Barnack

? premiere drew 17.4 million viewers across all platforms (linear, HBOGO and HBO NOW)

Not sure if serious.... (if serious, why the distinction between atheist and non Abrahamic religions, it is not like a lot of non-atheist do not believe in that God and Jesus)

Sound like it, cannot find a source and were saying it before the rating could be in. It was monday 3:00/4:00/5:00 AM in Europe when it played and less than 2% of the rating would be from the United State ? When the US is giant proportion of HBO subscription and the episode playing in a perfect TV time (for most of the rest of the world it was a bit of a making no sense schedule, it is something to take a day off work and watch a live event at 5 in the morning in a bar, for a fiction that you can watch anytime...) Sound like the big numbers non sense we heard often in the past for the Oscar/SuperBowl, American do love doing it.

In the USA, it is 140m or so worldwide I think.

HBO is 142m account (I imagine some are hotels and what not) worldwide for about 370m clients I would imagine. Internet is yes billion of people: As of April 2019, 56.1% of the world's population has internet access, and 81% of the developed world. In 2015, the International Telecommunication Union estimated about 3.2 billion people, or almost half of the world's population, would be online by the end of the year. Now in many place Internet is quite limited, in some country it is only Facebook, some place only a text version of facebook, does not mean they have streaming level of Internet and it is often on wireless mobile, but I would imagine possible that 1 billion of people would (for 33% of the Internet user having a fast one) But yes that 1 billion seem completely silly, like I said World Cup finals does not reach those level, for a giant proportion of the world, GoT premiere was really not happening during a watching TV time schedule. Sound like the Oscar talking about 1 billion, then hundreds of millions, when they are watch by almost exclusively canada-us-mexico audience and about 65m Worldwide.

We do not know how much profit Ant-Man did or is net budget (being a Georgia production), we will never know where this land, chance are good we will never even know the movie budget (Canada production historically, we rely on someone telling it at one point and they not always do). UK tax report seem to indicate 170m gross spending on Ant Man, making 130m net possible but a bit low: https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2018/04/27/disney-reveals-avengers-infinity-wars-financial-muscle/#2ff0dfd14e48 Avengers 3 look really low here, but that from an April 2018 article with the accounting just starting. Has for huge / descent success, I think one is taking the opportunity cost of using a SH annual slot into account and the strength of the genre here, it is hard to dissociated itself completely from it (Like if Solo had the Fury Road budget and did similar, the subjective notion of how successful it is would be quite different, same if Captain Marvel would have done Mission Impossible fallout domestic numbers...). How much of being a huge or descent or deception success depend of what the studio did put on their budgeted prediction at greenlight time, beginning of the year time, last quarter time, etc... will see the legs on it and Japan, etc.. etc... but it seem headed more on the descent success than the huge one.

What and source ? They expected around 20m in the US I think (season 7 start was 10-11m). A world cup final (by far the most watched TV show) do not have a billion viewers, superbowl tend to be under 150m worldwide.

Has crazy has it sound I think Apple could have more money than Disney is worth, Disney is at 136 billion today, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/29/apple-now-has-tk-cash-on-hand.html The company reports $245 billion in cash on hand compared with $237.1 billion the previous quarter. Apple a company that have has really big problem, too much money, when you buy the stock you are paying for a lot of money doing little, I imagine it is a major reason why a big acquisition a la Disney/Netflix/something would make sense for them. Must hurt them a bit to see Microsoft back on top (and for a good while now).

Feel powerful only once in a magic able body or surrounded with literally Superman.... Lot of the humor worked really well but a lot of this was so-so and it had strange balance of what it wanted to be. A bit too rough / vile by moment for a family movie but a lot of it way to childish/underplayed to be really anything else (the 7 sins demon was really badly done, the personality/power of the possessed didn't seem to change with how many were out, their design terrible, etc...), the whole villains there were terrible filler. One really strange aspect if how little the same human in different body did it felt, it seem there were no attempt for the kids/same kids but adult body to share the same personality at all, the voice rhythm, the mood, it all felt very disconnected. The foster family set up was great.

Yes because closing an incredibly profitable asset evaluated over 20B with many giant long term contract (can you imagine the penalty) would probably one of the craziest proposition that they ever heard, would maybe not even comprehend what you mean by that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_Now ?

They are not killing any true profit, Cable was still the biggest source of profit of Disney last year no ?, and that mostly ESPN. If the effort is better focused elsewhere, sell ESPN (for over 20 billions) do not close it (I cannot imagine you are being remotely serious), Rights will adjust itself over time with the new reality (they cannot not too).

I think this is it, the among of people that will say not for me regardless of how liked it is for it's target audience is probably really high. A bit of a Spiderverse being one if not the best SH in a long time doing way less than Suicide Squad, it is perceived childish by some and not appropriate for the young family by others I would imagine.

For a non sequel ? Hard to say lot of summer release in the genre and it is so few days into is run but Shazam made 22.8% of it's OW is first 4 days of it's first week. if we compare to the previous non summer/holiday Captain Marvel 28.3% of it's OW Doctor Strange, 29% Venom 33% Deadpool, 36% Black Panther, 44% Sequel Winter Soldier: 23.76% Except for Black Panther, nothing had specially high multiplier among those with quite higher start. It need to become a weekend performer some turn around the trend, to not have an multiplier below average of well received first entry no ?

