[REL] Crater (2023)

[Nasuada]

Poster

tempImagexWaKib.gif

After the death of his father, a boy growing up on a lunar mining colony takes a trip to explore a legendary crater, along with his four best friends, prior to permanently leaving the Moon and relocated to another planet.

Plot
Crater is set on a lunar colony in 2257, where people work to mine for resources so that humanity has the fuel to travel to a planet called Omega, a new human settlement. The story follows a young boy named Caleb (Isaiah Russell-Bailey). After his father's death, he is supposed to be sent to Omega due to a contractual reason saying anyone who dies working the mines will have their family sent to the new planet.

Before he is permanently set to be located on another planet, his three friends — Dylan (Billy Barratt), Borney (Orson Hong), and Marcus (Thomas Boyce), alongside a new transfer to the colony Addison (McKenna Grace) — decide to steal a lunar rover to visit a crater that Caleb's father and mother used to visit. This journey will test these kids emotionally and see them become masters of their own fate. Underneath all the science fiction set dressing, Crater is a coming-of-age story about a group of friends that have to confront the fact that one of their friends is about to move away and have one last night of fun.

Web
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5264838/

Trailer


Screencaps

CRA-FP-Still005.jpg

MV5BZDBiYmNiMDAtYjhmZS00MjEyLWIwMGItZmU3YzQ0MWJiNTljXkEyXkFqcGdeQVRoaXJkUGFydHlJbmdlc3Rpb25Xb3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_QL75_UX500_CR0,0,500,281_.jpg

Other stuff
The movie is produced by Disney and was running exclusive on Disney+ for amazing 48 days and then... removed. 53,4 Mio. $ for nothing :-X. The Donkey Link (i test it successfully) give you the full movie in french and english with 1080p and Dolby.
Oh and yep, it's with McKenna Grace

Like this post to see ed2k links  [4.76 GiB]

[Night457]

This was a quite enjoyable Disney flick, it has been a few months and I have not forgotten it. This is HIGH praise from me, since most movies I watch I manage to forget in a week!

It is a shame that there is only ONE girl in the cast, but she does manage well as the "queen bee" in this boy's club.

I first heard of this because of its quick disappearance, so I just HAD to see the "BANNED" Disney movie:
https://nofilmschool.com/disney-removed ... ly-48-days

(Short version: less successful movies get discarded as a tax write-off.)

[Nasuada]

I can't understand what Disney doing. As I read that they would delete lot of movies and series to safe money (what???) I was very surprised. On of my favorite newer shows where "The Mysterious Benedict Society". A short time before they delete the series I read, that Disney decide to stop the production for a third season.

So why they produce new stuff to delete it a short time after? This was a big kick in the face for streaming in my eyes, especially for a company streaming service who I believed, that they will let their own content for longer time.

[Night457]

I don't know how TV broadcasts and film production and taxes work in most other countries, but let me tell you about the U.S. film business:

Spoiler: TV & streaming is funded mostly by corporations, not public taxes, and for their own profit. No nonsense or pretense about "serving the public interest" or any such idealistic crap. There are "public television stations" but they exist mostly because of viewer donations. Profit comes from advertisements, on commercial television; and premium-channel subscriptions, on non-commercial television. The highest-rated programming can charge advertisers the most for their commercial time. If not enough people are watching, the movie or show is not making the business money. (Of course, the "best" possible business model combines charging viewers a premium fee AND showing them commercials.) And the more it COSTS to make a movie, the more people are needed watching it to make it profitable. The budget for "Crater" was only $53,400,000. Cheap? Taxes: products that lose money for a business can be "written off" their taxes. (In all businesses, not just film.) So Disney says "This movie lost our money because no one is watching it, WAAAAAH!" and they prove it by taking it off streaming so no one can watch it. Then the tax authorities say "Oh poor baby you must be hurting so much! You get a great big discount on your tax bill. Will that make you feel better?" It is not just Disney of course: Warner Brothers completed making a "Batgirl" superhero movie for their streaming platform and then canceled it before airing, taking it as a tax exemption.

I thought the news article I linked was pretty funny, because their view was that with no physical release like DVD or Blu-ray, taking it off streaming meant that now NO ONE COULD SEE THE FILM. Yeah, OK. Too late, they made it available for a short time which is plenty of opportunity for the torrenters.

