Edit: This is an example of why I post links for anything likely to be questioned. Really takes no significant time to ferret out the facts in most cases either, more often a matter of a few minutes. This one took less than that.
Too many folks are quick to assume something they'd like to believe must be true if some other person on a forum said it was so.
It's enough that you went there. Google's "Play" store has nothing of interest for me.
There wasn't really a need to ask if you were right. Since you were publicly posting your theory for Apple not quickly rolling out the movie I would have thought you'd at least take a moment to see if it had any validity. That by itself was a good reason to look at what quality Google was steaming before posting your supposition don't you think? You obviously had an interest.
There wasn't really a need to ask if you were right. Since you were publicly posting your theory for Apple not quickly rolling out the movie I would have thought you'd at least take a moment to see if it had any validity. That by itself was a good reason to look at what quality Google was steaming before posting your supposition don't you think? You obviously had an interest.
Whatever Apple's actual reason, it doesn't really matter at this point does it?
I believe the issue here was Sony didn't give Apple enough time to properly prep the files for iTunes. Speed to market is not Apple's concern, they are about quality and as I understand it no one is currently showing The Interview in an Apple-quality format. Am I right or not?
I'm absolutley positive that is Apple wanted to get this thing on iTunes in a few days notice, they could have handled it. I'm sure someone just thought, oh it's too fast a turn around. But this was an opportunity that stretches beyond the normal day to day routine. Google sweeps in, gets it done in a day and gathers up lots of iTunes customers and show them how they can rent and buy movies on YouTube. This will be the headline.
I'm absolutley positive that is Apple wanted to get this thing on iTunes in a few days notice, they could have handled it. I'm sure someone just thought, oh it's too fast a turn around. But this was an opportunity that stretches beyond the normal day to day routine. Google sweeps in, gets it done in a day and gathers up lots of iTunes customers and show them how they can rent and buy movies on YouTube. This will be the headline.
I did rent (pay) for content from YouTube, as well as use their Apple TV app, both for the first time. It was an enjoyable experience.
Edit: This is an example of why I post links for anything likely to be questioned. Really takes no significant time to ferret out the facts in most cases either, more often a matter of a few minutes. This one took less than that.
Too many folks are quick to assume something they'd like to believe must be true if some other person on a forum said it was so.
I went thru quite a few posts to see who he was referring to. Yeah, I found your comment which only concerned what you were able to get from YouTube and not what Google made available. By the way were you really stuck with 480P or did you find you had an HD option streaming YouTube thru your AppleTV or Chromecast? I thought I remembered you mentioning you had both.
I went thru quite a few posts to see who he was referring to. Yeah, I found your comment which only concerned what you were able to get from YouTube and not what Google made available. By the way were you really stuck with 480P or did you find you had an HD option streaming YouTube thru your AppleTV or Chromecast? I thought I remembered you mentioning you had both.
I can't say the quality definitely looked either 480p or 720p. All I know is that the max quality showed 480p on YouTube.com. I spent most of my viewing on my Mac.
My roommates watched it later that night on the Apple TV, but they would be no help in determining the quality as SD or HD. Either way, I can't say it matters for this film, but (to repeat) I can say that the rental process was smooth and authentication in the YouTube app on the Apple TV will definitely make me consider using YouTube again, whereas before this movie it never would have crossed my mind as a viewing option.
I will wait to fall asleep watching this movie when it's available for $ .99 on iTunes or on netflix.
There is no way that rogan and franco are worth the asking price.
48% on the Tomatometer. Not even worth 99 cents to me. In fact, I'm sure I wouldn't even use one of the many free movie vouchers sitting in the glove compartment of my car to waste 1 hr. 52 min. of my life in a theater on a mediocre effort.
I'd rather drink heavily while laughing during the first half of a third-tier college bowl game between two teams with barely winning records.
Looks like Sony laid a turd and rather than canning the film for the Hollywood graveyard (Spring theatrical release or straight-to-DVD), they pulled a fast one on the American public. If there was no controversy, this likely would have vanished into oblivion. This was a pretty weak holiday movie season for Hollywood, Sony probably grabbed a few bucks that weren't really destined to go anywhere else.
They barely eked out a million in box office revenue from 331 screens on Christmas Day. Attendance will likely fall off a cliff and this movie may not be playing on any screens next weekend.
Someone at Apple probably screened this movie and wisely decided that it wasn't worth any extra effort to fast track this dud into the iTunes Store for Christmas availability.
Surprised of all of these Apple ppl they never noticed Sony's lack of support for Apple products as a whole. Sony has backed Ultraviolet (which is a competitor of iTunes) in recent years. Sony also created their own music store for Playstation devices. It is dumb that Sony doesn't use their Playstation network which could've spiked an interest in ppl buying from their store more and made the movie exclusive to Playstation. But Columbia is a subsidiary and the reasoning could've been to protect their own network. But the real reason Apple wouldn't be a vender for this movie is because Sony's lack of support for iTunes. They are heavy promoters of Ultraviolet and favor it. Look at all the DVD Digital Copies for Sony movies. Other studios offer both iTunes & Ultraviolet.
