Barnack

But it is not new, they are softer than ever on their policy about movies not respecting the MPAA windows. Terrible practice without having read Disney conditions (and thinking we would know more than them what is good practice, bad precedent to set and so on) sound like well regular talk we do here on this message board thinking about it.

That always been theater position, in 2020 theater decided to less and less block movies before it was non negotiable. ?

Getting 55% of ticket sales is 12.2% more money than getting 49%, which is bigger than their total operating income of 2019. Exact same mindset from theatrical chain, setting precedent for a movie that will have an hard time making $10m is not the same than setting precedent for Star wars and avengers like they did.

Holland will always have Umbrella. Not related to the point but those numbers do not feel like Liongates money I imagine it was vastly shared with a long list of partner, that would be quite a change in pace for them. But if they had to reimburse all their world theatrical pre-sales and so on, maybe it could be their top spending ever.

Expected reception is obviously a factor embargo wise but also how well tracking is doing (specially awareness), if awareness is really low you can enter any media is better than nothing go for it mode. In the current climate many people do not know if theater are open, open just during the day, etc... let alone if anything new is playing in them and so on. And the other way around if the movie is tracking through the roof anyway keep a lid on the embargo why take any chance (It for example) even if you not sure it will get destroyed by the critics.

Nomadland The Father Mank Promising Young Woman The Trial of the Chicago 7 Borat Subsequent Movie film Hamilton Music Palm Springs The Prom Maybe, but I have seen none of them in their entirety I think. This does not feel at all like 1939, 1977, 1994, 1999 or 2009, even if it is for people that actually seen them.

To a certain point, some have it has part of their identity I feel, A white Black Panther would be strange. Some are particularly easy for any race depending of the setting you put them, wonder woman, superman and so on.

For sure a season of GoT felt different than a stranger things big week, Tiger Kings could be another example of such a different between the size and length of an event. And a 2 hours movie would normally be even more short lived than a 4 hours mini series.

That is more likely, giant amount of status lost is more certain that blockbuster disparition without theatrical. Online movie festival vs theatrical one like Canne, Venice, Sundance, .... the Oscar in a streaming world would become the emmy pretty much, premiere, OW, lot of the pageantry would become a bit like the TV level. And the length of the hype with how easy and fast it would be for everyone to have all seen it, would also probably something. Avengers III dual movies total cost of sales is now up to around 1.4 billion USD (the guy that talked about the first 1 billion production going on was maybe not that off after all). With a $70 box a year Disney+ deal, that 100 millions people signing for 2 years just to cover the old model cost of giant movies if it would go on unchanged, I feel like VOD model Disney is pushing could be a necessity to keep them alive. If people pay an extra to watch them, it would make the event feel more like an event (and some will group with people to share the cost as well, helping that effect, like PPV wrestling-UFC-boxing could feel like an event when the cost was really high)

In their growing early days they would (and kind of are), on mature one not so sure, there is a reason Disney is playing so much with VOD instead of pure "streaming" for their big movies after all, I imagine it is something they will want to have in the future. Maybe netflix will pivot, if not, I expect a lot more of Bright, Extraction type instead of the Titanic type yes.

I am not arguing with you that they would have not have had good legs for their genre, just that they would have possibly opened so big that they would have had an hard time to flop. No theatrical made the verified audience score disappear, not saying those 2 could have been the target for some reason of bad scoring (i.e. China tension and what not) and bot didn't perform well in market they had theatrical making it without question they would not have legged well. But imagine WW doing a "terrible" 105M OW with a terrible 2.3 multiplier and a terrible 52% domestic performance, that still a 464 millions box office (heavily domestic), a bit like Mulan the brand is so giantly strong and the machine to sell and distribute the movie that it is hard to see them flop (depending what you mean).

Not seen them, so obviously has no opinion on the bad part, but the brand is so strong that depending on what you mean by flop I am not sure I agree. Suicide Squad was a nice success, BvS OW got so big that it got out of flop territory (again depending of your definition) just by the strength of it. I think WW84 would have went by with the strength of the goodwill from the first one opening (plus of the genre and DC branding), same for Mulan. We would find people saying the same of Aladdin or Beauty online if they were released under Mulan scenario (Mulan RT score being better than those) and they were billion dollar movies.

