's hard enough working a couch into a living room, much less a convex wall-sized television. And the material design for 3D televisions that you can roll up is long ways off.

All of this sounds like luxury technology that'll take twenty years to filter down into the middle-class demographics, if ever, with new technologies and better viewing tech always arising.

Someone tomorrow might invent a nano-display crystal you can manufacture out of recycled consumer plastic that's capable of emitting multiple lights in multiple directions. Holography, in other words.
trailertrash writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:27:57 PM

That will be the Directors Suck then Bad
BadChadB33 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:28:16 PM

TT-no worries the boot leg business will never die.
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:31:00 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXHTYMbIbHs
Inception writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:31:31 PM

"Like... Green Lantern in 3D will get me to a theater. Anything with Owen Wilson (for example) won't."

I became more of a fan of GL, when you or Mink, I think, recommended GL: First Flight, in a thread. I saw it and the character and mythology behind all is really interesting. I will also go and see it in theaters.

The only movies I like of Owen are the movies directed by Wes Anderson. But that doesn't mean I will go to a theater and see him, lol.

"As for the 'theater experience'... anyone can bitch about 3D, but some movies are made for it... GL is one of them."

Don't know if I will watch it in 3D. Not a 3D fan, but If the 3D ends up looking wayyyyy better than T: Legacy, then yes.

"Otherwise, I'd rather sit at home, order a pizza from my favorite place, sit on my own toilet when the need arises, beer in the fridge... it's all good."

The best part is that I can pack my bong and smoke ganja, and no one will complain. Oh and going to the fridge, I mean that's what I like about it, you can do much more.

"Keep whining theaters... you've been doing it for decades."

For decades? Those bastards have been doing it for an entire century or more, lol.
BadChadB33 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:34:53 PM

Ranger- Nice find!
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:38:15 PM

"The movie theaters are a ripoff, and everyone knows what can be done to improve them."

They're a ripoff because of what they have to pay in order to bring films to their screens. They make little to nothing off ticket sales which is why a rubbery hot dog costs 3.50 or more.

Think about convenience stores. They make a penny or so per gallon of gas sold, which is why they sell ten dollar condoms.

They have to make money off the all the other merchandise because they can't sell gas at a profit because they're already paying high costs upfront.

If people started using electricity at home for their cars, gas stations would disappear, just like if people started watching first-run theatrical films in the comfort of their living room, theaters would disappear, or nearly so, and as they started to disappear, TV sales would increase as prices declined to meet higher demand.

Same goes for surround sound equipment. More demand means more sold means more made means cheaper prices, and before long, hardly anyone would go to a theater, and theaters are far easier to rape than the average consumer.

We saw the very same thing with Napster. And now bookstores. It's happening. History is being made and some people, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, are highly resistant. Even afraid. New and younger and fresher heads will not only prevail but they'll capitalize handsomely on this emerging model.
rbattle1 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:41:18 PM

First of all there is no creative tallent in Hollywood anymore, the crap they are making is'nt worth the cost already. Second this will only increase bootlegging from the streets to the home. Directors should be focusing on putting out quality films for now and give people a reason to spend there hard earned money as aposed to crap like sucker punch, Arthur, Scream 4, Paul, do I need to go on? focus on good movies and you will fill up the theaters because people should demand there money back for the crap thats out these days.
Big_Daddy writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:43:20 PM

DirecTV just announced that on April 21st it will launch a new VOD service called Home Premiere


Al Gore beat you to it.....he calls it

The internetssss bitshesss
BadChadB33 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:43:34 PM

Rbattle-spot on!
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:49:14 PM

The crap to good ratio hasn't really changed radically since the seventies. They just make more of both now. And that more of both is much bigger business that it was 30 years ago, and they've become addicted to easy cash, so that's what this is all about. They're concerned they may have to go on a diet after binging on the consumers wallet for over three decades.
rabid writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:50:29 PM

it' not like a huge convex half-bubble like a Sylent Green pong game. The designs I saw was a very narrow convex, almost like the edge of a beveled-in cafeteria tray but gradual.
Other groups of researchers are working with corners of rooms, trying to create the 3d between the 90degree swath of 2 walls.

