Barnack

Or just some The Meg dual feature at the drive-in, do sound like a logical PG-13 funny monster movie affair. It is a bit surprising yes. 650k is around what 165k-220k ticket at the rebate price ? And Warner seem to fully own that movie also: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2231461/companycredits New Line Cinema (2018) (World-wide) (all media) Cannot think of a reason of why no fudge privilege on this one.

Mixed with a Moonlight and Shape of Water are not worthy winner, we need to create a category for the real movies from us the studios that matter, to find a way to make them win. Both optics being not good for the show.

I am not sure what would the concept of audience needing charity from an award organisation (that they themselves finance via giving money to Disney) would even mean ? They certainly does not need any of this at all. I really do not think either for pre-fall movies, but box office is just a portion of the pie. And yes for some award like the Academy award for best actor win what come back in revenues versus what is paid for the phase 2 campaign does not make it worth it and is for the ego of the people involved I think, once you become seen has good in making people win it is easier to attract A-lister in your future project and so on.

We !?! who we in that paragraph are you an investor in enormous budget movie and speaking for them ?

Not sure I get the comments here, did Jolie lawyer saying her kids are in trouble because of those alleged lack of payment ? Are you suggesting a rich person should not ask an alimony for the kids from their rich ex partner or what ?

That sound below mediocre: Better than 37% Science Fiction MoviesBetter than 33% Thriller Movies

Cutting performance and you loose: Glory and many others were quite nice moments. 5 of them is too much and the quality for a tv spectacle moment is too unpredictable to make it systematic all of them too and maybe too much of an issue to not have all of them if you are to have some, so I get the idea. But I would cut the categories that became a pure Oscar machine with a ridiculous process for who get in / win over time, like most the shorts one, put it in the pre-show 2 weeks before with winners and still release a compilation of them in theater. Listening to Lexi Alexander explaining how she got to win thoses Live short live action Oscar made it sound like a joke. A small bunch site in a theater and watch all the candidate in row (so if you are playing after 6 hours good luck), people that want to skip a short because it look boring flash a flash light to the ceiling, if there is 3 flash they push the skip button and it goes on to the next. To play in those, you pay an award specialist that make sure you are in or if you have a stars attach to the project in some way a la Kobe Brian it will do.

Fair to assume that Glass will be one.

For a co-production it is closer to 40% than 25% no ?

The way he talk about it that factor if it exist would be 0.5/10, 1/10 max type of boost, so passing from a 4.2/4.7 to a 5.2 for a wrinkle, not from 4.5/10 to a critical darling.

Maybe by some individual, but it 7.5/10 reception on RT, 7.1/10 on metacritic seem to match what I have seen in theater. You think it was more of a 6.5/7 movie than a 7/7.5 ? or a bigger gap than that ?

I do not think so. There is 4 possible way I would imagine 1) Simplest, at a defined date top X movie at the domestic box office are in the running, make it easier to keep the same rules over time regardless of inflation and so on. Say top 50. 2) Something base on world box office, seem complicated and usually they do not care much about outside the US stuff, so unlikely. 3) Some form of committee that decide, without a clear rules a top 20 short list that tend get voted down to 5 then voted by everyone for a win a la best SFX. 4) People voting online on an ABC/Ampas website leading up, deciding the first short list with a top something. A mix of those above.

In the old days theater were forced to play a bunch of movies contractually before they were made/seen in exchange of the right to play any movie from a studio at all. They were sold in a package deal, you will play 15 movies from us this year. Minimum price ticket setting was a popular method before the first Godfather broke records at the box office without using it (even if it was officially illegal the tradition was kept in indirect/unofficial ways for a long time). Originally by forcing the competition to not go under a certain price for the movie ticket of your movies, it made it easier to charge what you wanted in your own owned movie theater studio had at the time.

If they would go to be fully deregulated, with Disney owning 50% or so of the box office, If they would be ready to take an short term hit by refusing every theater to play their movies (while offering good money to buy them out if they want), they could own most of them rapidly I would imagine, then give terrible exhibition deal to everyone else.

Would it not be still clearly illegal for them to have a relevant amount of theater ? That said, now that studio are own by people that own TV channel and streaming service (that are not yet under some syndication type of law to help competition), that little old United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. antitrust law could feel outdated.

I think the possible turning point is if and when most of the phase 1 cast retire from the MCU (Iron, Man, Cap, Thor) and having the Guardians could have helped them turn that corner more smoothly. Now maybe they will still go as well without Gunn, but in the case they stop that group.

It could be more about their near 1 billion investment in the actual Oscar tv show than about adding promotion to their movies / rewarding their high level employee, that being of course an nice bonus. Probably better than taking so much time to do a bad promotion of them like they did with the Wrinkle of Time cinema stunt last time.

But if a Marvel&Dc movie get nominated and go head to head one year, I think we could bet they will give the event a lot of free coverage. They will not resist creating content for that and talking about it. I was not following at the time so I do not know how angry people were at best animated category that Monster inc + Shrek the same year not getting Oscar attention brought, but now you rarely hear people complaining about that one.

