Barnack

Feel like someone should make a one billion in China club for this !

I could see getting delayed, Blumhouse has an habit of bonus structure based purely on box office result not on revenues with a clear notion that you work on very low few for a possible very large payday,

I am assuming that trailer #2-3 will be rich (would have been rich) in giant budget set piece visual

Genre, high concept hook and trailer's would have been there as well

Seem like the offer in Canada vs the USA greatly differ, that 2 recommandation in a row we do not seem to have here.

Would've been.

This look really counter intuitive. One side say stay at home (i.e. stay inside home unless necessary action to be made) but at the same time beach, parks, book-music store, golf course are opening: https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/reopening-across-counties/

Not yet while watching fiction (maybe because what I have seen lately tended to clearly be set in the past rewatching the Soprano-Wire and now getting into Buffy), but recent pre March real world footage yes.

All sick and all beautiful, what a well shot, edited, acted, written all around great movie by a master, 10/10 (currently available on Amazon Prime if you have it).

Well yes that a different affair. That I doubt it is true, it require to be reasonable for the theater to have known about it. If he has ostensible symptoms yes otherwise no. And all the case going forward are trying to demonstrate fault in some ways, not just the result being enough, right? Will see but I doubt if we remember to look in 2024 that we will be able to find a significant amount of grocery store loosing case for customer getting COVID inside them in april-may 2020. when they were acting in what was considered a reasonable fashion or cities that operated a Subway/city bus, judge and the legal system will be reasonable and a unreasonable fault will need to be demonstrated (and you need actual money to exist, it would soon become irrelevant to win such laws). Workplace that forced sick worker to work can get hit hard but that a different subject.

This is behind a paywall, but the word: negligently is in the resume. In the text (not sure why but it finally did show up), it does say: Only a handful of U.S. lawsuits are pending over COVID-19 deaths and illnesses, despite the number of coronavirus cases exceeding 1 million. But the cases all make similar allegations: the companies knew about the coronavirus but did not do enough to prevent its spread. “These are claims that as an employee, or as a customer at a business, whether grocery stores or movie theaters, you did not take appropriate actions to safeguard me from the coronavirus, and I’ve had injury that flowed from that,” Kim said. “Your basic negligence type of claim is a big area of concern.” Lot of people getting it from an other customer in a movie theater that was following all the reasonable rules in place would not fit that pattern an actual example look like this: John Rollins, of Rollins/Kavanaugh in Kansas City, Missouri, has filed five of the six lawsuits against Riverbend Post Acute Rehabilitation, a care center in Kansas City, Kansas, where nearly 100 residents tested positive for the coronavirus. The lawsuits allege that the facility allowed an employee who had cough and fever symptoms to come to work in late March. He later tested positive for the coronavirus, and, by April 3, nearly 20 employees and residents had tested positive. Yes if a movie theater knowingly had employee with symptoms working that open the possibility for a lawsuit and theater chain could decide to not take that risk (they have little control on what goes on day to day in a location), the article does not say that a lot of customer getting it would be enough to loose in court.

No reasonable third party would agree that a movie theater can make something like COVID impossible to be transmitted in a movie theater and that adults in this media environment could have believed so, that premise sound false. If the theater open in 2 weeks in Texas, do you personally assume that it mean that is perfectly safe to go watch a movie ? I am almost certain that this is false, reading about it (and logic) seem to explicitly say that you need to demonstrate some failure to avoid the situation on the business side, say they were supposed to have employee clean between show and they did not or something of the sort.

I know American got absolutely crazy over the years with lawsuit so anything is possible. But for adult in the extremely well documented population about the risk (as much as the theater owner) I cannot imagine customer accepting willingly to take the risk to go a theater or restaurant to be able to sue them if they contact covid, specially from other patron and specially if they followed third party judge reasonable rules, try to sue a city if you get it in a subway or hospital, your hairdresser if you got it there or the grocery store. Business will not be automatically held in court responsible for a common disease being contracted in them obviously. Worker could have an easier case, but customer it will be really hard For a theater goose to be cooked. 1) Prove that it was contracted there (not necessarily hard, group of unconnected people getting it that night), plus: 2) Prove that the theater caused it (employee with symptoms or known carrier working) or failed to prevent it (if standard measure where not followed) Otherwise they will not be liable (at least in all the country of the world except some place in the USA)