I think I see them play from time to time, for example: https://www.showtimes.com/movie-times/game-of-thrones-season-8-premiere-139810/oakland-ca/?date=4/14/2019 Wide release with marketing that a good question.

I imagine you only wanted to say how much you were invested in them and not serious that they should shut down their most profitable (by far) asset.

Liongates has been in the streaming business for a while now and a big player, they own Starz: https://www.starz.com/ Was until recently about has big has Netflix, bought it 4.4 billion and is most of the company revenues now I think.

Viacom sound on the selling block in part or in all I think, I would not bet on them necessarily existing. that said they also this year started their own streaming platform, deal went last month I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto_TV Viacom's plans for Pluto TV include more licensed content from Viacom's Paramount Pictures studio, expansion into Latin America, availability on smart TV's,[22] and paid subscriptions.[23] Liongates has a couple of their own streaming platform. Sony had the other way around, they sold their long time running streaming platform Crackle (that they founded in 2007, same time Netflix streaming started) recently instead of buying some. Has Netflix is ready to pay 9 figures for Studio content, it would be an hard hit/bet for non Disney studio to not take the money to try to boost their own affair.

Apparently lot of Fox goes into Disney+: In its first year, Disney Plus will offer 10 original films and 25 original series, including three “Avengers” spinoffs. Disney announced that all 30 seasons of “The Simpsons” would be available on Day One, along with nearly all the “Star Wars” movies, the entire Pixar library and family-focused movies and shows from its Fox library like “The Sound of Music” and “Malcolm in the Middle.” Universal is coming planned 2020 https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/nbcuniversal-streaming-service-details-1203108034/ Seem less ambitious, AT&T is preparing one in addition to what they already have with HBO. Has for Netflix able to keep or not, I imagine it is hard to say, will there be syndication law coming on streaming like for TV soon ? A lot of what make streaming appealing I imagine to them is the giant lack of rules.

Will only be the + add on of ESPN and it will be a big ads for ESPN to people at the same time if I understand what is coming on.

Really ? I really thought it was vastly thought that this very type of content was a big part of why they bought Fox. Netflix 100m a year for Friend look cheaper now.

There were rumors yes: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/08/star-wars-tv-rights-disney-turner-tbs-tnt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-02/disney-is-said-to-seek-star-wars-rights-back-from-tbs-tnt The world’s largest entertainment company tried to buy back TV rights to “Star Wars’’ movies from AT&T Inc.’s Turner Broadcasting so that it can offer them on a new streaming video service, according to two people familiar with the matter. Disney made a preliminary inquiry about regaining the rights, but met resistance, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks were private. https://www.techhive.com/article/3330499/disney-plus-streaming-service-shows-launch-pricing.html As for movies, Disney has said to expect about 500 films from its back catalog, including Pixar and Marvel films, though the first six Star Wars films will be absent until at least 2024. (Turner bought the broadcast and streaming rights to those movies in 2016, and isn’t selling them back.) I wonder how many people bought Star Wars on vhs, dvd, blu ray and now will pay for streaming it.

ESPN+ was $5 plus only really usable if you have an ESPN paid TV subscription. I imagine by packaging it to Disney+ will be keeping it that way ? Or will they one day put EPSN also in a OTT package ?

This is a first time that I heard that, maybe on stuff that are auto-greenlight like some big sequel that they will do no matter the cost, but otherwise they greenlight because they have locations/tax rebate. And have a rough estimate in of what it would be, that for example conversation about greenligthing or not Baby Driver, the pitch from the production company Working title was: Pls see following info conveyed by Angela Morrison (Working Title) w/ respect BABY DRIVER: PROGRESS TO PRODUCTION: No further development required, expectation is this would be a greenlit project and, subject to cast availability (she mentioned WT sent you a cast grid), a start date to be set ASAP. BUDGET: $46.4MM Net --> $55MM gross (not including Uni TD/OH reimbursement) LOCATION: Detroit location; Michigan Tax Credit On The Magnificent Seven: submission is at 85, net. On Pitt Aliied movie when it was pitch to studios: GK said the budget with Pitt at 17.5 v 20, zemeckis at 8m v 15 and GK at 2m v 5 is around 70m net… It is net that really matter at the end and determine if a movie get greenlight or not. When you read a distribution contract, the maximum certified cost seem to usually be defined "Before any subsidies or rebate", i.e. if your budget is 50MM you cannot spend more than that and if a tax credit ever arrive next year or the year later it will go to reimburse the financier. And there can event have a close if the subsidies are less than X, the movie producer will take that it, not the other financier.

What would be politically incorrect and not racist/misogynistic/whatever at the same time ? A misunderstood one by some people ? Yes usually critic will be above misunderstanding / taking at face value. I imagine when someone call something else incorrect it is because they think it is actually misogynistic/racist or whatever, otherwise they call it good satire.