I don't know how long it will take for all the tech to become flawless, but I'm totally obsessed with this new 3ds I got. I'll be glad when they can start streaming movies to it.
synthetic1985 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:00:19 PM

I agree with some points of the letter...but honestly, the world wasn't in ruin before cinema's were actually created, and they had live theater performances, the next step obviously for films is kind of what they did in final destination 3 dvd, interactive plots...doesn't mean theaters are going to be saved...at least not with the prices they enforce on theaters...if people weren't forced to pay past 10 dollars to watch a movie in 3D, who knows maybe it would bring in more numbers as more and more people would be able to afford it...and then there's the food and drinks, theaters could make more money if their prices for candy were i don't know only $0.00 - $1.00 more than what they charge at any store instead of them being 2 or 3 dollars more costly?...the popcorn is most disturbing, i can get an Orville's 4 pack movie theater buttered popcorn for 1 dollar at walmart...that's right, 1 dollar for a potential two large popcorns, instead of paying 5-8 dollars for one large...honestly, if you have a girlfriend, get her a big purse and make sure you have one of those packages of popcorn, bottles filled up with soda from a two liter bottle that costs a whopping 78 cents at walmart rather than 3 or 4 dollars for just a small?...if people only did these kind of penny and dollar saving techniques, maybe we'd find more people in the theaters again, but raising the prices and terrible movies aren't going to help...honestly the world isn't going to end if theaters go out of business, it'll just be the end of rich obnoxious directors who try and stress 3D down our throats as if we need it
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:00:58 PM

Curved surfaces catch more specular glare, so I hope they can counter even a gradual, slight convexity with material that either scatters or absorbs incident light, or else all that pretty 3D is going to be a pain to watch, glasses or not.

Also, the 3DS relies on a slider to work, and according to Ars Technica, it's absolutely required to make 3D on even that little screen more than an annoying eyesore.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/03/3ds-hardware-arrives-why-the-3d-slider-is-the-best-thing-ever.ars

Someone in the Ars Technica comments compared it to one of those foil holograms, and that's not good because then the 3DS is just a digital version of something we've had for decades.
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:02:45 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_barrier
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:04:18 PM

The article compares it to lenticular printing, which isn't the same per se as the foil card methodology but the same result essentially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_printing

Very interesting. I might actually learn something from WP yet.
trailertrash writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:05:07 PM

3D at the movies just doesn't do anything for me.

Keep it for the theme parks.

Anyone played any 3D games yet ?
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:06:14 PM

"A disadvantage of the technology is that the viewer must be positioned in a well defined spot to experience the 3D effect."

Well parallax barriers won't work for multiple viewers, then. There goes that.

Basically the barrier just sends different images to different eyes using parallax. Quite clever actually.
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:12:09 PM

Skynet's Top Ten Tweets (Cameron-related)

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/20/6501639-skynets-top-10-tweets-before-judgment-day
trailertrash writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:25:29 PM

GLaDOS has Electronic Herpes, Well i never..
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:29:44 PM

Yeah, where was Ranger last night?
trailertrash writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:39:03 PM

haha !!

With GLaDOS apparently ...
Scott Baiowulf writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:42:01 PM

oh cameron youre such a bastard. no worries, everyone will just download for free you ass.
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:46:07 PM

Yeah, if massive rampant piracy hasn't slowed them down, I don't see how 60-day-delayed VOD will hurt them any more.
Scott Baiowulf writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:53:49 PM

how arrogant and greedy is this prick?
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:59:14 PM

Which one?
synthetic1985 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 5:13:01 PM

@trailertrash...i've played a 3DS at gamestop, it was pretty cool, could definitely see 3D working better with games than they do with movies...i just miss the quality we used to see in everything back then...older movies had more imagination than all the best cgi effects could impress visually...i've been saying it for years now, and i'll say it again, it's all about originality these days

@Cd_Smith0 i think most of these directors have home theaters, and someone here pointed it out too, that this offer is really not going to hurt anything, i mean with this bad economy and all, the only people that can afford it are rich people, and God knows there's more poor than rich people right?
triggax writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 5:18:49 PM

Stupid really..