Those would be estimate (even now in the USA admissions numbers are often part estimate). Has for ridiculous high numbers of ticket versus the population that would be a bit like Gone With the Winds numbers being above the USA population of it's year of release, it is the movie playing for year's and year's and people watching it many time in theater, we need to put ourself back in a world of cheap projection and no way to watch a movie ever if you do not go see on in theater (and like most things a bit of extrapolation, because they are estimate people doing them can choose variable for the most impressive numbers when they do have a choice).

In canada I do not know how low it got but it is not pretty here (I was wondering if the platform was some artistic choice or netflix compression) Those bitrate are impressive, back in the days 0.8 Mbps was about your average 700MB movie (of just under 2 hours) rip quality. That hard to tell if it is from the 4K or from the fact Netflix use an higher bitrate when 4K is on (better pixel not just more of them)

I do not think they touched resolution (or that resolution is important considering the low bitrate it would have been better to cut their resolution), they just cut bitrates: https://www.pocket-lint.com/tv/news/netflix/151513-netflix-to-cut-streaming-quality-in-europe-for-30-days-amid-covid-19-outbreak It is really stupid to continue to stream 4K I would imagine and they would have been better to go to 1080p, but could be to avoid legal issue with people that signed for UHD content and continue to charge them (while Disney does not have a 4K surcharge). Instead, Netflix will cleverly lower the transmission bitrate that might result in a slight drop in picture quality: "This is a technical change that shouldn't affect the quality of the streaming Lol, there 2160p stream is only 15Mbps, compression and chips power made a long way but soundtrack alone on a bluray could get bigger than that back in the days (overall tended to be over 30mbs with 40 has the usual max), 4K bluray are over 100 mbits.

In some part of China, but even 65% of China having technology from the 60s is a giant market and a big lack of technology environment (no VHS but theater any form of projection quality being possible to attract people if the price is low enough and you do not need to give a % back once you own a print) can be really good for tickets sales. They had mobile projection team moving from rural village to rural village, hundreds of thousands of those, once you bought a print you could show it everywhere has much as you wanted. It could all be exaggerated or really concentrated around Shanghai-Hong-Kong and other center but China started to screen movie regularly in 1899, Charlie Chaplin was a big star there: https://www.thatsmags.com/shanghai/post/5873/history-of-the-hai-when-charlie-chaplin-came-to-town (has the silent era made is specially easy to export movies all around the world, Historians have chronicled that 29 Chaplin films had played in China between 1919-24 alone.) For a short period after the openning up very late 70s before 1989: According to this https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB/article/download/j021/20377 You have a silent era golden age like in the USA before the communist revolation in the 1930s. When the cultural revolution end and something else than propaganda documentary get made, you have an explosion at the box office: The demand responded to the end of the Cultural Revolution with positivity, and in 1979, the attendance in theaters hit 29.3 billion a year !! China population was 1 billion, that would mean people going to theater in average 30 times a year, like they did in the USA before television and suburbs came along, after that year box office declined every year (not being novel and I imagine technology like TV becoming more prevalent) but it is almost certain that attendance records would be almost all from that era from China, you have the low tech environment of the USA pre 50s + 1 billion people combo. Maybe some movie in India matched that or the Gone With the Winds-Titanic-Star Wars-Avengers but it would not be surprising that in reality it was one of those Chinese movies playing between 1979-1984, the ticket sales were much much bigger than worldwide now.

