[HN Gopher] Plano man keeping Blockbuster alive ___________________________________________________________________ Plano man keeping Blockbuster alive Author : cereallarceny Score : 197 points Date : 2022-07-10 04:40 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.dallasnews.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.dallasnews.com) | shyn3 wrote: | Funny someone is doing the same with Radioshack and Crypto [0]. | | [0] https://www.radioshack.org/ | crisopolis wrote: | No, RadioShack brand is just being used for a trend. Not even | related to keeping their technology or stores open/alive in | 2022. | | RIP RadioShack | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | Brand necrophilia. | pcthrowaway wrote: | Not only that, the person behind defiling the brand is none | other than Tai Lopez (the "here in my garage ... KNOWLEDGE!" | guy) | rascul wrote: | In 2007 I was in the US Army, deployed to the Middle East. (My | memory is a bit hazy, it could have been my 2009 deployment | instead.) Netflix was shipping DVD's to rent but they wouldn't | ship to my APO AE address. I discovered that Blockbuster had a | similar program, and they would ship to my APO AE address. So for | six months or so, I was renting movies from Blockbuster on the | other side of the world. | jefurii wrote: | I wish they had included pictures of his hardware. | ezekg wrote: | I miss Blockbuster. We had a small haven here called Family | Video, but they unfortunately closed down due to the COVID | lockdowns/lack of foot traffic. It was my family's spot to grab a | Friday night movie and snacks, even through the pandemic. We were | super bummed to see it go. Streaming just doesn't match the | experience of browsing movies IRL. We'd usually leave with a few | movies to watch that week, including a kids movie for the kids. | We typically give up on endlessly browsing Netflix/etc. for | something interesting and fall back to our "usual." Boring. | | Hoping similar stores make a resurgence someday. | bombcar wrote: | Our rental store closed before Covid (the owner basically got | tired of it and retired, it wasn't a big money-maker, so nobody | took over). Our theater died just after Covid. | | I wonder if you could combine them into some kind of "movie | mishmash" where you could see new movies in the theater, rent | older classics, or even buy new releases. Being able to stop | in, grab a movie and hot popcorn, and drive home seems it could | be a winner. | s1mon wrote: | I read this title as "Piano man..." several times until my brain | finally parsed it correctly. It made for very curious thoughts on | an alternate future involving Billy Joel. | antonymy wrote: | It's like the business version of the Byzantine Empire. | metadat wrote: | Un-paywalled: https://archive.ph/jotV3 | roywashere wrote: | Thanks. Not only is the original link paywalled it is also not | accessible from EU because GDPR and they think it is easier to | block us than to not have so much third party cookies or such | :sad: | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | Weird, from EU also, not paywalled nor geofenced for me. | nibbleshifter wrote: | The geofence code only kicked in when I was about halfway | through the article. | | Seems buggy as fuck. | scarface_74 wrote: | Blame your government. The only thing that the 99 section/11 | chapter GDPR accomplished was to make the web worse with | shitty Cookie notices. | Dylan16807 wrote: | Websites don't need notices if they're not doing anything | shady or unnecessary tracking, and just about every cookie | notices I see is going against either the wording or the | intent of the law. | | If they want to be annoying on purpose, we should blame | them, not the GDPR. | nibbleshifter wrote: | GDPR has proven incredibly useful to me and others in | imposing cost on organisations and businesses that want to | fuck about with our data. | | Someone's acting the maggot? No matter where they are, they | get a subject access request. Followed by a request to | correct or delete data. | | The ability to legally force companies to _correct_ | inaccurate data is incredibly useful. | scarface_74 wrote: | Or you can just click on "Reader View" from Safari.... | tingletech wrote: | "Reader View" from Safari only shows the first paragraph of | this story for me | noduerme wrote: | I run IT for a franchise chain. All requests to me are supposed | to come through corporate, but franchisees and sometimes managers | and even front desk employees try to do end-runs and get directly | to me with software issues, local networking issues, etc. I want | to stress how difficult this would be for one person to manage, | and how much work for little pay it probably was if it was based | on service contracts with individual stores. At least, when there | were 30 independent Blockbusters left. Now it's probably pretty | chill. | zw123456 wrote: | I am old enough to remember when the wife would call me at work | on a Friday and say hey, stop by the video store and get a movie | for tonight and I'll stop and get wine and take out. What was | special was the "Dave" at the video rental place (it wasn't | blockbuster but whatever). I don't recall the guy's name, but he | always remembered me and what we liked and had great suggestions | and sometimes if you said, nah but how about something completely | different, he would always find us something great. Or usually | (one time he recommended Eraser head, we still laugh about that | one, so even though it was a dud, great memory). | | I get it, today's AI is pretty good, meh, not really, but it | would be hard to beat my old "Dave". Maybe someday. | dontcontactme wrote: | I think there's something to be said for the interaction | involved in getting a recommendation from a human. An AI might | recommend movies just as well as Dave did, but you presumably | like Dave and enjoy talking to him about the movies you've | seen. You don't get that part of the experience with an AI | recommendation. | Johnny555 wrote: | _today 's AI is pretty good_ | | It's pretty good at suggesting exactly the same type of movies | you've watched before, but not so good at those "but how about | something completely different, but something that I'll still | like" suggestions, that's where a real human movie buff can | help. | ryangittins wrote: | I've long pondered building exactly this, an anti- | recommendation