The pricing of PPV, however, is above that $2 figure, which reflects that somebody ain't getting paid. Guess who?
This argument is flawed. In both cases, your money is going to the rental facility, and not the studio. The studio has already been paid, whether by Netflix, Blockbuster, or Comcast. They get a license fee in exchange for providing the rental facility with the product in question and the right to distribute it in a certain market. How that rental facility charges the customer is entirely unrelated to the licence fee paid to the studio. The only difference between PPV and Netflix is that PPV delivers a digital file to your cable box, and Netflix delivers a physical DVD through the mail.
OMG! KAT! We agree! That is so odd!
Seriously, when the kid gets a little older, we'll have a laptop and a DVD player in the minivan
I've seen that a few times, and I always wonder about it. It seems to me like the video would be too distracting to the driver. (I know the driver can't see it, but somehow I feel like movie sound is more likely to cause driving into a ditch than radio or CD sound.) Perhaps I am just being a luddite, with a side helping of, "Bah, when I was a kid we didn't have DVD in the car! We just had to sit there and fight over who was on whose side of the back seat!"
I bet you can buy that DVD for money very close to the rental price, even now.
Doubtful. Even if a rental is $5 and you only buy and watch movies that are in the $9.99 bin at Best Buy, that's still twice as expensive to buy. If you want to watch a TV program, which can easily sell for $60 or $70 for five discs (still no more than $25 to rent), it's even worse.
Plus, there are storage issues, as ita has pointed out.
That's new money by WASP standards.
Well, how many generations are we talking about? Vanderbilt and Astor were both tradesmen, and the Vanderbilt children claimed a higher status on basis of their father having been a fur-trader rather than anything lesser. But within that one generation, the Astors who were their age-peers had bought their way into the same status. It took maybe one more generation to iron out the difference between them.
And that was in the wicked slow 19th Century -- I think that the concepts of "old money" and "new money" are being/have been replaced by "serious money" and "frivolous money". If you act old-school, support the Met, have a career or at least a deep and abiding charitable interest, you pass over into the Not-VH1 version of money, no matter how recently you got your money. Don't you think?
In fact, I imagine that over a lifetime, it is possible to move from one money category to the other. If Jennifer Lopez survives her foolish youth, and at 70 is a grand dame of some charity that offers scholarships to kids from the Bronx, I think she'll finally start getting invitations that are offered on a basis other than her ability to attract cameras. I mean, Josephine Baker did it (granted, mostly in a foreign country, but consider the times.)
Say what you like about American social class, but one of the key aspects is that we come down with convenient amnesia on a regular basis.
Our PPV gives us a buy and record option, and we do. We probably watch some movies only once, but sometimes with our schedules and then company, or nothing on on a rainy day, they'll get 4 or 5 viewings. Dodgeball comes to mind.
I'm not sure if there was enough riche in S'port that I could tell, but New Orleans and Dallas it makes a huge difference whether you're new or old. Not so much for how the society pages might treat you, but for what places, clubs, etc you can get into where the decisions are made.
Don't get a cheap one.
So stay away from the Belkin?
(I love this place. Answers to any question almost instantaneously, and multiple conversations occurring at the the same time. How did I survive before?)
Vanderbilt and Astor were both tradesmen, and the Vanderbilt children claimed a higher status on basis of their father having been a fur-trader rather than anything lesser.
Huh? The Astors were fur traders. The Vanderbilts were railroad men. Cornelius made his money in the 1860s. [link] John Jacob Astor made his money in the early 1800s. [link]
one of the key aspects is that we come down with convenient amnesia on a regular basis.
Somehow that never stretches to the not-rich, though ... isn't it all about if
all
the hideously rich and/or famous can have access to the same perks? Even if I could rub shoulders with Astors and Afflecks if I made a million -- I'm pretty much in the no-money class for the rest of my life.
I've seen that a few times, and I always wonder about it. It seems to me like the video would be too distracting to the driver. (I know the driver can't see it, but somehow I feel like movie sound is more likely to cause driving into a ditch than radio or CD sound.) Perhaps I am just being a luddite, with a side helping of, "Bah, when I was a kid we didn't have DVD in the car! We just had to sit there and fight over who was on whose side of the back seat!"
That's how I grew up. Having seen how well children zone out on long car rides to a well paced kids' flick, combined with a four hour drive to my parents' house makes me yearn for the new technology.
