Hacker Cinema
Gigli
2003 · Film · 122 min
Directed by Martin Brest
Gigli is ordered to kidnap the psychologically challenged younger brother of a powerful federal prosecutor. When plans go awry, Gigli's boss sends in Ricki, a gorgeous free-spirited female gangster who has her own set of orders to assist with the kidnapping. But Gigli begins falling for the decidedly unavailable Ricki, which could be a hazard to his occupation.
6 negative2 neutralfrom 8 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
10 comments on Hacker News
> You can't make this argument for watching a movie, though. You can't substitute some crap movie like Gigli or The Room for the experience of a cinematic masterpiece like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Lawrence of Arabia. It's like comparing some 4-year-old's crayon drawing to a painting by one of the masters.
You can't substitute mspaint for photoshop either, what a weird take.
And you can substitute any capeshit movie for any other capeshit movie since they're all the same.
Your analogy makes no sense.
>One thing you might be overlooking is that there are often substitutes for the pirated products.
This works for software tools, but it doesn't work for movies or other artistic works. For example, personally, I'm a firm believer that no one should pirate Windows: if you can't afford it, then you have lots of free options available (namely, countless Linux distros). Same goes for Photoshop: if you can't afford it (or don't want to), there's free alternatives like Krita. These software programs are just tools to accomplish a task; if you can't get access to one, you can likely find something else to do the same thing.
You can't make this argument for watching a movie, though. You can't substitute some crap movie like Gigli or The Room for the experience of a cinematic masterpiece like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Lawrence of Arabia. It's like comparing some 4-year-old's crayon drawing to a painting by one of the masters.
I never created a movie. I can appreciate a good one over a bad one (Argo, Gigli).
Statistically speaking, the number of people who have created a movie rounds to zero. And yet, to suggest basically no one appreciates a movie or the difference between a good movie and a bad one is obviously very dumb.
People might disagree on what's a great movie, but I don't think anyone disagrees on the very worst movies. No one actually thinks Gigli was a good movie.
It is subjective and cannot be easily codified, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary. Ask ten people about their favorite movie and they'll name ten different films, but I'd wager no one will say "Gigli".
Writing good code requires taste. It is not random.
> Expandables 3 bombed in theatres after a high-definition version was posted on sites that traffic in pirated films.
The movie quality is never to blame, of course. When Gigli flopped, it was because the horrible audience texted to warn their friends after seeing the first showing[0]
If the courts were courts of facts, inference and justice, I would have expected the court to demand statistically significant proof that leaks cause a disaster. That would require showing that more leaked movie did bad than non-leaked movies did well. But the courts seem to rarely care about statistical plausibility in these issues.
[0] http://news-beta.slashdot.org/story/03/08/19/1918243/movie-industry-blames-texting-for-bad-box-office
Another thing to keep in mind is that discounted movie tickets run into another problem - home rentals.
If the choice becomes, watch Titanic for $10, Gigli for $6 or return home and watch last year's Titanic for $5, you're introducing a choice that the consumer would have never before considered.
There was a trend ten years ago to take all those 80's style multiplexes in malls and turn them into cheapo discount theatres. Most of these theatres no longer exist, most likely because the product can't compete with the home rental.
EDIT: You changed your comment, so I'll respond.
Theatres make about 25-55% of the ticket price, and their take increases the longer the movie is shown. That's why you don't have 12 theatres of Titanic. It's also why there is no real incentive for them to reduce the price.
Empty theatres are desired, because you always need somewhere for the people who can't get into the box office smash hit to go.
Let's say you go to see Titanic. You get to the theatre and surprise, sold out. What do you do? Go home? Nope. You go see Gigli, even though that movie would never have brought you to the theatre in the first place. And, you pay the same price as you would have paid to go see the movie you did want to see.
You're suggesting that these people pay less. You're also suggesting that if Gigli was $3 instead of $12, you would actually get off your butt and come to the theatre to see that steaming pile of excrement - knowing full well that everyone reviewing it is telling you it's crap. I think not.
Why do you think the studios position the movies that they know will be very good/in high demand to come out at staggered times? Yup, to ensure that there is always overflow.
Because for the theatre chains, the costs are fixed? Doesn't sound to unusual to me. It costs me as a theatre owner the same amount to show Gigli as it does to show Titanic.
One could argue the length of the movie is a factor, but most people see movies at set times, and at two showings a night it doesn't really matter how long the movie is.
lol, I can picture it as well... it brings to mind that memorable quote from the movie Contact:
"What's the first rule of government spending...? Why buy only one when you can have two for twice the cost?"
This entire venture feels like the startup equivalent of Gigli: it seemed ridiculous before it was released, and even more ridiculous afterwards.