engine. You'd go through and mark some | favorite films or genres, and it'd come back with something | great but totally unlike your usual picks. | | Foreign flicks not your thing? Try Parasite. | | You don't remember what it's like to be an awkward pre-teen? | Eighth Grade will remind you. | | Not a big action movie person? Maybe you need to watch Die | Hard. | | Kids movies are just for kids? Spirited Away! | | You can't connect with female protagonists? You've got to see | The Invisible Man. | | Don't find food interesting? Try Tampopo. | | Sick of movies which try to make a statement and fall flat? | Promising Young Woman. | | Most dramas feel too contrived? Marriage Story. | | Musicals and plays aren't really your thing? Hamilton. | actusual wrote: | This isn't completely true. What you're talking about are | called "echo chambers" or "filter bubbles", and there are | ways to make sure they don't negatively impact users. | | Additionally, studies have found that (when A/B testing | recommender system vs no recommender system) users create | their own, more localized "echo chambers" in absence of a | recommender. This is measured by the "diversity" of content | consumed, which decreases if a user is their own recommender. | h0l0cube wrote: | > This is measured by the "diversity" of content consumed, | which decreases if a user is their own recommender. | | The recommender in the GP and OP is a video store clerk, | that's probably self selected into that kind of job by | their special interest in movies | usrn wrote: | I haven't thought about it but most of the movies I've really | enjoyed were recommended to me by my dad, girlfriend, or my | brother in law. I can't think of anything I really enjoyed | from a recommendation algorithm. The last movie I tried I | certainly didn't enjoy. | jvalencia wrote: | The reality is likely that the algorithms are trying to | increase viewership, not quality of views. So they are | likely to feed you things that get you to watch another | thing, rather than things that are worth watching, leave | you satisfied, and off doing something else. | antiterra wrote: | Eraserhead wasn't exactly a dud for me but it was deeply | discomfiting and disturbing (clearly as intended.) Glad I've | seen it, but very little interest in seeing it again. | kylepdm wrote: | I feel like the difference isn't so much that you have AI | recommendations or that of a human, but rather the entire | environment is fundamentally different. | | With Netflix or whatever Streaming Service you have you have an | immense catalogue coupled with ease of access to get | ratings/critiques/etc. There is so many things to choose from | and it's so easy to just say "no" to a suggestion, and likely | that thing you said "no" to will still be there tomorrow. Why | not just keep browsing? | | With the video store of old it's so much more purposeful. You | pick up a movie, and you feel incentivized to watch it because | you literally just paid for it. You paid for that _one_ Movie, | not access to the entire store (which you also need to | physically go to, and then come all the way back home with a | tape or dvd). Also the ubiquity of movie /tv reviews was not as | present so you don't necessarily feel like you're making a bad | choice. | [deleted] | another_story wrote: | I think what a lot of us are missing is human interaction, | especially with strangers. No one is going to reminisce about | that time the Netflix algorithm recommended a movie to them. | Interactions with others, the stories and sense of community | that can come out of it, not to mention building social skills, | is being lost. | | We're making a better world for consumers, but sometimes I | wonder if it's a better world for people. | sailfast wrote: | What's the website equivalent of Dave? Surely it has to exist | somewhere? Maybe it's not personalized for you but it's close | enough for a lot of people? | | I've visited a TON of taste-making sites and some used to be OK | at suggesting what to watch, but it's been tough to find good | ones lately, and I'd pay good money for somebody to sort | through all of the cruft for me. | | You've got your "decider" and other sites, but something more | personal, or at least human curated in terms of "here is the | canon of this genre" or "if you liked this you'll 1000% like | this other thing" | ck2 wrote: | Have you ever seen the post with the person that accidentally | stumbled into a film set with an old Blockbuster "revived", heh | | https://imgur.com/gallery/n1l3O58 | sevenf0ur wrote: | Do you think he had to recreate blockbuster's central servers | from scratch or did he get the blessing to maintain the old | software? | bombcar wrote: | Blockbuster is old enough that they probably didn't have | "central servers" as such, more like a local area terminal | network that you'd manually update with CSV files when needed. | awacs wrote: | Growing up in the 80s with VHS, Betamax, Laserdiscs (if anyone | recalls), and being a dj in the late 90s when the thought of a | "USB stick instead of traveling with all this vinyl was an | impossibility", makes this whole nostalgia tour a fun one. I | think we all forget though just how poor the quality was back | then, and what we've become accustomed to, with VHS being 240 | lines, DVD 480p, etc. It's like reminiscing about the first | iPhone and then looking at one and realizing how damn small it | actually was compared to modern versions. | | I started converting / collecting most of my movie collection | onto a localized server years ago, and glad I did. Though I | rarely watch all my old movies (a growing list of about 1000 | including most of my favorite TV shows), the end game I think we | all know is everything streamed, with no actual ownership of | content. It's not a terrible notion, but the problem I think | we've all seen is it's now turned into a corporate ownership | game, and you never know where the content you're interested in | watching is. One day Star Trek is on Netflix, the next Paramount, | etc. | | The only problem has been keeping up with resolution changes, | even though I'm a firm believer in unless you're watching on | something well over 100" a nice high-quality 1080P file looks | just great on a large 85" tv (which I currently have). | laumars wrote: | > I think we all forget though just how poor the quality was | back then | | I don't think anyone has forgotten