Or they need to make Trump host the Oscar.

chance are good for this to be true, if we look at say the grammy: UPDATED: Viewership of Sunday’s 60th annual Grammy Awards is down significantly from the 2017 telecast, nabbing the smallest audience in the show’s history in the key demo. In addition, the three and a half hour awards show is averaged a 5.9 rating in adults 18-49 and 19.8 million viewers, according to time zone adjusted numbers. Last year’s show drew a 7.8 and 26.1 million, meaning the 2018 Grammys are down approximately 24 percent in both measures. the nominee were Burno Mars, Donald Glover, Bieber, Jay-Z, Kendrick Lamar, Lorde, Despacito, Khalid, Ed Sheeran, Kesha, Kelly Clarkson, Pink, Lady Gaga, Coldplay, Imagine Dragons, Lana Del rey, Metallica, Arcade Fire, If we look at the emmy: Although television has never been more popular than it is right now, audiences are apparently uninterested in TV about TV. Sunday night’s 69th Primetime Emmy Awards telecast sank to an all-time low rating of 8.2 in the metered market metric, per THR. Initial estimates put the total viewership below the 11.3 million viewers that tuned in last year. 27% drop also Both worst than the Oscar I think. The show was filled with people favorite shows, stranger things, This is Us, Modern Family, Black-is, Big littles lies, The Voice, Better CAll saul, Westworld, the americans There is a main force for those big award shows rating going down and probably the main force for those rating going down that is quite external to the content of the show or at least not necessarily something particular to the Oscar themselve.

Who would that be ? Is this turning a rebute of someone saying no one is watching, not relevant anymore with this: No. Show Viewership (in millions) Date Network(s) 1 Super Bowl LI 111.3 February 5, 2017 Fox 2 Packers vs. Cowboys 48.5 January 15, 2017 Fox 3 Steelers vs. Patriots 48.0 January 22, 2017 CBS 4 Donald Trump Congressional Address 47.7 February 28, 2017 VOA 5 Packers vs. Falcons 46.3 January 22, 2017 Fox 6 Giants vs. Packers 39.3 January 8, 2017 Fox 7 Steelers vs. Chiefs 37.1 January 15, 2017 NBC 8 89th Academy Awards 32.9 February 26, 2017 ABC 9 Inauguration of Donald Trump 30.6 January 20, 2017 VOA 10 Dolphins vs. Steelers 29.9 January 8, 2017 CBS Into someone saying that, that the Oscar are 100% fine without serious any challenge ahead of them to still be worth an over 100m a year show in 2025 ? Who ever said that ? Are you talking about the Oscar show / leadership here (i.e. Walt Disney corporation quite a bit) or the voters (i.e. are you basing this looking at voters result that have little to do here with what is happening)

True that it is all about the winner joy (the live a part of their moment via empathy.... part I said), the speech being the current way to see that moment. Walking up taking the trophy and leaving immediately with some bow or blowing a kiss to the crowd, would not be the same sharing of the moment I think it would be a bit too short. The idea to have the names thanks in scroller was an attempt to have them write actual speech a la Mcconaughey instead of just listing name we do not know, but the failure of that to work was obvious.

“The Meg” is now considered a full co-production under Chinese regulations. That means it does not need to be imported under China’s revenue-sharing quota system, and rights-holders including Warner and Flagship can earn 45% of gross revenues, rather than the 25% that foreign studios receive under revenue-sharing terms. It also allows Gravity Pictures, which is owned by CMC, to handle the release, bypassing the two state-owned enterprises that release nearly all the quota films. So I guess it is not about China helping / saving that movie at this point, it is more would it need help of domestic or not, probably mean access to China ancillary market also but apparently unlike the rest of the planet were it tend to be 60-70% of the revenues it is only 11% of it there.

I think that a false impression, if you watch the ceremony you almost certainly do it for the winner speech, to live a part of their moment of winning by empathy. You can easily follow who win what via twitter and what not, if you watch it is not to know who is winning, it is for the jokes, the bits, the songs and the speech. You are right for when the person making the speech is unknown to the audience and that why it is a really good idea that they have to give more time to the stars/big category to speech than the others. The year that they did explain them and isolate the work of the technical category in the presentation montage of the nominee was a very good idea.

That risk of going into strawmen territory. I doubt anyone do not understand why Disney did what they did, everyone know that we are in a hyper sensitive era and a family content company will have good reason to fire him. People that are supporter of James Gunn are more supporter of people stopping to be hyper sensitive that create that company hyper fear in the first place that and the terribly unreliable way information goes around nowaday and the fake news that went into it. And also wishing for company that goes in the artistic creation / distribution to show a little bit more courage and for the consumer to create an incentive for them to do so, by supporting those risk taking and punishing the ultra safe position. The people making click-bait money will make click-bait money creating those stories out of nothingness, company will react to them if people react to them and show no support to the creators, thus people wanting to express support to the creators. Everyone understood very well newpapers/artist that refused to show support to Charlie Hebdo, everyone understood why no studio ever made a movie about Mohammed (a bit crazy when he is arguably the human that influenced the most what the world is today). Disagreeing about the situation in general or with a studio decision in particular is not to be misunderstood with not understanding why they did, people that disagree with people using coal has an energy solution are not necessarily not understanding why that choice was made.