Regardless of whether or not select people will be willing to spend horrendous amounts of cash on a film that would already be in the "cheap theaters" is irrelevant.

The one film that comes to mind recently for me, is True Grit. I had actually wanted to go see this film in theater, so I did. Then less than a month later the film was available as a screener online, the resolution of the video was unreal. It had it's production watermarks but aside from that, unreal..

I downloaded it, watched it again, it was a damn good movie and I paid for it to watch. Same as The Town, Inception and Shutter Island in the recent year. I paid for all of these films probably the weekend they came out. I run a dying theater and we don't tend to get films the day of release, for that I have to drive a while, so it's quite the commitment. What i'm attempting to get at is, why would someone be willing to shell out that much cash for a film that might suck d*ck? Its not like you get a refund. Another huge problem with it is the time of release, well if a film is less than an hour away for 10 dollars, 2 months before you can see it for 30 dollars.. whats the smart mans choice there? I would think you'd have to be retarded to f*cking spend money on something so stupid, especially considering I had a damn decent copy of True Grit mere weeks after its theatrical release. AND IT WAS FREE!!!

The good ones, you're all going to spend money on.. Avatar made 3 billion during a recession.. Yeah f*cking.. what the f*ck.. How could this horribly stupid marketing strategy that won't last because it costs as much as fight night, ever hold up against the big business of the film industry.

f*cking whiney f*cking cry baby hollywood directors.. Im sorry, if you make a movie and make 3 billion dollars off of it, you no longer get to complain how the studios make money using your property.. Go sleep on your bed of money and leave the decision making to rational human beings.. Not eccentric over powerful liberal closet case homosexuals like everyone in that list of directors.

It's just a stupid idea.. I love movies.. I love the cinema experience and I think if the film is good enough its box office receipts will ALWAYS speak volumes of the films quality so shut the f*ck up directors.. twats.

I had no real point. I just felt like typing for a while.

Triggax out.
synthetic1985 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 5:25:28 PM

@minkowski...i was just thinking, what if movie theaters dropped the prices of their food to the point where they'd be facing closure? would studios finally reduce their sh*tty ticket prices then?...or at least share the wealth with theaters so people don't spend their money elsewhere due to outrageous food prices
triggax writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 5:31:32 PM

"honestly, if you have a girlfriend, get her a big purse and make sure you have one of those packages of popcorn, bottles filled up with soda from a two liter bottle that costs a whopping 78 cents at walmart rather than 3 or 4 dollars for just a small?"

I operate a Film Theater in Canada and yes, the concession prices are outrageous. Did you ever think though, of what it cost to keep a cinema running? More than you could imagine, the electricity costs alone are unbelievable, especially when you're in my position. An old theater in a small town. When someone comes into my theater to sully my floors and fart in my f*cking air and has the brass to sneak in outside food, i'd much rather give them a solid beating than throw them out.

I can't tell you what it costs for an Imax to operate but I guarantee you its significantly more than mine. The theater organization is making very little money.

Are you going to blame the gas station for the price of gas? No.. So what is it that you're doing by doing that?

You realize gas stations make absolutely no money on gas and rely heavily on the purchases of goods in the store.

So yeah, its expensive. Dont f*cking buy it. But don't sneak sh*t in like you're above everyone else on the planet. That makes you look like an ass and an ignorant person. These theaters that you're basically stealing from by not adhering to their rules are providing you with something you can't get anywhere else, and they have to pay for every second of your enjoyment, regardless of whether or not everyone thinks admission prices got crazy.