how crappy VHS was/is. | | At least with vinyl, the sound quality was good even if the | medium was bulky. But VHS just sucked in every way imaginable. | Even in the 80s I hated VHS. It was the best we had but it | always felt like a game of chance whether your recordings | worked. I don't miss a single thing about recording and playing | video back then. | | > The only problem has been keeping up with resolution changes | | A lot of the time content is just upscaled rather than | remastered anyway. Particularly with TV shows but plenty of | "HD" movies were just upscaled from DVDs rather than remastered | from the original film rolls. | jacobsievers wrote: | I don't know, VHS Hi-Fi wasn't bad. It had a frequency | response of 20Hz to 20kHz and signal-to-noise ratio about 70 | dB. | michaelcampbell wrote: | I've known guys in the past that kept audio recordings on | VHS, just for that reason. | laumars wrote: | Maybe. That wasn't used by regular VHS rigs though was it | (ie PAL or NTSC recordings)? | | I just remember VHS audio sounding muffled after the tape | had been used a few times. | | To be fair, recording stuff from RF wouldn't have helped | much either. | rconti wrote: | I ripped my entire DVD collection 15 years ago, and I just | never watch any of it. If I want to watch one of the movies I | just pay the $4 to 'rent' a 4k stream instead of suffering with | DVD quality. | BolexNOLA wrote: | It's so funny reading this. I was remarking the other day to | a friend how well I think DVD's hold up. Nothing to write | home about, but definitely a solid level above "tolerable" to | me. | PenguinCoder wrote: | Man I am the exact opposite. If I have had it on DVD, I've | ripped it and I'd rather watch that, rather then pay $4 to | rent any other stream of a product I already have. | vlunkr wrote: | It's interesting that when we revisit older movies, all the way | up to the 90s, we're watching them at much much higher quality | than we did originally. Special effects, costumes and sets are | all much more believable when you're viewing them on a little | grainy screen. I think some older movies are unfairly judged by | how they look on hardware that couldn't have existed at the | time. | pessimizer wrote: | It's part of the Progress Quest(tm) style transfer from | audiophiles trying to maximize numbers to videophiles trying | to maximize numbers. Audiophiles are listening to music in | "better" quality than the people who made it had through | their monitors, and people are watching movies in "better" | quality than the directors saw their final cuts in. | | We're either moments before or moments after direct | competition between UHD televisions and AI-aided upscaling | and artificial sharpness, where details that never existed in | the original are being precisely rendered by screens with | higher resolutions than the human eye. | larrywright wrote: | There's a video floating around out there somewhere from the | 80s show Knight Rider. One of the things about that car was | that it could drive itself. I always assumed they used some | sort of complex remote control system to film those scenes, | but the video clearly shows that it's just a guy wearing a | suit that looks like the seat in the car. I guess simple wins | out over cool. | | EDIT: Here's a link to the tweet with the video. https://twit | ter.com/BryanPassifiume/status/13356368964881203... | rightbyte wrote: | Theatres were a thing back then. But ye concerning TV you are | right. My best example of that is playing Ocarina of Time on | a big modern TV ... it was so much more impressive on a small | ctr. | vlunkr wrote: | Yeah, video games are probably even worse off than movies. | If you're playing on original hardware, most modern TVs | don't scale them properly and they look terrible. There are | external upscalers and RGB modding, but it's an expensive | and esoteric thing to dig in to. | amyjess wrote: | For video games, there's another factor: much of the | artwork in old-school games was _specifically_ designed to | be altered by both CRT scanlines and NTSC composite | effects. So many sprites in 2D games and textures in 3D | games rely on NTSC effects to antialias the graphics and | turn dithering into real gradients and you 're missing out | on so much with a modern screen. | | The closest you can get to that experience now is to use an | emulator and apply some heavy shaders (some emulators have | built-in shaders, but if one doesn't I'd recommend | installing reshade and setting up CRT-Royale and GTUv050). | thanatos519 wrote: | Television that was made on film has held up pretty well. | | I'm watching ST:TNG at 1080p now and it's visually stunning. | Everything else about it is still awesome, too. | jefftk wrote: | Are you watching the original or the remaster? | | The latter was only possible because it was originally shot | in film, yes, but it was also an incredible amount of work. | They needed to reassemble every episode from film! | Anthony-G wrote: | They did a fabulous job of the Star Trek transfers (I'm | currently watching the original series). | | However, some studios put very little effort into their | film to HD transfers. Last year, I watched _Buffy, the | Vampire Slayer_ on Disney+ and its transfer from film is | woefully bad. For certain scenes, the picture quality | looked like upscaled standard definition and these | transitions were very jarring. Also, whatever filter they | used for grain removal made the flesh tones and facial | features look "wrong". | | Even worse was the wholly unnecessary conversion from 4:3 | to 16:9. The resulting composition of many scenes was | distractingly bad. At one stage, they the second camera | unit can be seen filming the action from the side! | | _Edit_ : Fortunately, Disney+ have made _The Simpsons_ | (another transfer from film) available in 4:3 - as well | as the default 16:9. There's a setting in the UI to play | it in 4:3. | jefurii wrote: | I don't know about _Buffy_ but some later Star Trek | series like Deep Space 9 will be really hard to remaster | because they were shot on video instead of film. The | detail just isn 't there to be enhanced. | fitzroy wrote: | Deep Space 9 was also shot on film. The editing, effects, | and mastering were completed on video (same for TNG). | This is true for nearly every 1-hour US prime-time drama | of that era (Buffy, X-Files, etc). | | https://www.slashfilm.com/549088/star-trek-voyager-deep- | spac... | reaperducer wrote: | _Special effects, costumes and sets are all much more | believable when you 're viewing them on a little grainy | screen_ | | Can confirm. I recently watched Ghostbusters on Blu-ray. Wow. | The special effects are really obvious. | pessimizer wrote: | > The special effects are really obvious. | | I've never understood this complaint. Almost all special | effects are obvious, because they depict things that aren't | real. I don't remember watching Ghostbusters in the theater | and wondering if those were really ghosts. | na85 wrote: | It's easier to suspend your disbelief when you can't see | the little squares around the TIE Fighter as it attacks | the Millennium Falcon. | SenHeng wrote: | Some people just cannot (or refuse to) recognise all the | noise you can see around old/cheap/low quality effects. I | often watched those silly Japanese horror varieties where | they would show you a grainy video of some dark place, | and then maybe a grainy shot of someone crawling out of | something. But you know it's two separate things spliced | together because the grains are of a different size, or | when one area is gray-scale while another is simply | decolourised to match. My friends could never tell the | difference. | joosters wrote: | Older 'practical' special effects still hold up better than | much more recent early CGI though. Even if you can tell | that something is a physical model, IMO it still looks 100x | better than a poorly rendered and animated low-poly 3d | effect. | na85 wrote: | Even modern CG is garbage and suffers from the uncanny | valley effect. | | I don't enjoy Marvel films but even if I did they're | unwatchable because of the awful CG. | tomc1985 wrote: | The Blu-Ray release of Star Trek TNG suffers from this a ton | -- it was great seeing one of my favorite childhood TV shows | in high def but it made all of the costumes, makeup, and sets | look so fake! | dasil003 wrote: | This is only strictly true if you're talking about | television. The analog nature of film and its degradation | along with the imperfection of human memory mean we can't | really know for sure exactly how, for example, Lawrence of | Arabia looked on the big screen in its contemporary | transfers. But it was definitely better than anything seen on | a television prior to at least 1080p if not 4k. | reaperducer wrote: | _The analog nature of film and its degradation along with | the imperfection of human memory mean we can 't really know | for sure exactly how, for example, Lawrence of Arabia | looked on the big screen in its contemporary transfers._ | | It depends on the source material. | | As luck would have it, I just recently got the 4K Blu-ray | of Lawrence of Arabia, and it is very very grainy. Much | more so than the 4K version of Rear Window, though that has | a lot of noticeable grain. | | Fortunately, some theaters still occasionally show classics | like these, so when Lawrence comes around, we should find | out. Hopefully. Assuming it comes in on big reels of film, | and not over a digital link. | Anthony-G wrote: | A couple of years ago, I was lucky to see _Lowrence of | Arabia_ in a local cinema with a 70 mm film projector. | The film was originally shot on 65mm and it looked | fabulous on the big screen! I don't remember the film | grain being an issue. I usually notice it at the start of | the film but then quickly get used to it. It's also | likely that the picture quality was cleaned to some | degree. | | I presume your Blu-Ray transfer was processed | conservatively. Digital filters to remove film grain can | introduce their own artifacts which degrade the image | quality and make the picture look different from how it | was originally intended to be seen. | gnopgnip wrote: | I think the endgame will be like music licensing, with a max | royalty set by the government with a short exclusivity period. | This is why smaller companies like deezer and tidal can compete | with Apple Music, YouTube music, Spotify and still have | substantially all of the same music | scarface_74 wrote: | There is no government imposed royalty on "music" for on | demand music. | | Sites like Pandora where you can't choose your playlist do | come under mandatory licenses. But services where you can | play any music on demand is individually negotiated with the | rights holders. The reason competition is ubiquitous is that | the music labels didn't want to be beholden to one company | during the streaming era like they were with Apple during the | iTunes era. Besides, they make all of the money from | streaming (70%+) and leave the services with a pittance. It's | a horrible business to be in as a standalone service. | | It only makes sense as an integrated offering. Spotify and | every other stand alone service is going to always be stuck | with the "Dropbox problem". A streaming service is a feature | not a product. | | There are also government mandated max royalties for | songwriters. | | When I was a part time fitness instructor, the only way you | could get music from the original artist was by knowing some | DJs who did it low-key who could mix music on the 32 count | phrase with a consistent beats per minute (step/cardio | kickboxing etc.). The more mainstream fitness music had to | use cover versions of the music. It's easier to get a license | on the music, song writing than the entire performance. | | You or the studio also had to have a separate performance | license to play the music during class. | | I can go on and on forever and I yada yada yada'd over the | details on purpose. | sokoloff wrote: | It all depends on how close you sit. If you're 12+ feet away, | you may not be able to resolve the difference between 1080p and | 4K, but at 6-8 feet away, I bet you can. | omoikane wrote: | For me it's not so much the difference in resolution, but the | fact that due to low resolution being the norm, all the on- | screen text tend to be huge. This is readily noticeable for | the credit text in TV shows (not so much for movies, which | seem to have barely legible credit text going way back). | pessimizer wrote: | People get trained on what's supposed to be nice. There are | people who will insist that anything less that 2K | resolution on their computer monitor _physically hurts | their eyes and brain._ | Dylan16807 wrote: | Blur can cause eye strain, and eye strain