I imagine once a company like Arrow does a bluray version, rich in content there would be not much point and arguably a waste (and maybe they got some form of exclusivity)

This is quite on the sensationalist side, like it is said this is for the accounting period finishing 12/31/2019 before most of the movie revenues come in (global tv), the TV line the biggest one is still at 0 and the home entertainment side was not completely over (but i imagine it tend to be frontloaded, but considering the movie release ended in september-October it was yet to be rolled out everywhere). And has was see the home enternaiment revenues on that sheet are not the gross they have an * that say calculated at a royalty pursuant to contractual agreement (could be 10%, 20%, 30% of them in the past 20% was quite common but I imagine it could be more moving now), i.e. that sheet is not talking about if the movie made a profit or not to anyone and sadly cannot be use to have a good idea of post theatrical revenues. It is nice to have a recent leak, to get some idea of up to date deadline estimate close They had $65 in WW P&A, this seem to show closer to $80m (75.4 in ads alone) Interest 4M, 4.6M, very similar, like in the past they seem in the general ballpark with budget/participation bonus being the most off. Not sure where there the talk of 26M come from ? Does not seem to have any source about it on wikipedia (simply point on mojo), the rights for the music alone was above $10M and I do not think you can get tax credit for that. Deadline didn't seem to have a admin fee (here 15% of the budget or something like that), but it could be in the off-the-tops affair.

How could studio heads a decade ago have missed the promise of such a busi­ness? Simple: They yielded to what is called the displacement fallacy – the idea that a new technology displaces a previous one. It doesn’t. Radio continues alongside television, the movie business has adapted and grown with each new wrinkle in distribution – from theaters to television to growing international markets. Well if you take mp3 player, Compact disk (tape before that), VHS->DVD, there is often a new technology that displaces a previous one, theater lost 90% of their business when Television became mainstream.

I feel this is because of sampling, we hear about all the big budget movie made, we hear about the tiny elite, the best of the best among the small movie. In a given year the best movie have a lot of chance to be among the 10,000 of lower budget movie made in a year versus to be among the 50 big budget one, that could be true but that is really not because the average lower budget is almost always better anyway (i.e. big budget are almost never among the bottom 1,000 worst movie of a year), but bigger the budget better the movie is much more the correlation (same for run time) I suspect. Look at the first 1,000 release 2019 release ranked in alphabetic order: https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature&release_date=2019-01-01,2019-12-31&view=simple&sort=alpha,asc&count=250 Versus the 1,000 most expensive movie: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all Give me the group with all the Pixars, Blade Runner, the Nolans, the Scorsese, the Tarantino, the Ridley Scott, no need to hesitate imo. That a way to paint the situation for people like you that do not leave in big city with small theater showing those kind of movies, theater manager did love to let me see Manchester by the Sea in a regular multiplex theater (that was powerful) and would have love to let you see Marriage story if Netflix would have give it a short window, it take 2 to dance, both are responsible.

Sometime they do and when they do they tend to get more (think major Disney release) https://ir.cinemark.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/452/cinemark-holdings-inc-reports-fifth-consecutive-year-of https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1168696/000116869618000003/rgc201710k.htm http://investor.amctheatres.com/FinancialHighlights?keyReport=591 But for the rest of them, do they ? It is based on what ? Do you find the margin (when they are not having a loss) too high ? We went from studio should get way less than 50% of net revenues and accept Movie pass type of deals too they should get way more. Take Regal in 2017: They made 2,008.1 millions in ticket sales They spent Back to studio 1,067.8 millions Rent: 426.8 million Operating expense: 912 millions They are on a massive loss (without counting administrative expense, depreciation/amortization or the more and more costly operation) that they crawl back and make a profit with their concessions sales, but really not a big one. Outside a good ticket sales-concessions boost (in price and/or admissions) there is not much room

They always did and always been fully free to do so (even in France) most content of most studio never go into a theater, that was never put into question, if they want to use theater chain installation for there movies that where exhibitors have obvious right to negotiate in exchange for that service (money, window, etc....).

Outside contractual reason with people that have invested in the movie and have right to streaming participation for individual part of the company that are run by different people to balance sheet and calculate there yearly performance and bonus. Even for a very small entreprise, for example if you buy a used car in a garage and back home your alternator break and call them, they came get it with the toeing and change it, the mechanic part of the garage will charge it to the selling division of the same garage (or is accounting would not make much sense). And this example Universal selling it for free on a streaming service and thus declaring 0 revenue on the movie side sound like would screw up the people that financed that movie like Dentsu and the more silent pure financial side if any is the most obvious case, but at the end of the year the producer of that movie, the executive of the movie production branch would also be screwed.