I charge 5 dollars for a movie. Brand new or dead old. Imagine when you go to a theater that has an Imax and 25 coliseum style screens.. The reason ticket pricers are higher is because we want everything to be lavish and insane and mind f*cking blowing.. Its f*cking expensive to do that.. So you get to pay for it. Simple as that, otherwise just don't go to the theater.

No offense intended but that sh*t is right up there with stealing cable.. Like you're so much more awesome than the millions of people that have to work hard to pay for it.
triggax writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 5:35:50 PM

I have a biased opinion though.

But in reality I have to pay admission and concession in my own theater and I will always pay for them out of my own pocket. The best term to describe that kind of ass f*cking is "Them the breaks" Nothing you can do, and the studios have little to do with the price of admissions. They definitely help define the price points at certain theaters but it is a very informed decision based on the costs of operations. Everyone needs to make money..

The studios are all greedy jews but lets not take away anything from our beloved cinema. Thats how I feel anyhow.
triggax writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 5:50:11 PM

I must retract my initial statement that all of those directors were fags. Didn't see Michael Manns name in there until just now. He must have been drunk. No way he's so stupid.. Although he's made quite the name for himself as a producer so you never know.
funseeker writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 5:59:33 PM

sorry, i know this is off topic but when i see james (pocahontas) cameron in title this is what i think about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7G1ttn579w&feature=related
synthetic1985 writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 6:24:53 PM

@ triggax...i understand your opinion completely, i may not have ran a theater, but i did work in one, and i cannot stress enough how stupid people are after you tell them over and over that you are just the concessionist, not the evil corporate *sshole who decides the prices...or the evil corporate *sshole in charge of the evil corporate *sshole who makes devilish decisions that forces the other evil corporate *sshole to enforce those prices...anyway my point is, just because the theater might be the middle man in trouble, doesn't mean it has to be...the studios depend on theaters on a lot of things i'm sure, but the thing studios depend on most are their viewers...you should talk to other theater owners and come up with ideas that'll put studios back in the middle where they should be...one thing i really hate though, is when you buy a movie, something happens to it, so you have to buy it again...nobody should ever have to pay more than once for a film, in fact they should give people codes to download films in case of scratched dvds or some other damage, etc...it's like for every illegally downloaded sh*tty film, a poor family gains a meal...screwed up industry
Ranger writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 7:42:18 PM

'...where was Ranger last night?'

Heeeyyyyy!
minkowski writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 8:53:42 PM

^^Joking, joking bro!
rabid writes:
on April 21st, 2011 at 11:00:25 PM

@ Ranger

Samsung, Toshiba, and Sharp are releasing the passive 3D screens later this year. Philips has a 56" coming out next year for around $4000. The american outlets are going to wait and see how they perform in Japan, but Sharp has said they'll be the first with a 20" 3d monitor for $1600 possibly by Christmas. It will basically be a larger version of Nintendo's 3DS screen (which Sharp designed).
The only limitation is that the viewer must be in a precise spot to see it... 3 feet away I believe.
I'm into it. $1500 is good enough for me and I watch most of my movies on the 20" touchscreen in my studio already. My old bucket of bolts pc runs a 3D program that converts and games and movies the same way the theater does. Sadly it only works with dongled monitors, not all-in-ones, and those monitors rarely have a refresh rate high enough to keep the flicker effect away. The 3Dtvs that require glasses are about to get very cheap as they could be totally obsolete by this time net year.

I'm all for the next wave of 3Dtvs. I ordered a 3DS thinking it'd make a great toy, but I can't stop marvelling at what an innovative piece of technology it is. Instead of flat pixels, each piel is facted in a way that deflects photons in 9 different directions at once.
I've already begun planning paintings in 3D. Sharp is putting out some large passive 3D photo frames later this year, and I plan to buy a bundle.
minkowski writes:
on April 22nd, 2011 at 12:25:11 AM

"The only limitation is that the viewer must be in a precise spot to see it... 3 feet away I believe."

