Barnack

I extremely doubt that, specially for sales that does not occur on the theater chain platforms, Paramount was apparently giving between 2 to 4% to AMC and Cineplex together when they experimented the 17 days windows in 2015 on Zombie Apocalypse and Paranormal Activity.

Or very frontloaded if we use that as a recent reference: https://time.com/3950957/movies-are-about-to-start-coming-out-on-dvd-way-earlier/ Paramount has signed a deal with AMC Theaters and Cineplex to allow two of its upcoming films to be made available for home viewing about two weeks after their theatrical run has dwindled to 300 theaters or less. The two horror movies—Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension and Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse—are small releases, but Paramount hopes to enact the new strategy with many more films in the future. In July, Paramount announced that it had struck a deal with AMC Entertainment and Cineplex Entertainment to make Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse and Ghost Dimension available digitally, 17 days after they drop below 300 theaters, as part of a larger experiment, and asked other theaters to join in. In return, Paramount would share an undisclosed portion of proceeds of the VOD revenues.[16] Per industry sources, Paramount is giving participating exhibitors an estimated 2-4% share of their digital revenue made between the time the film drops below 300 theaters and 90 days after its opening date.[17] Those agreeing to Paramount's formula includes AMC, Canada's Cineplex,

I think the target (and logical audience) will watch it on a nice large HD tv.

Why would they face less new release (arguably like it is mentioned, maybe people will take more chance on theatrical release on their movies if that does not contractually lock them out of other options for many weeks, even if the movie fail and is out of theater almost right away)

It depend when I imagine and I cannot but sure but I doubt this is necessarily true. Many years studio spent more releasing movie in theater than their theatrical rental (i.e. theatrical marketing and prints was more than what they got from theater ticket sales, let alone starting to pay the movie cost back). Why ? Theatrical was a fantastic ads for the next windows (and Dvds were a gold mine), it could be because how cheap direct to DVD stuff was perceived and something that went away over time but I am not sure everything else could do nice money from VOD right now. Obviously not, but even for movie that they would get the release on PVOD after 17 days, I am not sure that it mean they would be out of theater right away. Right now we see blockbuster continue there end of theatrical legs after the blurays release, if those PVOD are priced quite high (a bit like what we saw with trolls and the others $27 rental type), theater stay a possible option for people in the city with the theater that will play that type of movie if the other chains join and that would not be surprising, while independant theater already didn't had the will to try to enforce a window and were playing Netflix stuff.

I am pretty sure they are still saying that.

I do assume that they would only go in state that make mask mandatory in a situation like a theater (If covid isn't fully under control) not having to rely much in Americans rationality, that could be a mistake. Has for them losing a tons of money, it would depend a lot on the state and federal business helping program they would have access too.

Yes, but it will depend of your province rules of the moments.

It take more than that, from what I understand not all infected people are good spreader (and not for all the time they are infected either), specially if everyone is masked, maybe you need to have a lot of those case to have a good chance to provoke a mass spreading event. It depend how theater AC affect this, air travel is maybe an exceptional example, but fully loaded passenger plane have been extremely common for a long time and I do not remember any story of a mass spreading event on them, they have special ventilation on the plane itself, but with all the inline waiting occuring around the flight, we could have expected for it to happen by now. Church (specially if singing occur)/bar/convention, anything with unmasked people talking/eating near each other or in the direct ventilation path do seem to be an important variable. All seated in the same direction masked, with some distance between people not living together in what tend to be quite ventilated affair that are theater in north america could do the work.

It must have a giant list of movies that would require an introduction if Gone with the wind need one based on the actual content. But Jezebel is a niche product virtually no one will see, Gone With the Winds will be one of the platform most watched movie and used in the platform marketing campaign, there is logically reason to push for a contextualisation of one and not some others, a problematic movie no one see probably do not cause "harms" in their views.

You need to cancel the planned theatrical deal (like any Major titles would have) if you had one, making it harder to keep it secret I would imagine.

That seem really well known for people to be surprised 1st september.

The very first ceremony was for the best movies of the previous 2 years, I think that was the only time, even for WW2 the ceremonies continues to happen (with less budget, no metal/gold use for the statuette to respect the war effort and moments but still going pretty much as usual in term of winners and so on). Has for the ceremony I wonder if a contract war will not be happening and with some bluff going on. ABC pay I think $75 millions for it, I doubt they would want to pay that price if there is little movies and not a live presentation, but an empty/small crowd one, and vice versa the academy probably really need that money with the giant debt they accumulated recently.

