Barnack

I imagine any movie related search or click could get you more points in an algorithm toward a movie trailer instead of a car or fashion product ads, no ? No need to be about a movie in particular.

Sizable different yes, but that can become effectively not that sizable. Still an interesting question to the topic I think: Would who say to the example above that it would legitimate to voice concern in that situation ? And if so, what is the big difference between the 2 situation ?

On facebook you can add a lot of option to your targeting (age/gender/interest), I imagine youtube also in some way, surely IP location is also used.

I would speculate (while a could go in verify), but I suppose no one on the message board (or very few) supported theater owner banning Beauty and the Beast and try to justify is action, etc... leaving to very little argument, so a separate thread for the news was not needed it was all talked about in the movie thread. If a group of people would have supported is decision, explaining why it is bad to show beauty and the beast in theater and so on, and long argument and a thread would have started. Number of pages is more an indicator of argumentation/disagreement more than something else. You keep putting it up and trying to make a strawmen than what bother people is the theater choosing not to screen a movie, the theater did decide to screen the movie and did as recently than this summer. People complaining about the theater showing the movie and making them stop showing the movie (something that they have absolutely the right to do obviously, like youtube has the right to have and have not video they want playing on their platform or the owner of this message board to kick who they want, etc...) is what bother people. What if there is a boycott amazon until they stop selling Gone With the Wind bluray organized and Amazon give up and stop selling, would then be a time when it would be legitimate for people to voice concern ? If so, what is the big difference between the 2 situation ?

I think it was called the biggest indie R-rated movie ever (not sure what movie will have that title, Wolf of Wall Street was a 100m R-rated independant production).

This the movie was politically charged and a giant deal in the south from what it was from the start, it is not purely a change in society that changed the movie views. The fact that this movie was so successful despite how it was already perceived at is release date make it in itself an interesting document to remind people how racist audience were.

That is a strawmen and I'm pretty sure you know it, who talked about to force (or even advocate to start boycotting) the theater ? It is obviously is right to not show it if he fear for is business, no one said otherwise in this thread. Certainly different (I had more the boycotter organizer in mind than the theater her), the example is to show that free speech limitation is not free from state repercussion for speaking, using obvious example were no one would have pointed out that journalist getting kill by cartels is not an attempt to limit their free speech because it is not a state or a law limiting them, a way to get pass through that argument.

How did you get that from my message that explicitly state ?: You certainly can and certainly should stick to the bill of rights (the right of free speech of one will not supersede the right of someone else to judge him or speech against him)

Probably in both case it is the ability to let people make and play what they want in theater and let people buy ticket of what they want without making any big deal out of it kind of position. Not sure I get the shoe is on the other foot, how saying let a theater play Gone With the Wind and let people buy/not buy ticket different than saying the same for Aloha or Ghost in a shell, let alone a reverse of the situation ?

I have no feeling about the movie at all, it has nothing to do with me. I'm really not sure you agree with that, if you would agree with that you would disagree with the people complaining about the theater showing the movie. He also pointed out that they received a massive amount of complain, do you think that it was not a major reason, the reason, it is speculation but I'm pretty sure they would have not scheduled the movie to play in the first place (and not received complain) if they didn't want to show the movie. Why would you assume that a theater scheduling a movie to play in their theater didn't want to show the movie ? What could have forced them to show an old movie other than them wanting to do so ?

Wikipedia. Nope, people have right to assembly but I can't discourage it to do it on my lawn, you can certainly give a cost to certain speech, I'm not saying that people should respect other people free speech and right to opinions, I'm saying that giving a cost to someone speech (specially organizing a cost to someone speech) is limiting free speech (it is not free anymore). The cartel in south america is limiting freedom of press without being a state, the Klu Klux klan/Brown shirts were limiting people freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of forming political entity, etc... without being the state. Isis/Al-quaida did effectively reduce freedom of speech in Western Europe. Not being a state entity does not mean you cannot reduce other people ability to speech without a cost, without feeling a bigger restriction than a $200 fine would. You certainly can and certainly should stick to the bill of rights (the right of free speech of one will not supersede the right of someone else to judge him or speech against him) but we do not have to lie about saying that receiving huge cost and consequence for a speech has nothing to do with free speech has long as it not state sponsored.