48% on the Tomatometer. Not even worth 99 cents to me. In fact, I'm sure I wouldn't even use one of the many free movie vouchers sitting in the glove compartment of my car to waste 1 hr. 52 min. of my life in a theater on a mediocre effort.
48% on Tomato for this type of comedy is really quite high. The same goes with action flicks. Remember that these are movies graded by critics, not viewers.
Your standards are crushingly low. The Interview audience score is 64%. Still not worth 99 cents.
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation scored 64% on the Tomatometer, 86% audience score. That is an example of something from this comedy genre worth seeing.
Animal House received a 91% Tomatometer score, 89% audience score.
Christmas-themed action movie Die Hard (which actually hit screens in the summer) received a 92% Tomatometer score, 94% audience score. Yes, it's a big dumb action movie, but it's awesome in its utter ridiculousness.
The Interview's total budget is allegedly $44 million and they won't even reach two million in domestic box office receipts. They can forget about international theatrical releases. This movie is a flop.
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation scored 64% on the Tomatometer, 86% audience score.
That's exactly my point. That's a classic holiday comedy and it only has a 64% so to say that 48% from critics known to rate based films based on how others will perceive them over the actual entertainment value means that each genre needs to be individually weighted.
And yet Animal House and Die Hard got 91-92% Tomatometer scores. Remember that the Tomatometer is a consensus score, whether one critic hates/loves it is irrelevant (unless you specifically follow that critic and have similar opinions).
The Interview Tomatometer score is now 47%. The audience score is more telling at how this movie will ultimately do at the gate. 64% is not good.
Note that the 47% Tomatometer score is for "All Critics". The Tomatometer score from "Top Critics" is 38%. The ~10 point drop is typical of the All Critics/Top Critics switch. However, 38% is well below the Mendoza Line, regardless of the movie genre.
Face it: The Interview is a turd, it should have never hit movie screens, especially during the holidays. It should have gone straight-to-DVD/rental. Sony flushed $44 million down the toilet.
And yet Animal House and Die Hard got 91-92% Tomatometer scores. Remember that the Tomatometer is a consensus score, whether one critic hates/loves it is irrelevant (unless you specifically follow that critic and have similar opinions).
The Interview Tomatometer score is now 47%. The audience score is more telling at how this movie will ultimately do at the gate. 64% is not good.
Note that the 47% Tomatometer score is for "All Critics". The Tomatometer score from "Top Critics" is 38%. The ~10 point drop is typical of the All Critics/Top Critics switch. However, 38% is well below the Mendoza Line, regardless of the movie genre.
Face it: The Interview is a turd, it should have never hit movie screens, especially during the holidays. It should have gone straight-to-DVD/rental. Sony flushed $44 million down the toilet.
This can't be that hard to understand. Your logic requires that everything falling into a poor grade be shit and yet you're somehow ignoring a 64% score from critics and then trying to trump movies of nostalgia — one of which I think is complete shit — as being great because reviews 20+ years after it was originally released have critics giving it a positive review. How the **** can you not understand that?
edit: Here are some randomly picked comedies that are beloved and yet have shitty score (note that the older the movie the more positive review they have as time passes):
And yet Animal House and Die Hard got 91-92% Tomatometer scores. Remember that the Tomatometer is a consensus score, whether one critic hates/loves it is irrelevant (unless you specifically follow that critic and have similar opinions).
The Interview Tomatometer score is now 47%. The audience score is more telling at how this movie will ultimately do at the gate. 64% is not good.
Note that the 47% Tomatometer score is for "All Critics". The Tomatometer score from "Top Critics" is 38%. The ~10 point drop is typical of the All Critics/Top Critics switch. However, 38% is well below the Mendoza Line, regardless of the movie genre.
Face it: The Interview is a turd, it should have never hit movie screens, especially during the holidays. It should have gone straight-to-DVD/rental. Sony flushed $44 million down the toilet.
What $44 million? Who said it cost $44 million? If Box Office Mojo doesn't have the budget listed, then it hasn't been released:
Comments
https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/The_Interview?id=Ed2kSuKqfz0
"Someone" was wrong about 480 only.
Edit: This is an example of why I post links for anything likely to be questioned. Really takes no significant time to ferret out the facts in most cases either, more often a matter of a few minutes. This one took less than that.
Too many folks are quick to assume something they'd like to believe must be true if some other person on a forum said it was so.
It's enough that you went there. Google's "Play" store has nothing of interest for me.
There wasn't really a need to ask if you were right. Since you were publicly posting your theory for Apple not quickly rolling out the movie I would have thought you'd at least take a moment to see if it had any validity. That by itself was a good reason to look at what quality Google was steaming before posting your supposition don't you think? You obviously had an interest.
