So weird that the post focuses on how much revenue the movie industry could lose from these short movies, and claims that the movies are designed to discourage people from watching the movies. So what? All of capitalism is predicated on the idea of making something that takes market share away from someone else. The real issue here is copyright infringement, I can't see how a 10-minute version of a movie would fall into fair use. So they need to adapt and make their own fake content (with claymation or puppets or something). IANAL.
Customers are expressing a desire they want their entertainment in a different format;
Rights holders crack down on infringement;
No one wins
Instead, the industry should adapt to customer desires, and find a way to make money off of “fast movies”, rather than forbidding customers from enjoying the content how they please.
Exactly , without context I suspect this comment section to devolve into discussion about US copyright law which, while fun to read, should be steered towards Japanese Copyright law. The context being in the title would absolutely help that.
>Most movie companies require viewers to invest 90 minutes or longer to absorb their theatrical works in the way they were intended but this method of presenting a story is reportedly being undermined.
>These are heavily edited copies of mainstream movies that aim to tell the whole story (complete with spoilers) within a very short period, often inside just 10 minutes.
>“Fast movies including spoilers would discourage viewers from watching the original films and thus have a serious adverse effect on the right holders.”
If people are choosing to watch a 10 minute summary of a movie rather than a movie, tells me chances are they were probably not ever going to pay for the movie anyway, or the movie itself is full of 80 minutes of bullshit not worth watching.
I've certainly read movie synopses instead of watching them, mainly to have some idea of what other people are talking about online.
But 10 minutes is an odd length, it seems too long for simply conveying necessary details and highlights, but far too short an edit to be anything like a substitute for watching the movie.
Not to get into a pedantic argument about grammar and such, but seeing as writing is a form of communication, does writing rule of thumb vs rule-of-thumb provide any more or less information to the reader?
I would pronounce both of those the same out loud, I read both of those the same in my mind. Hyphens in places like that are a piece of punctuation that provide no real extra information or purpose, but clutter the sentence with symbols.
Punctuation exists to provide missing information to a reader. What information do hyphens provide in that situation that is necessary for me or other readers to understand what the commenter intended?
> Not to get into a pedantic argument about grammar and such, but ..
Everything before the word "but" is typically disingenuous.
> I would pronounce both of those the same out loud, I read both of those the same in my mind.
This is a bald-faced lie. :) Hyphenated words and idioms are often pronounced faster.
> Hyphens in places like that are a piece of punctuation that provide no real extra information or purpose, but clutter the sentence with symbols.
They're not symbols, they're punctuation. They indicate rate-of-speech and semantic boundaries.
if i write text like this it is very annoying also you cannot tell where one thought ends and another begins do you really want to live in such a shitty world
Hyphens also serve as affordances to cue the reader to the presence of familiar idioms rather than impose additional cognitive load onto them after the fact.
They also serve as affordances to cue the reader to the presence of familiar idioms rather than impose additional cognitive load onto them after-the-fact.
They also serve as affordances to cue the reader to the presence of familiar idioms rather than impose additional cognitive load onto them after. the. fact.
Perhaps users of a language should learn the rules and conventions before throwing them away simply because they don't understand them?
But in all seriousness, since you seem to be very passionate and prescriptive about conventions in written communication, the original use of "the rule of thumb" by OP in the non-hyphenated form is in fact correct. Hyphens are used when noun phrases are used in an attributive manner (i.e. noun as adjective). See https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/rule_of_thumb for additional info as well as consulting your copy of Strunk and White
21 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 58.2 ms ] threadCustomers are expressing a desire they want their entertainment in a different format; Rights holders crack down on infringement; No one wins
Instead, the industry should adapt to customer desires, and find a way to make money off of “fast movies”, rather than forbidding customers from enjoying the content how they please.
"Police" is not (yet) a global institution.
Also: Editorializing? It's literally in the first sentence of the article.
>These are heavily edited copies of mainstream movies that aim to tell the whole story (complete with spoilers) within a very short period, often inside just 10 minutes.
>“Fast movies including spoilers would discourage viewers from watching the original films and thus have a serious adverse effect on the right holders.”
If people are choosing to watch a 10 minute summary of a movie rather than a movie, tells me chances are they were probably not ever going to pay for the movie anyway, or the movie itself is full of 80 minutes of bullshit not worth watching.
But 10 minutes is an odd length, it seems too long for simply conveying necessary details and highlights, but far too short an edit to be anything like a substitute for watching the movie.
Eliminating hyphens is some linguistic fashion pandemic.
I would pronounce both of those the same out loud, I read both of those the same in my mind. Hyphens in places like that are a piece of punctuation that provide no real extra information or purpose, but clutter the sentence with symbols.
Punctuation exists to provide missing information to a reader. What information do hyphens provide in that situation that is necessary for me or other readers to understand what the commenter intended?
Everything before the word "but" is typically disingenuous.
> I would pronounce both of those the same out loud, I read both of those the same in my mind.
This is a bald-faced lie. :) Hyphenated words and idioms are often pronounced faster.
> Hyphens in places like that are a piece of punctuation that provide no real extra information or purpose, but clutter the sentence with symbols.
They're not symbols, they're punctuation. They indicate rate-of-speech and semantic boundaries.
if i write text like this it is very annoying also you cannot tell where one thought ends and another begins do you really want to live in such a shitty world
ifiwritetextlikethisitisveryannoyingalsoyoucannottekkwhereonethiughtendsandanitherbeginsdoyourreallywantoliveinsuchashittyworld
Hyphens also serve as affordances to cue the reader to the presence of familiar idioms rather than impose additional cognitive load onto them after the fact.
They also serve as affordances to cue the reader to the presence of familiar idioms rather than impose additional cognitive load onto them after-the-fact.
They also serve as affordances to cue the reader to the presence of familiar idioms rather than impose additional cognitive load onto them after. the. fact.
Perhaps users of a language should learn the rules and conventions before throwing them away simply because they don't understand them?
But in all seriousness, since you seem to be very passionate and prescriptive about conventions in written communication, the original use of "the rule of thumb" by OP in the non-hyphenated form is in fact correct. Hyphens are used when noun phrases are used in an attributive manner (i.e. noun as adjective). See https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/rule_of_thumb for additional info as well as consulting your copy of Strunk and White
https://twitter.com/TheGrayzoneNews/status/14072056487110123...
Why not just watch TJDS and Grayzone?
I do thinks it's stupid that anybody would bother to punish people who do this kind of thing though.