P.S.: It's a fun, heart-warming film about family and friends (typical Disney material, of course), with maybe a bit too much spent on the FX.

[pillowbaker]

I have been hearing about this trend in particular with Disney. At first it was specifically regarding a TV show they abruptly cancelled and THEN eventually removed, but I didn't care about just that one. But then I've heard that many shows/film, and even original productions could be removed. Which is apparently what happened.

I guess business is business, but damn, I find this noticeably disconcerting. What I am hoping doesn't happen, is for this business model to actually pay out for them, and for other streaming platforms to follow suit. I imagine that I would enjoy a fair amount of films and shows that would be not popular enough. And then for these shows to be removed from the platform that they were designed for.

What I am wondering is how easily they can do this and still get their little baby tax breaks. I understand that more viewers can be more eyes on advertisements, but for many of these viewers, I imagine they aren't seeing ads in the first place. How are they able to then pass these off as losses? Surely, losses can be written off, but what about losses that you intentionally incur to yourself? An insurance company wouldn't tolerate this, why should the IRS? I know, they've probably got an answer for this, and I am likely way off the mark.


Sorry, not trying to get off topic. This show actually looked very interesting to me, and this looks like it will satisfy a craving for an easy, feel-good, no-brainer watch. Many thanks for sharing this with us, Nasuada! I am glad there are people like you working to share as well as preserve the media.

[Night457]

But then I've heard that many shows/film, and even original productions could be removed.

Which is why everyone should set their VCRs and save what they like, treating the rest as disposable temporary entertainment.

My ongoing rant about streaming and corporate taxation, blah blah blah --

Spoiler: What I am hoping doesn't happen, is for this business model to actually pay out for them, and for other streaming platforms to follow suit. The crackpots who post online and complain are vocal about how they have canceled their Disney+ or whatever other streaming platform. But "boycotts" seldom work and "canceling" (ahem) almost always proves temporary. Now if Mickey Mouse has some dark past with the Disney talent that lands him in jail, maybe things will be different. [Image] After fairly general sites like Netflix and Amazon proved streaming profitable, every studio piled on the money bandwagon with their own dedicated content while Netflix and Amazon also did the same. Very few people can afford all of them, so they shop around and look for short-term contracts to binge on the content and then move on to the next studio. The InternEtxperts predict that many studios will ultimately abandon their own streaming platforms and go back to licensing their content to third parties. I keep reading about Disney going bankrupt, and wryly wonder how billion-dollar corporations can be considered on the edge of bankruptcy. Ah yes, that terrific tax code. I imagine that I would enjoy a fair amount of films and shows that would be not popular enough. I am totally screwed. I understand that more viewers can be more eyes on advertisements, but for many of these viewers, I imagine they aren't seeing ads in the first place. How are they able to then pass these off as losses? I don't have any cable TV or any streaming services so I don't actually know what ones have ads, other than for their own content. However, they DO know what shows get the viewers and therefore in theory encourage the subscriptions in the first place. That is what they will have on their streaming servers. Everything that does not get watched is a "loss", at least on paper. They have the world's best tax lawyers and accountants. Disney in particular has a longtime practice both for film and home media of periodically taking movies out of circulation and putting them in the vault for years. Their correct theory is that familiarity breeds contempt, and when they bring out their treasures people will be excited to again see what they now have nostalgia for. Streaming makes that approach much more effective than disc-based home media, because as long as the rough grubby toddlers don't abuse the physical product it will still work. Surely, losses can be written off, but what about losses that you intentionally incur to yourself? DAMN, I thought that *I* was cynical! An insurance company wouldn't tolerate this, why should the IRS? Contact your congressperson, as they allow the lobbyists to write the tax code for them.

This show actually looked very interesting to me, and this looks like it will satisfy a craving for an easy, feel-good, no-brainer watch.

Some of it was a little silly and I had to question the "science" part of this "science fiction", but it WAS considerably more intelligent than, say, the Hannah Montana TV series. That show had a girl who "learned" the exact same sentimental lessons about family and friendship every episode and then reset to selfish and stupid for the next. I even began to suspect that "Miley" (the character) was simply cynically paying lip-service to the values that supposedly made her a "good girl at heart" just so that her daddy would continue to allow her to do exactly as she pleased. At least with a movie there is a definite END and you can see some character growth!