SVOD logic isn't easy for my brain, but I am not sure what the numbers of subscribers change, even if if HBO would have 150m subscribers it is not like they are making money with people watching it. There is 30m+ in the USA Cable HBO subscribers that could move over to HBO Max, if that someone they want to accelerate and ultimately want, a giant movie exclusively on MAX and not regular HBO could be a way, it need to after a deal is reach with Amazon/Roku obviously but if theater are to not be viable in 2021 (because outside of some exceptional scenario like that a Nolan movie do not start there anyway), the question is much more how many customer you can gain or retain with your SVOD product, how many watch it is almost irrelevant, your not selling tenet to subscribers, you selling it to yet to subscribe people (and to those thinking to cancel soon).

Considering shoot started in 2017 I imagine it will add up, but with how low interest has been for a very safe sequel I am not sure how much of a factor it is. I am not sure if they use them for something like a movie project, Century Fox bond emitted in 2014 with a mid range maturity date (2023) were giving 4%: http://cbonds.com/emissions/issue/102939 It is possible that it was quite cheap. Opportunity cost are higher and impact on annual ROI to have lot of time between spending and revenue coming back can get complicated as well, but it is more than just interest cost building up.

But it is maybe Spielberg #1

Depending of how back and slow we are talking about (back in the days home media release was year's after and the theatrical rollout could take year's). For example the VHS/laserdisc release of E.T. was in october 1988 that movie release started in june of 1982. It is hard to imagine without the logistic of prints and the quasi non existence of the home media option something anywhere close to slow burn theatrical rollout and long lived relevant life on that window. Going back to a 6 month windows that going back to what early 2000s windows ? A green book type of release for a big movie would be an interesting to see, but that seem a bad idea during a pandemy. A geographical roll out of where covid is down so you get calm covid city getting it one after the other, very different time, that would be strange in today world and interesting to see.

That nice to know ! (I stopped after episode 1 last year), would give it a second chance.

Agree, it does not show up before number 30 on the most popular on imdb: https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature&release_date=1900-01-01,1969-12-31 2001, Casablanca, Gone with the wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Sunset bldv, Bonnie and Clyde, it's a wonderful life and I imagine some other that does not come in mind feel more or as likely.

That seem pushing it, when talking about a never seen before (even for the Spanish flu societies were cleaning theater/closing them not for very long) event. Even 40m-100m dollar movies would have had an extreme hard time to success theatrically in july in the USA and the nuance of trying to make 4 of them succeed versus one big one isn't necessarily that big for an industry overall, it spread the risk but you still need as many people going to theater. In 2020, Bad Boys, 1917, Sonic, Invisible Man, Gentlemen were successful (even call for the wild performance was not bad for a movie like that, would it not be for it's enormous budget), and many of smallers movie were ready for a release (next purge sequel, bad trip, Greyhound, Scoop, Candyman, Ghostbuster, Hitman sequel, Conjuring, Kingmans sequel, Venom 2, Death on the nile, Halloween) if none of those were able to get released (or finished) if they would have had more of them in stock I am not sure what it change.

The movie is shot digital so no IMAX 65 or 70mm shooting going on (that imply huge, very impractical camera, shooting 3d with them not sure if it is possible, if it is it must start to be extremely complicated and for short take). IMDB can often have some info about those question: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1630029/technical It seem the movie will have (a la nolan), 3 different aspect ratio going on: 1.78 : 1 1.85 : 1 2.39 : 1 2.39 is your regular cinematic wide screen range (the 2.35-2.4 to 1), 1:85 is your standard 16:9 widescreen television, most regular tv, series, video games use it with 1.78 not to far from it, maybe it is not yet up to date but no very squary Imax. Master format is regular 4K according to imdb, no Fincher going with 6K funny thing going on, with this camera: https://www.4kshooters.net/2018/06/06/sony-venice-3d-camera-to-shoot-avatar-sequels-venice-firmware-2-0-to-be-released-a-month-earlier/

Just to put in context how ridiculous it would be, if Nolan and all other people involved are just getting 30% of the profit pass that mark, how much would the movie need to make to make a 20% profit return for WB and make them say just $80 million in profit ? If it take 800m at the BO to one day generate $400m back and that your first $200M dom tend to be more money than the next 200M and so on, we could be easily talking to need over 1025 million at the WW BO to not be a financial disappointment if the BE point is at 800M and more than that to be a success.

That would be extremely unlikely (many ancillary gross sales would make very little sense, imagine talking about gross sales of licensing deal that the studio get 5% of the gross sales from). If it is where I think it is from That figure was not using profit participation and was not talking about the movie break even point, but the strange break even from theatrical revenues alone estimate that we often seen talked about in box office space for some obscure reason, by now it is not a vestige of people covering of the box office before television became popular in the 50s. And that usually never take into account profit participation or in the case of a Nolan movie gross participation, not profit, doing so would lead to numbers way to big, they need really big numbers but not that big to make their article.

I doubt people would insist on that idea post release. Can you imagine calling Tenet breaking the billion dollar bar a financial disappointment, even in normal time........ (and in some article before you called Trolls a success with $0)