Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: "It" - New Stephen King movie, and other horror movies.

  1. #31

  2. #32


    Quote Originally Posted by Cottontail View Post
    Saw "It" this afternoon. I give it a 3/4. It was enjoyable. I didn't find it scary, though. Perhaps it was a bit too predictable in the timing of its scary moments, or perhaps, because I'd read the book, seen the TV series, and seen all the movie trailers, I was able to anticipate things too well. Whatever. I'll still be looking forward to Part 2. There weren't really any major things about the movie that disagreed with me, but it loses a point anyway for a bunch of smaller failings, such as:
    But I'd still see the movie again.

    But I'll probably read the book again too. Streaming a US-made movie from a country that doesn't abide by US or international copyright law back into the US doesn't make it legal. Sorry, but that's just not true. One might as well claim that counterfeit US currency, if made in just the right foreign country, is legal to bring back and use here. A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is: If you're obtaining fresh, copyrighted material without paying for it, you're probably stealing. I'm pretty sure that holds true in this case.
    You're analogy on the legality would be right IF I was actually bringing the movie back into the US. By live streaming the movies, that doesn't happen. As such, it IS legal. Of which, the supreme court has already ruled on.

  3. #33


    Quote Originally Posted by Slomo View Post
    You're analogy on the legality would be right IF I was actually bringing the movie back into the US. By live streaming the movies, that doesn't happen. As such, it IS legal. Of which, the supreme court has already ruled on.
    Relevant citation needed. Otherwise, still not buying it. A computer can't decode data it hasn't copied, and every decoded frame you see must first exist, in its entirety, in your computer's memory. That's the nature of digital. We're not talking radio waves and CRTs here. Under certain circumstances, copying single video frames may be considered "fair use." Rapidly copying and displaying tens of thousands of frames, even if you're disposing of the evidence after each one, is pretty plainly not "fair use." Right?

    You may have some actual legal precedent in mind here, but if so, I bet you've misapplied it.

    And really, just imagine a world where this was legal: Nothing would work right. YouTube, NetFlix, Hulu, and everybody else who makes money primarily on content distribution would immediately spin up datacenters in Iran and fill them with every movie in existence. Their ad revenues would soar into orbit. Meanwhile, the major studios would be financially ruined as they were forced to return to pre-1980's business models that largely ignored home distribution. Movies shown in theaters would be digitally watermarked with that theater's serial number and any theft, even by crappy cell phone video, would lead the studios to impose heavy penalties or file lawsuits against the theaters whose copies were stolen. Consequently, many theaters would just go out of business because they couldn't afford the necessary TSA-style security screenings and cell phone police. That, or they'd just start live-streaming from Iran too--but with overpriced popcorn and fountain drinks. And then, of course, all the theaters who were still paying through the nose for the official, encrypted, watermarked movies delivered in armored cars by studio agents in bulletproof vests would just say, "You know what? Fuck this." And they'd start streaming from Iran too. Because by then, the streams would be in IMAX 3D!!!! (And then Iran would look at its oil fields and say, "You know what? Fuck this." And they'd pave the oil fields, approve more datacenters, and become the piracy capital of the world.) The studios we have today would eventually go bankrupt, and the only entities producing new content would be the distributors. Short term, these would form an alliance where each would agree not to pirate another member's content for a (brief) period of time after it was first released. This would get tiresome, however, and eventually they'd just start swallowing each other up, leading to one ginormous, unregulated, AT&T-esque content provider for the whole world. You'd be able to watch whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, wherever you wanted--provided you didn't mind having ads for penis- and breast-enlargement pills popping up at random intervals.

    The end.

    (Or something like that.)

    ((Sorry for going OT.))
    Last edited by Cottontail; 20-Sep-2017 at 04:44.

  4. #34


    Still haven't seen IT.

    Just watched a Netflix movie called Little Evil. Funny...

  5. #35


    It took me longer than I expected to get out to see It. I generally enjoyed the movie, although even with a decent runtime, it seemed a little rushed or abbreviated. I don't think the story works as well in 1989 as the original period but I can understand not wanting to do a period piece in both parts. Overall, not bad but I missed Tim Curry.

  6. #36


    Saw "It" a few days ago. I felt like I was watching a new season of stranger things, but with more violence and darker villains. I loved every bit of it.

Similar Threads

  1. Emma Watson in a movie called "Regression"? :D
    By Captain in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-Jun-2014, 04:33
  2. What is a good movie/ cartoon to watch when you are "little"?
    By KaydeeRoo in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-Jul-2011, 02:22
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 27-Oct-2008, 20:23
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 24-Apr-2008, 03:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.