Three feet away from a friggin' tv just to enjoy some gimmick that adds nothing to the story? Fools and their money are soon...and that's what you get when you make a TV from parallax barrier tech.

"but I can't stop marvelling at what an innovative piece of technology it is"

You did read above where I pointed out that parallax barrier tech is nothing revolutionary, but basically an improvement over lenticular printing using LCD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopy

Does no one read any more, or, and this mmay be a rhetorical question, is everyone too busy playing with expensive toys?

"Instead of flat pixels, each piel is facted in a way that deflects photons in 9 different directions at once."

I'm sorry, my good man, but I believe you're bullsh*tting.

No where do I see anything regarding 'faceted' pixels in the 3DS hardware specs and the parallax barrier technology doesn't rely on a display method of that kind.

In fact, I can't even find anything referencing multifaceted pixels, save the idea I myself pulled out of my ass above.

So I kindly ask you to source your claim.
minkowski writes:
on April 22nd, 2011 at 12:28:08 AM

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/12/3d_illusion/
minkowski writes:
on April 22nd, 2011 at 12:30:48 AM

Basically, the parallax barrier separates the composite images which are geherated internally by the 3DS, displays them separately at an angle somewhere in front of the screen where you would locate your eyes, and your brain reassembles the images into a 3D image. Inside the brain. Really simple stuff.
The_Zizzler writes:
on April 22nd, 2011 at 4:34:05 AM

This move won't hurt the industry, it will completely destroy them.

Piracy teams will just chip in $5 each or less, purchase the service and release it to the net RAPID. R5's will also benefit with near perfect audio quality sync.

Seriously, do you really think most viewers will purchase a $30 ticket? They will just wait for a week download it.


rabid writes:
on April 22nd, 2011 at 12:20:37 PM

sorry buddy, it does have multi-faceted pixels. It gives you a nice little presentation on how it works when you start up the 3DS.
rabid writes:
on April 22nd, 2011 at 12:21:13 PM

And until you've actually seen how impressive a music video on the screen is, you're talkin out yer ass.
funseeker writes:
on April 22nd, 2011 at 3:47:01 PM

price of movie ticket was never an issue with me, i download movies and i stay away from cinema because movies are getting worse, they have no drive, they have only effects, no story whatsoever, no real reason to pay for them or to watch them sitting down for two hours. shows like justified and game of thrones keep me glued to my seat, but what movie is worth my time, even with free ticket?
tomb rider when angelina punches a shark?
chris o'(robin)donell jumping across abysses in vertical limit, vin diesel running faster then rotation of a planet, matrix 2 - movie edited with more psycho drugs them mouse clicks???? why would i waste my time and money for such a product? give us something like last of the mohicans, seven, l.a. confidential and i would go see it in cinema come hell or high water, but most movies i watch dl-ed for free and still i am left unsatisfied and angry at myself for wasting my time!!! it is no about distribution or cinemas, movies lack quality, desire to make money and not to tell a story is too obvious (battleship the movie, monopoly the movie ???) so people respond by staying away from theaters, and it's not a matter of pay per view, tickets - it's just a matter of coninuos decline in quality and in making nothing sacred - i mean in wolverine (a sh*tty movie) they made deadpool mute!!! a merc with a mouth is mute (and has soooo much unneeded powers it hurts), and will smiths campaign to ruin sf classics didn't make me want to go to cinema. new cgi jar jar binks starwars are also low on cinematic joybringing, and i can't even remember what sh*tty new movies i have seen this year, and i did see a lot and instantly forgot all except solomon kane and jonah hex (a waste of time, i feel sorry that they had to cut a tree to make paper to prins script on it, such a waste). so hollywood, make good and innovative movies and people will watch them in cinemas, but recycled sh*t is not going to sell on vod or anywhere!!

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved