Barnack

Even if you would have never been, you first need to get it and after that the complication death rate before therapy knowledge got advanced like today looked like this: \ Outside of a special pre-condition case, if you under 45 that a bit of a dramatic take. If you put the chance to get infected in a single masked movie theater session in the current relative low covid environment to 0.5% and the chance to dying from said infection at 0.03% that a one in a 666,666 chance. odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are only around 1 in 500,000. Someone that work outside (or play golf) probably has a lot more chance to be struck by lighting than that for a reference (specially if you are in Texas or Florida could be more than 10 time more likely). If you are fully vaccinated you can make that between 10 to 50 time less likely....

The link does not work on my browser (could be vpn), an other one: https://whatsondisneyplus.com/disney-reducing-star-branding/ From: To: I can see them keeping strong brand (espn-pixar-Searchlight-marvel-Lucas Art in video game return, etc...) but in many market something like Star had I imagine exactly 0 value and would create confusion

That and Venom are doing quite crazy well: In like-for-like markets at current exchange rates No Time To Die is in line with Skyfall, and just below Spectre (-17%) excluding previews.

I was going to say: Aside of public holiday In Germany the minimum holiday/vacation entitlement is 24 working days a year. It is impossible for anything regarding holiday calendar to ever be brutal....... that sound like worst case scenario you have at least 6 full week a year.......

That seem like that could go either way, stop passively sitting in dark room watching stuff.

If you think that it actually did anything it make sense, near 0 effort, incredible small result can be more rational than trying anything to do with the other problem you list, for many of them, big effort would give 0 result.

I am not sure how much the talent negotiations was the issue here (it is not like not having a clear pandemic or other event that changed the theatrical business in the short term is to blame), but in 2017 that was port Perlmutter, he was not only the main producer (the only one listed with a producer credit that how powerful he is) on that movie and also the president of Marvel studio. If he was not fully involved in the top talent negotiations maybe he will. But I could see it the complete way around, maybe Disney will get more involved and remove power from Marvel in that regard to not have a surprise like that again. A bit like I am sure Sony started to get involved in their subsidiary branch talent compensation after the American Hustle situation that their Columbia branch and Annapurna deals created a strange situation for them (and it is not like the coverage when it happen will include those nuance, end of the day people will look at the big owner regardless of how much involved they were). I would have thought future of theatrical going on, Tom Cruise fighting for access to Dvd revenue that opened the door for the rest round 2. That assume that struggle happened to each innovation in the industry and a big name had to be the first.

It is a really big enterprise, her contract that was allegedly broken was with MVL East Coast Productions, LLC (“Marvel”), not sure it would involve many day to day with people that had issue with each others and the one that did not ignored the issue and their promise, not Disney.

That was announced before Widow release (which I imagine made it more surprising to some that the battle went public). Not sure how we can have a clue, but I doubt it will indeed (it is somewhat common and almost expected see how much Peter Jackson continued to work with people that he had just sued and so on) Big name for big case I would imagine it is rare that it ever end up in actual lawsuit (the Gerald Butler against a smaller entity is maybe more common), there a list of famous case: https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-disney/ Or she got 20M+ and they include the 20M in advance to say that she got +40M not sure will ever see any details.

Because of the league maximum wage system he was arguably vastly underpaid: https://visual.ly/community/Infographics/sports/lebron-james-most-underpaid-athlete-sports Is franchise lost half the tv rating the moment he left, stopped going to the final every year, the ticket value dropped by 80%. There a chance that New-York or Los Angeles would have agree to pay Lebron James nearly 100m a year if it was like soccer and more open, maybe less but significantly more than the 19 millions a year he signed in is prime. But that league maximum pay rules, made it maybe for a more healthy league, that had bigger intl reach that make Lebron a bigger global star and made him overall more money from Nike, movies and so on. Should someone that make you sales tickets much higher price, reach the final every year not take a cut of that amount ? P.S. There is no obvious link between actor compensation and ticket price, movie theater will obviously charge has much has they can to optimize revenues and do not pay for the movie they show usually, they give a share back.

It is true that it is not much different (if any different) than athlete. With the premise that it is my very little understanding: 1) It is rarely a case were they do have equity and this is not a case (i.e. Johansson could not have lost money if the movie would have lost money), unlike equity athlete tend to have revenue or profit share with none of the risk if it fail, that why even if they are a giant group of super rich people they very often decide to not get equity (or right out buy it), because that deal of get half the revenues with 0 of the risk is hard to beat. There is a strong never put of your own money in things stigma in Hollywood (Witherspoon did talk about it when she start putting her money in projects to make them happen). 2) That an assumption that the money would go to greedy studio head or that: I doubt billionaire pay millionaires here, sometime it is but here it is a public company Disney that do, which is not owned by billionaire but by everyone: https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?symb=DIS&subView=institutional 500 idx fund and state farm, fidelity of the world or not special closed group of billionaires, but for a large part regular people pension fund, insurance and so on. Rich people financing a movie do happen, but that not always the case, specially Disney one. Just to be sure I understand you do you think that Lebron James in is prime was overpaid ?

The article end with a: Johansson is represented by Kasowitz partner John Berlinski, while Daniel Petrocelli has been repping Disney. With that title: The settlement ends a back-and-forth PR battle pitting the CAA-repped star against the studio that was poised to have dramatic implications for all of Hollywood’s majors. Usually partly written by the agents (nothing against a legend like Kim Masters) but that a situation the only thing you can write about is what agents tell you in a secret settlement like that. The very powerful CAA is saying that it is huge... it is not really a clue either way. We do not know what the offer was, nor the settlement.

It is an interesting subject but it apply more to the The Room and the Plan 9 from Outer Space movies outthere (that the spectacle of how bad they are by someone aiming to make masterpiece is what is fun) than the Bad Boys 2 movie, I bought the Bad boys movies bluray set and was not able to finish the first one. I really doubt my parents would love Bad Boys 2, the idea that everyone love watching Michael Bays movies outside critic sound quite false to me (so is the idea that everyone hate them, has would anyone sitting in them OW would see that it is not the case I would imagine). If actually everyone enjoy a movie for the reason the movie was trying to achieve I think one could argue it is a good movie by definition. Big Lebowski, Up-Inside Out-Walle-Incredibles-Monster Inc, Shawshank redemption, Casablanca, Groundhog Day are better example of movies almost everyone loves than Bad Boys 2 or Transformer I think. Movie everyone love tend to be critics favorite almost by definition I am blanking for a counterexample of that. That said Bad Boys 1-2 like most Bay output will have a lot of critics rave some elements, because of how crazy strong auteurship and 3d mental capacity the guy has.

I think the conversation is potentially a bit too "binary", the genre, the trailers, the high concept were a large part of that OW, of the individual member of the squad, the Quinn character was the biggest draw (only one ?) imo, Smith was the biggest actor draw and joker is always a big magnet. Quinn was more a big deal than Deadshot before the movie release, during the movie promo and after the movie imo.

Is this message for real ?

domestic, worldwide it was above anything that was not a giant like Sound of music all time event type if I am not misunderstanding, and that was while they pushed out 3 Bond movie in only 2 year's.

I doubt it, Casino Royal has a good argument to have been at is best on is first watch and the first watch being close to 2006. Sequence like the Poker game is just too long on rewatch and I would imagine on first watch now that we are out of the peak madness of poker popularity that we were back in those days, the action-fight sequence being more realistic-gritty became more the norm and so on. I feel it would still be my favorite, but I need to rewatch Skyfall one day.

Has always very true, but under any metric Connery Bond was extremely popular in 64-65: 1 Mary Poppins Aug 26, 1964 Walt Disney Musical $102,272,145 109,970,048 2 My Fair Lady Oct 22, 1964 Musical $72,000,000 77,419,354 3 Goldfinger Dec 22, 1964 MGM Action $51,100,000 54,946,236 4 The Carpetbaggers Apr 9, 1964 Paramount Pictures Drama $28,409,547 30,547,900 5 From Russia With Love Apr 8, 1964 MGM Action $24,800,000 26,666,66 1 The Sound of Music Mar 2, 1965 20th Century Fox Musical $163,214,286 161,598,302 2 Doctor Zhivago Dec 22, 1965 MGM Drama $111,721,913 110,615,755 3 Thunderball Dec 29, 1965 MGM Action $63,600,000 62,970,297 4 Those Magnificent Men In Th… Jun 16, 1965 Adventure $31,111,111 30,803,080 5 That Darn Cat! Dec 2, 1965 Comedy $28,062,222 27,784,378 6 The Great Race Jul 1, 1965 Comedy $25,333,333 25,082,507 That putting 2 movie in the Top 3 2 year<s in a row and a third one at number 5 domestic while being a smash intl, enough for someone to pause a little bit before saying that this era Craig is when it was at is most popular (even if it has an argument for it). I think it is the number 2-3 movies worldwide those 2 year<s behind the Sound of Music one of the biggest movie ever.

If some of the recent US president are an indication, I think you can go extremely wild here in your imagination, it could have been Kid Rock or Ted Nugent on a bed of guns.

The person that was audibly snoring at my showing (and the crowd that felt a bit jealous of that) would agree I think.

The people with some mental rule of thumb about runtime, tend to have a you better be Scorsese (or Nolan, Cameron, Tarantino, etc... or an epic project a la End Game) if you want a lot of it, more than a very hard rule of thumb.

Not for the next generation of over 60 year's old voter or are you saying that it is ? It is easy to see why an Titanic was beloved by a group of old people that vote for the awards, same for Lord of the Rings it is less obvious that it would be the case for the Superheroes stuff and it is not a sign of a change in taste, like Spider Man breaking record during Lords of the rings trilogy, they would not have necessarily beloved EndGame back then.

More than an giant period movie ? The record holder was BenHur (11) and Gone with the wind (10) Awards and Box office are getting apart but I am not sure that it is mostly for the reason of the sorts: It’s pretty obvious that their tastes have diverged a lot from the general audience. Audience arguably have liked the superheroes movies for a very long time at least since Superman (than Batman 89, etc...) and academy was never a big fan of them back then. Superman was one of the biggest movie of all time on release: Academy Awards, USA 1979 Winner Special Achievement Award Les Bowie Colin Chilvers Denys N. Coop Roy Field Derek Meddings Zoran Perisic For visual effects. Nominee Oscar Best Sound Gordon K. McCallum Graham V. Hartstone Nicolas Le Messurier Roy Charman Best Film Editing Stuart Baird Best Music, Original Score John Williams Batman broke some record: Academy Awards, USA 1990 Winner Oscar Best Art Direction-Set Decoration Anton Furst Peter Young Spider man 1 and 2 has well: Academy Awards, USA 2005 Winner Oscar Best Achievement in Visual Effects John Dykstra Scott Stokdyk Anthony LaMolinara John Frazier Nominee Oscar Best Achievement in Sound Mixing Kevin O'Connell Greg P. Russell Jeffrey J. Haboush Joseph Geisinger Best Achievement in Sound Editing Paul N.J. Ottosson Academy Awards, USA 2003 Nominee Oscar Best Sound Kevin O'Connell Greg P. Russell Ed Novick Best Visual Effects John Dykstra Scott Stokdyk Anthony LaMolinara John Frazier Did the academy taste changed toward them (maybe the academy did got more to like them today than in the past, but one could say it is lesser competition), did the audience taste changed toward them (maybe they love them a bit more, but they were immensely popular back then has well) ? But those seem to be what they would get today, if anything they would get more academy attention today. I feel it is more there is not a Titanic or Gone With the Wind being released than a massive change in voter taste, but I could be wrong. We would only know if Hollywood ever make a movie like that ever again. Titanic would probably do has well today with the Oscars specially if it was a box office monster or at least I do not see a reason why not.

Not sure which would be that, but you in the shoes of a median academy voters (that was a 63 year's old in 2014), was there any Titanic or ROTK for them since ? Avatar maybe, but not really and that did really well.