hurts. I don't | think that's a weird thing to say. | | Also "2K" is mess of a term people shouldn't use. By | better definitions it should mean either almost-1080p or | a loose term for 1080p. 1440p is often called 2K but it | really isn't. 2560x1440 is 2.5K if anything. | jinto36 wrote: | One of the most noticeable things about playing laserdiscs on | modern displays is the poor black levels and noise in shadows, | and of course the difficulty in scaling interlaced material. | Even with what should be a decent (but not nearly top of the | line) FPGA-based deinterlacer/scaler I still feel like it | should look better than it does, given how much better | laserdisc resolution can be than VHS. But it's also analog | video, and discs can degrade, as well as components in players | going out-of-spec and increasing noise. I still like them, and | there's something nice about large gatefold packaging, and | these giant discs. | | Also got a hi-fi beta player recently and even though Beta is | only 10 more lines than VHS at 250 (compared to 420 for LD and | SVHS) it really did not look that bad on an LCD. It's also | possible that the unit I received and the tape I tried it with | have less wear than the average VHS VCR. | [deleted] | dylan604 wrote: | i'm sure there's a device somewhere you can insert inline to | convert the colorspace from 601 to 709 for SD->HD. or change | the picture profile on your monitor to help compensate for | the 7.5IRE SD black. | tablespoon wrote: | > I think we all forget though just how poor the quality was | back then, and what we've become accustomed to, with VHS being | 240 lines, DVD 480p, etc. It's like reminiscing about the first | iPhone and then looking at one and realizing how damn small it | actually was compared to modern versions. | | I think the "what we've become accustomed to" is the most | important factor there. Back in the VHS/NTSC days, without | experience of anything else, I had not complaints about the | quality. | laumars wrote: | Really? I did. | | - Tapes would get chewed by the player | | - Took an age to find the right recording (you'd spend an age | constantly rewinding) | | - Tapes would degrade the more you used them | | - sometimes they wouldn't even sync vertically with your TV. | Requiring all sorts of fun and games tuning your hardware | | - audio was often muffled and sounded like it was played | through a sock | | - if you shared a household there was always the risk that | someone would tape over your favourite recording | | - and even just getting the same content recorded was a game | of chance. If the TV network was early or late airing your | show or movie, there was a good chance you'll end up missing | some of it (back then there wasn't an EPG so you had to | programmed the VCR to start at a specific time rather than | the start of a specific show). | | Not to mention my younger brother kept jamming Lego into the | VCR (but at least that's not the fault of the technology). | | I hated VHS. Switched to DVD the moment I could. Even though | my computer wasn't powerful enough to playback DVD properly I | still massively preferred it. | tablespoon wrote: | > Really? I did. | | I was talking about video quality, not that other stuff. | | > - if you shared a household there was always the risk | that someone would tape over your favourite recording | | This is actually significantly worse now, since most | households lack the ability to "tape" _anything_. | SenHeng wrote: | Back here in Asia, aka land of the pirates and DivX, we | could quickly moved to CDs, CDRs and VCDs. I think the huge | proliferation of VCDs in Asia stunted the spread of DVDs | for quite some time because they were just so cheap. | | It was a hassle having to switching discs midway through a | movie, but there were a few enterprising people who sold | players that let you insert two discs! | pessimizer wrote: | > Laserdiscs (if anyone recalls) | | Just coincidentally, today I came across the the wikipedia | entry for the last Laserdisc release: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Raiders in September 2001. | papito wrote: | If you want your mind blown - "Who really killed Blockbuster | Video?" | | https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/who-really-killed-bloc... | | It's amazing that Blockbuster had Netflix on the ropes, until one | notorious activist investor showed up and basically gave Netflix | the win. | | One man is responsible for creating a completely different | timeline when it comes to video streaming. Very similar to how we | would be living in a different reality if GM's ahead-of-its-time | EV1 was not mysteriously disappeared in the 90s. | kerblang wrote: | It's sort of bizarre that an entrenched, widely despised | corporate behemoth thoroughly deserving its own demise has turned | into an anachronistic mom-and-pop shop that just gets by. But | isn't this the worst of both worlds? It's dystopian nostalgia. | Maybe I just have too much of a grudge against the 1980's... | rco8786 wrote: | > widely despised | | Wait? It was? I grew up through the 90s and have nothing but | fond memories of Blockbuster | karaterobot wrote: | Yeah, ironic because Blockbuster is what killed off the mom and | pop stores it now stands in for in our collective memory of the | 90s. | | I actually liked our local Blockbuster, and have fond memories | of it, but only because it was run by the same employees from | the independent video store it drove out of business. I liked | that one even better. | artificial wrote: | This reminds me of smaller bookstores prior to the era of | Borders and Barnes and Noble dominance. _pours one out_ | bluedino wrote: | How are they still in business, by the way? It seemed like | they were just a Starbucks location with a ton of overhead, | I thought we'd seen the last of them when pandemic shut | everything down. | | I loved B&N by the way, more computer-related books than | WaldenBooks, but not as many as Borders. | jabroni_salad wrote: | Around the time of the pandemic they implemented a | strategic change to have local management arrange the | store rather than auctioning shelf placement to | publishers like most other retailers do. This has | actually made B&N pretty nice to browse compared to a few | years ago. | bombcar wrote: | Because "Starbucks with overhead" is a surprisingly | effective business model apparently; though if you go | into one you'll notice that there are a lot more | chotchkeys for sale near the front of the store (even | LEGO lol). | munificent wrote: | _> How are they still in business, by the way?_ | | They've broadened out into being general "gift stores". | My local Barnes and Noble has a large toys section | (mostly LEGO and educational stuff), board games, | puzzles, music (lots of vinyl), stationery (fancy | journals). | | It's essentially "stuff introverts like" in a nice space. | legitster wrote: | Smaller bookstores are actually doing pretty okay these | days: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/02/18/indie- | bookstores-com... | | Mostly because Amazon decimated corporate chains, which | freed up more market for independent stores. | ghaff wrote: | Though independents are still a pretty niche business. | Around where I am there are certainly far fewer of them | than there were before the big chains became dominant. | legitster wrote: | I don't know. I'm in a pretty redneck county and even | here there are dozen independent bookstores. | | Most of them are tied to a coffeeshop though. But if you | check your local map you might be surprised. | pessimizer wrote: | Even the article said there were 10-15 bookstores in a | place that had 35 of them in the 70s. | legitster wrote: | > Blockbuster is what killed off the mom and pop stores | | Is there a source for this? Usually, both rise and fall | together with consumer demand. When I grew up, Blockbuster | was one of a dozen options in town. | | As an example, there are more independent coffee shops today | than before Starbucks expanded. | LegitShady wrote: | the wikipedia article for blockbuster contains a | quote/source about this (search it for "mom and pop") but | the citation no longer exists due to link rot. | | essentially blockbuster operated at larger scales than many | small video businesses and so had smaller unit costs while | also having more selection. | omar_alt wrote: | I distinctively remember around 1994 two family run stores | in the UK town I grew up in disappearing and the reason was | the same, Blockbuster. | | I didn't play games much but I recall them also renting out | Japanese nintendo games and also sold the necessary | cartridge converters to play Starfox. | ars wrote: | > the reason was the same, Blockbuster. | | The "name" of the reason might be Blockbuster, but the | actual reason was that Blockbuster had a larger | selection. Those mom and pop stores were really small, so | if you wanted something else you had to go to Blockbuster | anyway, so why bother dealing with more than one store | even for the stuff they had? Just get everything at | Blockbuster. | | It's the same with retail stores - I don't go to the | small stores, even if they might have what I want - why | should I? I can go to the larger store and get everything | and not have to think about it. | bombcar wrote: | Starbucks grew the "expensive coffee" market, and so | independents had a niche to slip into (expensive, but not | Starbucks) - Blockbuster did nothing to grow the "rental | movie" market, and a given market in an area is roughly | limited to the number of houses in said market. | | People drink less office/gas station coffee than they used | to, and so can drink more Starbucks/independent coffee. The | same didn't happen to the mom and pop video rental places | (though the ones that survived blockbuster, usually by | being in a market too small to support a Blockbuster, often | outlived them (the one near me closed a few years ago | finally)). | acheron wrote: | Yeah that's how I remember it too. In one town we lived in, | we always got videos from the independent place. My main | memory of Blockbuster is that one time my parents went | there instead, and they gave us the wrong movie, which my | sister and I were very disappointed by. | | In another town we lived in, the video rental place was a | local chain with fewer than 10 locations, maybe just around | 5. I don't remember if a Blockbuster even existed locally. | causi wrote: | I loved when Blockbuster came to town because it cut the | price of rentals by two thirds. I was not a wealthy child and | being able to rent a game every few weeks was way better than | every couple of months. | WalterBright wrote: | The local video rental proprietor told me when she was | closing up for good was that Netflix destroyed her business. | mikeocool wrote: | Anecdotally, I recall a brief moment in the late 2000's | where the mom and pop shops had a bit of resurgence (or at | least a stay on their execution) -- when Netflix DVD's by | mail had put most Block Busters out of business, but before | every movie was readily available on streaming services. | | If it was Friday night, and you'd just sent back your | netflix disc -- or you were looking to watch something that | wasn't at the top of your queue, the mom and pop video | rental place was your only option. At least in NYC, it | seemed like this kept those places going a little but | longer than anyone would have guessed when Block Buster was | still around. | | Though once streaming became prevalent they all disappeared | pretty quickly. | rhino369 wrote: | NYC probably had more indie rental stores around just | because of the population density. In my suburb, | Blockbuster had already wiped them out in the 90's. | Apocryphon wrote: | Feels like even without streaming or even Netflix's | original DVD-by-mail delivery service, Redbox could've | eaten brick and mortar movie rental stores. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | I don't recall Redbox existing, at least in my area, | during that time. | _fat_santa wrote: | The way I see it, there are really two Blockbusters. One is an | evil corporate behemoth, the other is the neighborhood video | store that lives on in our memories. These guys aren't keeping | Blockbuster running so much as they are keeping the nostalgic | memory of it going. | | TBH I'm a bit surprised no one has tried to buy the Blockbuster | brand from Dish and restart the company. I feel like you could | effectively run one much like a comic book store, there's | always a niche that will patronize the business. | bombcar wrote: | Double so since something like Redbox could have definitely | used the brand. | mxuribe wrote: | They could have bought the Blockbuster brand, and combined | it into a gawdy 80s style amalgamam of purple (you know, | blue plus red)...and called it something like BoxBuster! | And beyond dvd rentals, sell Roku devices. But, alas! ;-) | causi wrote: | I don't purchase movies anymore but I could see myself going | to a store to rent a 4K blu-ray to get the commentary tracks. | Those are hard to come by online. | registeredcorn wrote: | That's one of the things that kills me about present day | distribution. There is such a massive hole in not getting | to hear from the creators the way you could with DVDs. | Shows like The Simpsons, etc. have offered a massive amount | of information presented through commentary, that wouldn't | otherwise be known. | causi wrote: | When I was a kid I'd watch Futurama on DVD with | commentary and think "Wow I bet one day I'll be able to | pause any movie and click on anything and get all the | info about it." I can't believe we went the opposite | direction. | TylerE wrote: | This is one thing Amazon does well. Pause almost anything | and it will show you the actors presently on screen (with | headshots, which you can click on to get more info. | | They'll also name the song playing, if any. | causi wrote: | Eh, that's not really anything you couldn't do with | google almost as easily. I mean _real_ multimedia. I want | to pause Lord of the Rings, click on a sword, and get the | passage where the sword is described in the book. I want | to click on a character and get a behind-the-scenes look | at the making of the costume. I want it all. | TylerE wrote: | Googling opens you up to spoilers. | pessimizer wrote: | That sounds like a bunch of work for very little return, | not any new technology. | gpspake wrote: | I guess the other side of that coin is I feel like we | have more access to creators than ever with youtube and | podcasts. If I want to "meet my heroes" so to speak, I | don't need DVD extras, I can just watch them in all sorts | of formats online. Pre internet, you couldn't really | watch Scorcese on hot ones. | Dig1t wrote: | I grew up in the 90's and have nothing but warm fuzzy memories | of renting a movie on Friday night and watching in the living | room with my family, eating popcorn and candy. | | I think there's probably a lot of people who have that from | their childhood. | altdataseller wrote: | Same, Growing up in the US, I also have warm memories of | TGIF, where we'd watch Family Matters together as a family on | Friday night. | solardev wrote: | Wait, did TGIF go away too?! :( | | Lol, I grew up overseas and TGIF was where we'd go to | celebrate "American style" as a family, like on the 4th of | July or whatever. First time I ever had potato skins. | Didn't even know that was considered an edible food source | until that day. Blew my mind as a kid. | fetus8 wrote: | Poster above you is talking about a block of TV | programming called TGIF as well. | | The fast casual restaurant chain still exists, and is | definitely still cartoonishly embellished with Americana, | and surprisingly decent food for what it is. | solardev wrote: | Ahhh, thanks for the clarification. I'm glad the | restaurant is still around. | curlftpfs wrote: | Still, not once has the United Nations passed a | resolution to fund the building of TGI Fridays franchises | in South Asia or sub-Saharan Africa, where nearly | everyone lacks access to warm, inviting restaurants with | vibrant Americana-themed decor [1] | https://www.theonion.com/tgi-fridays-is-a-human- | right-182535... | solardev wrote: | Lol! They jest, but TGIF was literally my main reference | for "America" before I visited for the first time. They | do a better job propagandizing than VoA for sure. | corrral wrote: | That part was great. Getting charged late fees because you | didn't have it back at 8:00AM sharp (or whatever) sucked. | hinkley wrote: | They also had quite a markup on those snacks. Not movie | theater levels, but a lot higher than the convenience | store. | nend wrote: | I don't really view that as evil though, just basic | market dynamics. | | Similarly, CVS sells cheerios for $7 a box. I don't think | CVS is evil, sometimes I'm just lazy. | hinkley wrote: | Convenience stores also generally have a markup versus | grocery stores. That they had a markup above that was | always a bit questionable. My recollection is that over | time they switched to some more niche candies, things you | couldn't necessarily find down the street and so the | apples-to-oranges problem gave them a bit of an excuse. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Parent is referencing how Blockbuster put all the local video | stores out of business, like Walmart and Main Street America. | | It happened with record stores, too, via Tower Records and | other national chains I can't remember now | JackFr wrote: | Good record stores outlasted Tower Records. What failed | were record stores which were basically Tower records, only | watered down weaker versions. | pessimizer wrote: | Good bookstores didn't outlast Borders/Barnes & | Noble/Books-a-Million etc. (or at least 90% of them | didn't.) It was really annoying when people were mourning | the destruction of 15 year old book warehouses by Amazon, | when I was still mourning 100 year old bookstores. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | I did as well. While helping set up my parents (now Grandma | and Grandpa) on our Disney+ and Netflix plans, we discussed | the demise of Blockbuster. | | As it turns out, they did a really good job of insulating us | as kids from the backup plans for broken VHS tapes, late | fees, mis-boxed movies, returns that were accepted but never | registered, out-of-stock hit movies, and other 'adult' | problems. Their memories of movie nights did not have quite | the same golden hue, but they were happy that they'd fostered | that kind of memory in spite of the stresses of parenting. | js2 wrote: | On the other side of the counter, my wife (girlfriend at the | time) worked at BB in HS. Even by minimum wage, teen job, | retail standards it was awful. She loathed it. I'll bet if I | even just say the word "blockbuster" to her three decades | later she'll give me a stink eye. | mikkergp wrote: | Since I'm obsessed with the recent 80's | resurgence(acknowledging that this reflection of the 1980's is | much more polished than the original) I'm curious, what's your | grudge against the 1980's? | rubyn00bie wrote: | Yeah I personally hated blockbuster because they sent me to | collections over like $9 in late fees I didn't know I had. | People have fond memories but I have nearly none of video | rentals. Long lines, poor selection, and over priced... along | with bullshit "late fees," I can say I am happy they failed. | Truly video rental stores were not great, and I dunno why | people remember them like they were. | throwaway675309 wrote: | A lot of the people who have fond recollections of video | rental stores are because they were kids at the time, going | to the video store was associated with Friday nights and | family movie time for a lot of kids. | | I'm sure their parents who were responsible for rewinding the | tapes, late fees, etc. remember the video stores less fondly. | ghaff wrote: | Mostly rose-colored glasses nostalgia probably. Being able to | rent a movie whenever[0] you wanted to and watch it at home | was extremely transformative in a way that someone who grew | up with streaming (not you I realize) would find difficult to | appreciate. A lot of movies weren't even purchasable as a | practical matter (priced to rent) at the time. | | [0] Well, if they had it and it was in stock. | bombcar wrote: | They'd even rent VCRs and DVD players, which was a big deal | early on when they were multiple hundreds of dollars. | amyjess wrote: | They'd rent video game consoles too. | | Speaking of which, I miss video game rentals. I spent so | much time as akid at Blockbuster looking for games to | rent. Even now, I'd like to be able to play with a game | for a few days before committing to paying for the whole | game. | | (and of course, I say this with a hundred unplayed games | in my Steam library...) | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Before video rental stores, we rented a film projector at | the public library and movies on reel-to-reel film. Small | selection of old stuff like Marx Brothers, Three Stooges, | etc. | thewebcount wrote: | Yeah, likewise. What I'm noticing in the comments is people | who say, "My parents would take me there on Fridays..." seem | to be nostalgic for it, but for those of us who were adults, | we ran into the things you talk about. | | I distinctly remember 2 specific problems: 1) Being unable to | get the latest release you wanted to watch. This was a big | problem when video stores (not just Blockbuster) would only | get in a few copies of new movies. Eventually Blockbuster got | some sort of deal with the studios where they would get in | something like 100 copies of the latest releases and the | problem became #2: | | 2) Being unable to find anything but the most popular movies. | If you wanted to watch that slightly less popular artsy film | (but not anything as obscure as a foreign film, just not a | (lowercase "b") blockbuster movie), they'd only have a few | copies of it, and they'd inevitably all be rented out | whenever you wanted to watch it. | | I just remember going around the entire store and saying, | "seen it, seen it, seen it, don't want to see it, seen it," | etc. | pessimizer wrote: | Also they didn't stock gory horror, 99.9% of foreign films, | classics, or porn. If Blockbusters shut down your local | video store, you just weren't going to be able to watch a | wide variety of movies anymore (until Netflix's DVDs by | mail came along.) | overthemoon wrote: | It is weird. I think it's a stand-in for nostalgia for lost | media formats and the experience they engendered. I have a lot | of fuzzy feelings about it, because it was an event on Friday | when my parents would take us there, or my dad would stop by | after work and get movies or video games. I would just about | shit myself when he finally got a copy of Super Mario All-Stars | or Earthbound. When I was a little older it was close enough | that I could ride my bike there. | | But for me, it's not really about Blockbuster. It's about the | format of home video. All the ritual, the excitement | surrounding a new release that everyone wanted, sitting down to | watch it together. It's about the object of video, the thing | you can hold, and is similar to why I like to collect vinyl. I | like the artifact in and of itself, along with what's encoded | on it. | atlgator wrote: | I worked at a corporate Blockbuster for just over a year during | high school. I made $7.15/hr and I commuted using my bicycle. | Best job I ever had. | ranieuwe wrote: | Welp at least he doesn't have any scaling issues. Scaled down to | the minimal set. | cmckn wrote: | I was in Bend a few months ago and swung by the last Blockbuster. | I rented a movie (and bought a t-shirt), and had to sign up for | an account. I received a laminated paper Blockbuster card with an | account number scrawled in Sharpie on the back. I wouldn't have | guessed that the store was still calling out to these old | servers; that's pretty cool. | | The movie cost 99 cents to rent, which I thought was surprisingly | cheap. The clerks were talking about how people come in to take | pictures (no surprise there) and were usually inconsiderate about | including the clerks in photos. | | It smelled exactly the same in there. It was neat. | tantalor wrote: | > inconsiderate about including the clerks | | As in, rudely excluded the clerks, or rudely included? Either | way makes sense me to me. | dannyisaphantom wrote: | That's so cool and sounds like an awesome experience. I keep my | Mom's original Blockbuster laminated card in the back of my | iPhone case :) Just checked the print date and its from | 9/24/04. Great piece of nostalgia. | tomjakubowski wrote: | Small world: 9/24/04 was the date on my first driver's | license | davidw wrote: | I live a few blocks from that place. It's kind of weird all the | attention it gets. | tremarley wrote: | Stan Marsh | bloomingeek wrote: | Don't know if it's been mentioned or not, but what killed the | video store for me was the late fees. Hollywood Video had a | parking lot drop box that was good up until midnight. I worked | the overnight shift so I would drop the seen vids at 9:15pm and | then drive off to work. Almost every time they would charge me a | late fee! When I would call them on the fee, they always dropped | it, making me wonder about the other people who wouldn't protest. | | Also, many times I witnessed exasperated parents and grandparents | paying a huge late fee because their kids forgot to drop them | off. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-11 23:00 UTC)