What Movies Have You Seen Lately?

May 1st, 2017 at 11:58:27 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 48
Posts: 4434
Quote: ams288
I believe last fall AMC theaters said they were looking at charging more for big tentpole releases.
I'm fairly certain that the online movie reservation systems used in Vegas are there to deal with eventual auction bidding.
May 1st, 2017 at 10:54:07 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 687
Posts: 7913
Quote: ams288
I believe last fall AMC theaters said they were looking at charging more for big tentpole releases.


As the industry consolidates into three primary circuits then it is possible to be more flexible with pricing. AMC, Regal and Cinemark now control roughly half the screens

In the 1970's Jaws created the model of the big summer tentpole release in addition to the traditional Holiday releases. Now that the foreign market dominates tentpoles Disney is leading the way in releasing tentpoles at periodic intervals year round.

Top 10 U.S. & Canadian Circuits As of January 1, 2017

Screens Sites Circuit Headquarters
8,218 659 AMC Theatres Leawood, KS
7,310 564 Regal Entertainment Group Knoxville, TN
4,582 339 Cinemark Plano, TX
1,683 165 Cineplex Entertainment Toronto, ON
885 68 Marcus Theatres Milwaukee, WI
501 33 Harkins Theatres Scottsdale, AZ
499 44 Southern Theatres New Orleans, LA
401 50 B&B Theatres Liberty, MO
392 29 National Amusements, Inc. Norwood, MA
341 34 Malco Theatres Inc. Memphis, TN

39,579 Total USA and Canada screens


Note that
1,315,300,000 tickets sold in 2016
3,603,562 tickets sold in 2016 average per day
39,579 number of screen
91 average tickets sold in 2016 per screen average per day
Assuming 4 shows per screen per day
23 average tickets sold in 2016 per screen average per day per showing

AMC has way more than average.
May 4th, 2017 at 7:04:31 PM permalink
ams288
Member since: Apr 21, 2016
Threads: 11
Posts: 2017
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

It was great. I loved it. Can't wait to see it again.
May 4th, 2017 at 11:03:46 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 687
Posts: 7913
I wonder if it's possible that every Disney release this year will be a billion dollar movie.

Beauty and the Beast (2017) 3/17/2017:
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 5/5/17
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales 5/26/17
Cars 3 6/16/17
Thor: Ragnarok 11/3/17
Coco 11/22/17
Star Wars: The Last Jedi 12/15/17
May 5th, 2017 at 6:53:47 AM permalink
ams288
Member since: Apr 21, 2016
Threads: 11
Posts: 2017
Quote: Pacomartin
I wonder if it's possible that every Disney release this year will be a billion dollar movie.

Beauty and the Beast (2017) 3/17/2017:
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 5/5/17
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales 5/26/17
Cars 3 6/16/17
Thor: Ragnarok 11/3/17
Coco 11/22/17
Star Wars: The Last Jedi 12/15/17


I doubt Cars 3, Thor 3, and Coco will hit 1 billion. Not impossible for any of them, but it's a tall order.

I believe the only reason Pixar keeps chugging out these Cars movies is because the merchandising sales are off the charts. Cars was always my least favorite Pixar movie. Never saw the 2nd one.
May 5th, 2017 at 1:46:10 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 687
Posts: 7913
Quote: ams288
I doubt Cars 3, Thor 3, and Coco will hit 1 billion. Not impossible for any of them, but it's a tall order.


You are probably correct. But corporations tend to think in terms of year over year revenue. The fact that they made $7 billion last year, just gives them a goal. I'm thinking their marketing machine is going full bore this year to push every single film. You notice that they seem to be very much limiting their releases compared to last year.


Disney is looking for the new ESPN which generates in the neighborhood of $13 billion in revenue per year.


2016 Disney releases (worldwide gross in millions)
$1153.3 Captain America: Civil War BV
$1056.0 Rogue One: A Star Wars Story BV
$1028.6 Finding Dory BV
$1023.8 Zootopia BV
$966.6 The Jungle Book (2016) BV
$677.7 Doctor Strange BV
$640.5 Moana BV
$299.5 Alice Through the Looking Glass BV
$183.3 The BFG BV
$143.7 Pete's Dragon (2016) BV
$52.1 The Finest Hours BV
$25.4 The Light Between Oceans BV
$10.4 Queen of Katwe BV

$7,260.7 2016 Total
$6,177.4 2015 Total
$3,920.9 2014 Total
$5,049.6 2013 Total


Of course, failures are inevitable in the film business. I am sure that Alice and The BFG were considered outright failures, and Pete's Dragon probably just barely profitable.

