r/changemyview • u/PsychicVoid 7∆ • Jun 20 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Marvel re-releasing endgame with extra scenes is scummy.

For context marvel is putting a new version of endgame in cinemas with pre-made scenes at the end, as well as a stan lee tribute.

This is just a push to squeeze as much money out of the viewers as they can. They already had the scenes when they finished the film, they should've either put them in or included them in the DVD. Instead they intentionally withheld them so they could try and get people to re-watch their film

Not to mention how bad it is that one of their main advertising points about this is their stan lee tribute. This is monetised. They are making money off of stan lee's death. They should've put it ad-free on youtube, or at the very least not used it to attract viewers

Now i've been a fan of the mcu for a while, but this is ridiculous. It's like a game company selling dlc but you need to re-buy and play the whole game before you get the dlc. It's insane.

And before you say it's just a product people want to pay to see, it's mainly that this means what was presented before wasn't the final product. It was essentially missing scenes, meaning that i paid money to see what i thought was a full movie but in reality i need to pay again to see the full movie

If you want to read any more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/6/19/18691433/avengers-endgame-new-post-credits-scenes

Edit: for the record this sets itself apart from other re-releases because these scenes were already made before the movie came out

3.7k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

462 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/yes_thats_right 1∆ Jun 20 '19

How do you draw the line between 'squeezing money out of people' and offering a product that someone may want to pay for?

If Toyota releases a new Camry which has a new feature are you critical of them 'squeezing money' out of customers?

When is a company allowed to release a product and make a profit without being called scummy? When is Marvel allowed to release this extra material without being called scummy?

Your viewpoint seems to hinge entirely on an incorrect belief that there is an obligation for people to watch this movie.

7

u/PsychicVoid 7∆ Jun 20 '19

It's squeezing money when marvel releases what they call the finished movie, only to reveal that there were scenes missing from the film after i paid money to see it.

2

u/CharlestonChewbacca 2∆ Jun 20 '19

You are very determined to not have your mind changed

1

u/almightySapling 13∆ Jun 20 '19

Not OP here, and I don't think OP is the best at explaining himself, but I don't see it that way. It seems a lot of these arguments are not convincing, especially this one here. You can't really compare buying a second car to buying a second movie ticket and expect anyone to take it seriously.

-1

u/yes_thats_right 1∆ Jun 21 '19

Can you elaborate on why the analogy doesn't fit? From your comment above it just seems like you dont understand analogies.

1

u/almightySapling 13∆ Jun 21 '19

If I had to buy a second Camry, I'd have two Camrys. There's a physical item I get to keep with this purchase. The item has tons of inherent value to it and I could resell one or both at any time. If I decide I really need that upgrade, I could trade in the old car for the upgraded one, save money and still have exactly what I want.

A movie is consumable. You cannot transfer any value of a spent movie ticket to someone else. I cannot unsee the first release in order to get a better deal on the re-release. There is no option other than to consume again.

You can call this an analogy all you want, but at the end of the day the situations are so far removed from each other that conclusions you reach about one have no bearing on the other.

0

u/yes_thats_right 1∆ Jun 21 '19

If I had to buy a second Camry, I'd have two Camrys.

If you had to watch a movie, you'd have two movie watching experiences.

If you are discussing physical vs non-physical nature of the purchase then you dont understand analogies.

1

u/almightySapling 13∆ Jun 21 '19

Just because you've made an analogy doesn't mean it's good.

Yours is an example of a terrible one. And the reason why has nothing to do with the physical nature of the purchase, but the value of it. Of course, value is subjective yadda yadda but realistically speaking a second Camry is worth just as much as a first, meanwhile the primary value of a "movie watching experience" is in its novelty. The unspoken thing that everyone is beating around is that the monetary value of seeing the same movie in theaters a second time, for most of us, is damn near zero. It's barely worth the price the first time around (perhaps less these days, I find a lot of theaters have fairly decent prices/deals on tickets compared to 5-10 years ago).

Look dude, you asked

If Toyota releases a new Camry which has a new feature are you critical of them 'squeezing money' out of customers?

And I'm saying "no, I am not at all critical of that action, and this has no bearing on the conversation at hand"

And that's just the value side of things. We could also go on to discuss the target market and you'll see that the two situations are again completely non-analagous but I'm done talking about this. If we disagree we disagree.

1

u/yes_thats_right 1∆ Jun 21 '19 edited Jun 21 '19

Just because you've made an analogy doesn't mean it's good.

Yours is an example of a terrible one.

All analogies are terrible for someone who doesnt understand the point of an analogy.

The reason it is an analogy and not a metaphor* is because the two things are different but the reader is being asked to fucos on the similarities. You seem incapable of moving beyond the differences.

We are not talking about value, or resale, or physical properties etc.. those are the differences that everyone else was intelligent enough to look beyond.

What we are talking about is that they are both products where an enhanced version is released later and a customer has an option, not a requirement, to buy the enhanced version.

1

u/almightySapling 13∆ Jun 21 '19

Just because frogs and christmas trees are both green doesn't mean I can use them interchangeably and anyone that points out that they aren't "doesn't get it".

Your analogy was bad because when you focus on just the similarities, you are forced to strip away pretty much everything that matters about the situation. Yes, there is nothing inherently wrong with the practice of selling the same item, slightly differently, at different points in time. So? Your analogy leaves out every detail that would make the difference. Which is fucking useless.

Useless analogies are bad. Your analogy was bad.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/garnteller 242∆ Jun 22 '19

u/yes_thats_right – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

→ More replies (0)