No Movies Filming in CT & No Articles About It

One thing that is totally ruining my summer is the fact that there have been NO movies filming in Stamford in the past two months. When I was teaching full-time in the spring, there were movie sets all over town that I didn't have energy to go to. Now that my summer days are freer, there is absolutely nothing cool going on. Screw farmers' markets. I want to watch DeNiro again.

There are no movies because of some kind of vague possible strike that is keeping filmmakers away from starting movies or something. I really have no idea what the story is, because I read about it in the Stamford Advocate. You know what that means: I can't link you to that article, or ever read it again, because articles over 2 weeks old disappear from the Advocate site. The Advocate owners would like you to pay 3 dollars for any article over 2 weeks old. To that, I spew a string of profanity.

The headline is- I mean, was- "State's film industry stalled by stalemate on actors' contract" but you will just have to imagine the rest. This enrages me so much, for so many reasons, that I can't allow myself to think about it for too long.

I understand that newspapers need to make money, but I looked at my options for paying to access old articles, and the package deals were absurd.

Single article $2.95
3 article pack $6.95, good for one week
10 article pack $21.95, good for one month
25 article pack $49.95, good for one month
40 article pack $79.95, good for one month
50 article pack $100.00, good for one month
600 article pack $1200.00, good for one year
1200 article pack $2000.00, good for one year

Realistically, to research what I need for this blog, I'd need that $50 pack. I mark interesting articles in my Advocate RSS feed, because often I want to go back and read them again. Two weeks ago, I may not have wanted to blog about a topic, but that does not mean I never want to see that article again for the rest of my life.

However, 50 a month, for 12 months, is 600 bucks. I might as well subscribe to the hard copy for that amount of money, but I don't WANT the hard copy AT ALL. First, I don't want that many old newspapers to get rid of. Second, I'm not going to clip articles from the paper like a hoarder and keep them in a file cabinet. I want those suckers online, but I don't want it to cost that much money.

One more thing, because don't want to get too riled up before bedtime: $2.95 for access to one article? So, I can enjoy a $3 latte for ten minutes, or I can skim an article in ten seconds that may turn out to be useless and only 2 paragraphs long?

Does that make any reasonable sense to anyone? Good night, and now I am going to go do crosswords to calm myself down.

Oh- the Stamford Times does allow access to their old articles, but they don't always have the same content. They are a smaller paper, so I'm not going to begrudge them that, although I will begrudge them if they start trying to charge me for old articles.