Any objection to me linking to this from another forum (9000 members, 200,000 posts) outside of b.org? Someone just compared The Inside to Tru Calling. No, I'm not joking.

(shrug) I guess. If the school decides I'm a terrible bandwidth whore, they might throttle me or something. But I graduate in 2.5 weeks, so whatever.

I DONT WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER TWO WEEKS.

Allyson, last night I just described the show to a friend, while using mostly what you had to say about it in past posts, because that (and the promos Kristen and D. Griswold) pretty much sums up everything I know about it.

She is much less of a wimp than I am (her eyes lit up when I said "Tim" and "Silence of the Lambs"), much less of a prude than I am (therefore already plans on finding the *cough*download*cough* as soon as she can on June 9), and after talking about it out loud in Hebrew for the first time, I find myself with even more anticipation than ever before.

It suddenly made it much more real and actually-going-to-happen, took out of it the whole "on far tv screens an ocean away" aspect. It's still holding a large "who knows whenever I'll get to see it" aspect, but since I managed to eventually watch both "Firefly" and "Wonderfalls", I'm sure that there will be a way for me to watch "The Inside", as well.

I'm mailing my Wonderfalls DVDs to the woman who killed the show. She's got a pretty good track record of getting good shows cancelled. But! This year, it looks like she's got the opposite effect, since she got VM renewed. So she's promised to watch The Inside.

If the prized demographic (18-34 year old males) is becoming a smaller percentage of prime time television viewers why the fuck do they get to decide what stays and what goes?

It's not a market like selling cars to people where a car that appeals to a lot of well-off people makes good money and 18-year-olds are a niche market. It's a market of selling viewers to advertisers where 18-year-olds are the rare ingredients that make the rich people come to your restaurant. The more elusive they get, the more they can charge, like truffles, and the masses are just ground meat.

If my theory is correct then there should be more movies targeted to well-off people than TV shows. I don't know if that's true.

But the movies aren't trying to sell advertising time for Mercedes Benz or whatever, they're selling a $6-$12 ticket. How likely is it that rich people are going to buy enough tickets to make up for something that's more friendly to the masses?

the movies aren't trying to sell advertising time for Mercedes Benz or whatever

When I go to movies, I'm being advertised to, both inside the movie and before it.

Movie theatres make almost no money off of tickets. They make money off of showing advertising reels, and concessions.

Well, product placement, true. But I think habitual lateness tends to protect me from the prior advertising most of the time—I'm lucky if I catch any previews in the theatre.

At any rate, I was probably speaking more to the issue of what studios are trying to sell, rather than the theaters. Which makes it less of a one-to-one comparison to TV, I guess.

I'm lucky if I catch any previews in the theatre.

!! Wha!! previews are the bestest.

msbelle speaks the truth. I'm really irritated by what the theater we usually go to (since it actually has student tickets) does.

They intersperse the slideshow with the trailers.

Seriously. There will be those ads for a few minutes, and then a trailer. And then more ads, and another trailer. So you have to watch the trailers with the lights on. And the sound not cranked up to superstereo. And they lose all the trailer momentum since you keep coming back to the fucking jumbles and quizzes. They do show one or two trailers after the lights go off and the sound's in place, but gah.