My message was about to precisely describe the situation, you are talking about the most popular movie ever on television, home video and re-release to say that theater stopped to play it by lack of interest when they state a different reason in their message was misleading. If theater stop showing movies (that sells tickets) because people complain enough and that you cannot see some possible problem with that, I will disagree with you, a see problem with that way of giving that much power to people disagreeing with an art piece to be show in closed door (with no one having to see it if they do not want too). Studio received ton of complaint, manifestation on the studio lots were made, terrorist attacked theater that shown Scorsese The Last Temptation of Christ in some country, do you see no problem if theater chain would all have refused to show it, not because they didn't want too of their own aesthetic, cinematic sensibility, commercial prospect but because of those Christian manifestation ? Same for Kevin Smith Dogma, the reason we never got a good budget serious movie about the life of Mohammed (arguably the most influential human of all time). The not showing stuff just because some people complain about them is a possible big problem, because it reduce what financier/studio/distributor will greenlight because they fear theater chain will refuse to show it or fear consequence, right now it is Mohammed/Vladimir Putin/North Korea movie being cancelled or modified or never even entertained by artist to try to do them for fear of backlash and with how powerful movie to how people see the world, it can have consequence. They clearly wanted to continue to play it, it was scheduled otherwise they would not have put it there, it is directly in reaction to complain they will not play it anymore.

That is a complete strawman (and I'm sure you know it), the story is not that theater stopped to show it because of ticket decline of the previous year (we would have never heard about it) at least according to their letter it was not a lack of interest (on the contrary, the movie seem to have generated a lot of talk, people not interest to see a movie don't talk about it): The recent screening of Gone With the Wind at the Orpheum on Friday, August 11, 2017, generated numerous comments. The Orpheum carefully reviewed all of them … As an organization whose stated mission is to ‘entertain, educate and enlighten the communities it serves,’ the Orpheum cannot show a film that is insensitive to a large segment of its local population.” Obviously if no one would have bought a ticket (and that would have ended the tradition of showing it every year) it would be a different thing (and we would have never heard about it, like for the other 10,000+ movies that just stopped to be shown)

The bolded sentence is something Americans tend to mix up, free speech does not mean the government can't stop free expression, you are talking about the American first amendement not the universal concept/united nation concept of free speech. Freedom of speech: Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium usedFreedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Societal sanction, societal censorship can obviously impair on free speech not just government, the first amendement protect you well for the later not the former but the constitution is not a dictionary defining what free speech is or is not. You say free to choose, free from governmental consequence, but not free from fear of societal consequence, pressure was put (any form of pressure reduce freedom, by very definition that is how humans work)

I imagine that it could many external factor, but the fact Sony also went with him and build a second big franchise with him as the lead of Uncharted: http://deadline.com/2017/05/tom-holland-uncharted-nathan-drake-movie-spider-man-homecoming-shawn-levy-1202099530/ They probably liked Holland a lot.

Good one(imo) MadMax: #67 domestic (27m adjusted) Road warrior: #31 domestic in 1982 (67m adjusted) Thunderdome : #24 domestinc in 1985 (86m adjusted) Blade Runner: #27 domestic (83m adjusted) Pretty similar. One thing MadMax had that Blade Runner didn't, is a bigger influence, That post apocalypse desert asthetic become really popular, The Fallout game franchise is directly from it for example that became a giant franchise. Few movie in history were has influential to pop culture than Road Warrior. The action genre also, with the 0 need to have seen the originals are 2 other element in MadMax favor.

Was awful and that why even thought Blade Runner was more niche it could open bigger because of the star powers, trailers and I would imagine reviews. The Things sequel (2011)/Ghost in a shell are probably closer, but one was a much smaller budget and for both not the same type of people behind the camera/trailers quality. The list of precedents is definitely thin and that is one really hard movie to predict.

Not sure if I would agree with that, LOTR is a magical setting even thought there is some england/europe geography and climate here, most of the inhabitant looks and lives nothing like Medieval Europe, the elves/dwarf/hobbits/orcs for example, not sure who the Elves represent in medieval europe or the hobbits or the dwarf but it is hard to imagine how some phenotype like red hair or skin color for the Elves could have made it less authentic than it was. I remember having Liv Tyler playing a bigger role scandal, not the Sam shifted to a girl (and cannot find anything about it online), but I'm really not sure I agree with your twitter outcry, sure everything would exist online and every sentence possible can be find, but in term of significant outcry of more than 0.01% of the 800 million western population. What huge successful and respected property adaptation had some outcry to change gender of is characters ? Even the Mag 7 kept the 7 men without raising issues and that was the remake of a remake (that has a nice live but not that high of a classic you cannot touch, it was a remake after all), would not imagine a giant classic like Lords of the rings having that issue. WW2 allegory was something readers projected on is work according to Tolkien preface of the book later release, he started writing it year's before WW2 started and pretty mush finished before the war ended. Having serve in WW1 I would imagine that conflict must have influenced all he did too: Tolkien, however, repeatedly insisted that his works were not an allegory of any kind.[76] He states in the foreword to The Lord of the Rings that he disliked allegories and that the story was not one.[77] Instead he preferred what he termed "applicability", the freedom of the reader to interpret the work in the light of his or her own life and times.[77] Tolkien had already completed most of the book, including the ending in its entirety, before the first nuclear bombs were made known to the world at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. "An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience," Tolkien acknowledged, but he strongly denied that his story was an allegory for World War I or II.* Although The Lord of the Rings was written during World War II and follows the rise of a great evil threatening to envelop the world, the ring was not meant to symbolize the atomic bomb. Likewise, the characters Sauron and Saruman, although both tyrants, are imaginary characters and are not meant to represent Hitler or Stalin.

It would depend what the federal government would have asked them to do, that is a bit of a strange debate and I would imagine hard to really separate what was asked to do vs being asked to do it, seem impossible, the nature of what is asked will always taint the reaction about being asked to do something.

The other way around (not sure why you would think that I was saying that), pollster will try to give a little bonus to the unpopular answer, specially on a phone poll like that one), but it is hard to estimate.

Between 86 and 96 no ?, just nine would be 0.9%, not 9 percent, or I'm missing something here. Fully agree about the misleading question. It is true that there is only 3% that say strongly acceptable on a poll with a 3.5% margin of error and does not say it the person answering share the views at all can be misleading, but poll about stuff like that will always be misleading, many people would certainly lie about this on the phone.

In that era ?, not sure conscription worked that well. The United States first employed national conscription during the American Civil War. The vast majority of troops were volunteers; of the 2,100,000 Union soldiers, about 2% were draftees, and another 6% were substitutes paid by draftees http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/political-science-and-government/military-affairs-nonnaval/confederate-army At the outset, the South had more volunteers than it could arm and equip, forcing the army to turn away some 200,000 volunteers that it would soon sorely miss. In June 1863, the army peaked at almost 475,000 men; it declined steadily thereafter. By comparison, some 2.3 million men served in the Union army, with more than 1 million in uniform in 1865. As martial enthusiasm waned in late 1861, the Confederate government was forced to resort to conscription for the first national draft in American history. On 16 April 1862, the Confederate Congress enacted the First Conscription Act, which declared all able‐bodied, unmarried white men between the ages of eighteen and thirty‐five liable for the draft. One‐year volunteers already in the army were enjoined to serve for two additional years but were allowed to return home on a sixty‐day furlough and to elect new field‐ and company‐grade officers. The Second Conscription Act of September 1862 and the Third Conscription Act, adopted seventeen months later, extended the ages of liability from seventeen to fifty, although exemptions greatly weakened the draft law. The stigma of conscription induced potential draftees to volunteer before they were called, so that only 82,000 were actually conscripted.

For domestic box office ? Anything is possible I would imagine. If you are talking OW ? Total recall remake made 25m, I imagine it is possible for Blade Runner to beat this, but I would not expect by much if it happen.

In 2014/2015/2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20141222155711/http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=marvel2014a.htm China HuaXia 10/10/14 $30,070,000 31.2% $96,470,000 11/9/1 And the foreign total stopped to change in 2016 too from now (when it was still at 96.47m), so you could be right. I also did find it strange (In my memory the movie almost didn't grew almost not at all after taking online sales surcharges in... and was a bit surprised to see some jump)

You mean 100m I imagine ? I don't think so, quoting a part of the first message: The Hitman's Bodyguard has been my stan of choice ever since I saw the trailer (besides War For The Planet Of The Apes). And I'm calling it for a 90M+ DOM total. You may be asking, "why not 100M?", well, because I wanna shoot fireworks and not feel disappointed that it didn't reach a higher mark. If it does make 100M, you can tell me to kick myself in the balls all you want, but I'll see it as a great topping already.