Those 3 example were small - mid budget movies too and I would be curious how "profitable" if the concept make sense (or did matter at that point, they were not chasing profit yet that much netflix, stock value and ability to get money was not evaluated much on that versus potential future one) they would have made with a $200m price tag.

I am not sure if the notion of blockbuster (if you mean movies that get watched a lot or that cost a fortune and achieve to get watched a lot) will disappear without theater if movies continue to exist. I am not sure movies will continue to exist (outside niche affair) without theater, the point of a fully contained story told to be watched in one sitting could loose it's mainstream appeal without theater, why a movie instead a mini series to tell this story and so on. It will take a good amount of time (for everyone that was born when theatrical existed to pass away) but yes obviously feature length film could stop to be popular completely, making 1 off giant budget for a single 1h20 to 2h30 hours only project a thing of the past (with obviously the movie franchise entry, or potential first one of a wannabe franchise continuing to a thing) much longer. Would a Titanic make sense to take a chance for a streamer with 0 chance of making new customer, but just not losing them in the next 8 months and the calculation become, how many customer do not take a pause or cancel for how many months investing 250 millions in a movie that can completely flop make it worth it, when something like Tiger King at that price point is worth an incredible amount for a platform (or a proven The Office)..... The concept will have momentum and will not die right away, 100% certains, especially not with Disney IPs and Pixar studio existing, but will it survive just the first 100 years after movie theater become a niche affair ?, not so sure, many medium art form-format stopped to be mainstream level of popular over the years.

If one of the avatar sequel is fully animated or enough to goes into that territory (and keep their PG-13 status which is likely) .....

Is the beowulf type of "animation count" or we go no motion capture being used rules ?

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now 7-d&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F0131ln7y,%2Fg%2F11f4034qyf,%2Fg%2F11fd6dg0by Last 7 days in google trends it is quite close (among non wandavision): Cobra : 25 Mando: 19 Things: 17

That are you sure you are gonna kept it comment is quite creepy.

I guess it is mostly for recent blockbuster, which is I guess a large proportion of ticket sold.

Is fandango and other service charge in other market not included in the BO ? And why do people pay those......

That mentality is nice: This is all alleged with #ArmieHammer until proven otherwise.

Isn't secret the formula they use ? Anyway in this example only 12 of the 2,700 1/10 vote are from the top 1000 rater group, probably irrelevant. We have little idea of much weight imdb give to a 1 too, maybe it take only 1.5 -10/10 score to cancel one 1 For example: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9140560/ratings?demo=imdb_users The uncorrected average is 6.825 after going through IMDB weighting it goes to 7.0 If you remove all 12 1/10 score and remove 12 of the 10/10, you get a 7.15 score, if you remove 15 of the 10/10 score you go down to 7.06 Removing 12 of the 0 is balanced if you remove 15 10/10 and 3 9/9, so it is probably a bit less than 1.5 10/10 for each 1/10 in that example.

I am the only one that didn't mind Hillbilly Elegy, no place being in award talk (giants names/giant Netflix helping in a slow year, but even then....) even if I have no issue with Close she was great. Did not felt has particularly bad for Howard relative to Howard relative output or Netflix (maybe the thing, expectation was so low from that combo + the critical reception)

Someone able to predict that Lindo would not get a nom could have made a lot of money, it is indeed surprising that: In a year in which no stars will actually be attending their shindig in-person, one might have thought that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association would set aside its worst impulses and pick its nominees more on the merits than usual, not less. But reading about who the voters tend to be: https://www.vulture.com/2015/01/who-exactly-picks-the-golden-globes-winners.html If the news is less about movies and there is way less of a race going on to influence them, to be worst than usual could have been expected as well by some cynic. I have not seen enough this year to comment on the validity of anything said here thought

Nice, do you have some post with your Kubrick output thought ?