Whatever Apple's actual reason, it doesn't really matter at this point does it?
Oh, no.
I believe the issue here was Sony didn't give Apple enough time to properly prep the files for iTunes. Speed to market is not Apple's concern, they are about quality and as I understand it no one is currently showing The Interview in an Apple-quality format. Am I right or not?
I'm absolutley positive that is Apple wanted to get this thing on iTunes in a few days notice, they could have handled it. I'm sure someone just thought, oh it's too fast a turn around. But this was an opportunity that stretches beyond the normal day to day routine. Google sweeps in, gets it done in a day and gathers up lots of iTunes customers and show them how they can rent and buy movies on YouTube. This will be the headline.
I did rent (pay) for content from YouTube, as well as use their Apple TV app, both for the first time. It was an enjoyable experience.
Me?
I will wait to fall asleep watching this movie when it's available for $ .99 on iTunes or on netflix.
There is no way that rogan and franco are worth the asking price.
I found this helpful post over on one of the Google support pages:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3306741?hl=en
I can't say the quality definitely looked either 480p or 720p. All I know is that the max quality showed 480p on YouTube.com. I spent most of my viewing on my Mac.
My roommates watched it later that night on the Apple TV, but they would be no help in determining the quality as SD or HD. Either way, I can't say it matters for this film, but (to repeat) I can say that the rental process was smooth and authentication in the YouTube app on the Apple TV will definitely make me consider using YouTube again, whereas before this movie it never would have crossed my mind as a viewing option.
I will wait to fall asleep watching this movie when it's available for $ .99 on iTunes or on netflix.
There is no way that rogan and franco are worth the asking price.
48% on the Tomatometer. Not even worth 99 cents to me. In fact, I'm sure I wouldn't even use one of the many free movie vouchers sitting in the glove compartment of my car to waste 1 hr. 52 min. of my life in a theater on a mediocre effort.
I'd rather drink heavily while laughing during the first half of a third-tier college bowl game between two teams with barely winning records.
Looks like Sony laid a turd and rather than canning the film for the Hollywood graveyard (Spring theatrical release or straight-to-DVD), they pulled a fast one on the American public. If there was no controversy, this likely would have vanished into oblivion. This was a pretty weak holiday movie season for Hollywood, Sony probably grabbed a few bucks that weren't really destined to go anywhere else.
They barely eked out a million in box office revenue from 331 screens on Christmas Day. Attendance will likely fall off a cliff and this movie may not be playing on any screens next weekend.
Someone at Apple probably screened this movie and wisely decided that it wasn't worth any extra effort to fast track this dud into the iTunes Store for Christmas availability.
48% on Tomato for this type of comedy is really quite high. The same goes with action flicks. Remember that these are movies graded by critics, not viewers.
Your standards are crushingly low. The Interview audience score is 64%. Still not worth 99 cents.
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation scored 64% on the Tomatometer, 86% audience score. That is an example of something from this comedy genre worth seeing.
Animal House received a 91% Tomatometer score, 89% audience score.
Christmas-themed action movie Die Hard (which actually hit screens in the summer) received a 92% Tomatometer score, 94% audience score. Yes, it's a big dumb action movie, but it's awesome in its utter ridiculousness.
The Interview's total budget is allegedly $44 million and they won't even reach two million in domestic box office receipts. They can forget about international theatrical releases. This movie is a flop.
That's exactly my point. That's a classic holiday comedy and it only has a 64% so to say that 48% from critics known to rate based films based on how others will perceive them over the actual entertainment value means that each genre needs to be individually weighted.
And yet Animal House and Die Hard got 91-92% Tomatometer scores. Remember that the Tomatometer is a consensus score, whether one critic hates/loves it is irrelevant (unless you specifically follow that critic and have similar opinions).
The Interview Tomatometer score is now 47%. The audience score is more telling at how this movie will ultimately do at the gate. 64% is not good.
Note that the 47% Tomatometer score is for "All Critics". The Tomatometer score from "Top Critics" is 38%. The ~10 point drop is typical of the All Critics/Top Critics switch. However, 38% is well below the Mendoza Line, regardless of the movie genre.
Face it: The Interview is a turd, it should have never hit movie screens, especially during the holidays. It should have gone straight-to-DVD/rental. Sony flushed $44 million down the toilet.
This can't be that hard to understand. Your logic requires that everything falling into a poor grade be shit and yet you're somehow ignoring a 64% score from critics and then trying to trump movies of nostalgia — one of which I think is complete shit — as being great because reviews 20+ years after it was originally released have critics giving it a positive review. How the **** can you not understand that?
edit: Here are some randomly picked comedies that are beloved and yet have shitty score (note that the older the movie the more positive review they have as time passes):
What $44 million? Who said it cost $44 million? If Box Office Mojo doesn't have the budget listed, then it hasn't been released:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=interview2014.htm