Alice Through the Looking Glass- Production Budget: $170 million
The BFG - Production Budget: $140 million
Pete's Dragon (2016)-Production Budget: $65 million
May 6th, 2017 at 5:14:20 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 71
Posts: 1534
Watched "Fury" [2014] the other day.

I'm trying to get over my Brad Pitt problem [elder's disgust at whippersnapper syndrome] and I have to say that now that he looks older he is pulling off his 'tough guy' a little better - worked for me in this movie.

Not a bad movie if you like war movies. Give them credit for using restored Sherman tanks and the only restored Tiger tank still operating.

Apparently the writer/director Ayer is the "Realism" guy of our day, and I sort of applaud that - although it can be too much for me as in 2001's "Training Day".

But since this movie tauts itself as a realistic war movie - ambitious - it leaves itself open for some criticism.

Of course you have the Hollywood Movie problem with an action film with super-heroes - this was not avoided and requires suspension of disbelief. I was mostly OK with it, could have been worse. The first scene was as bad as it gets*, but the rest of the movie was acceptable - YMMV.

But if it was necessary to show Pitt as being bullet-proof for the most part, I don't see why this would have to apply to anything else in the movie *IF* the idea is to bring in realism.

I gather that Ayer wanted to bring out that the Allies were up against superior equipment in many areas during the war - the Germans certainly had that advantage in tank warfare on the Western front. That the Sherman was often a "death trap" for their crews seems to have gained in appreciation these days and the movie portrays a situation in May 1945 where Allied tanks and crew members had been worn down and were in short supply. We see in the movie the weapons that were causing this, but intentionally or not the narrative becomes "only the Tiger tank was a problem". Wehrmacht anti-tank gunners were invariably terrible shots, and were just swept aside every time. More sadly, it was an opportunity to show what a problem the infantryman's Panzerfaust was, accounting for 34% of tank losses by this stage of the war according to the link. In this movie the Germans look stupid exposing themselves with the clumsy looking things.

There are good battle scenes, if marred by these technicalities. The first one, a "rescue" mission that was more of a "tanks needed against infantry" situation, was a little too tank-heroic. But the next battle is the best, probably making the movie worth watching. A single Tiger tank devastates their force before it can be taken out; twice you see a turret go flying in the air - pretty cool. It shows that the Shermans, even improved with the 76mm cannon, could only bounce rounds off the Tiger unless they could swarm it and hit it in the more lightly armored rear. Naturally that requires a harrowing maneuver - and that they lose 3 of their 4 tanks doing it is some pretty good stuff in my book.

The final battle scene has too much Pitt-bullet-proof heroics. It starts out believably - their tank "Fury" is disabled but ordered to do what it can to protect a flank. They set it up as a decoy, a destroyed-looking burning tank showing a burning crew member draped in front- actually a dead German. I can see that working. It turns out to be way more difficult to take out than can be believed, though. The only successful Panzerfaust hit is finally shown, but it only has a small effect, killing one of them. I might be wrong, but I believe typically it would kill everyone in the tank as would any successful penetration by armor-piercing ordinance.
Quote: link
the Panzerfaust’s 14 cm diameter, 1.6kg warhead (5.5 inch, 3.5 lb) could penetrate 200 mm (8 inches) of armour. Traveling at 10,000 metres/second (32.800 feet/sec) the the molten metal jet by the shaped charge war-head was over 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) long. There are reports of Panzerfaust jets penetrating the 2 inch (50-mm) armour on the side of a Sherman, passing through intervening personnel and equipment to burn their way clean through the armour on the other side
. In any case, I felt the opportunity to show Panzerfaust effectiveness was missed.

https://servicepub.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/allied-trials-to-counteract-panzerfaust-attacks/

These are quibbles I suppose; but if realism is going to be his thing, then we get to quibble.




I won't go into the argument that attempts at more realism in a war movie just means more violence to titillate those who like it - that makes some points but I have always liked a good war movie. I'd vote for more of such movies from Ayer.




*A German officer stupidly rides a horse onto a tank battle scene he assumes is finished ... Brad's tank is not knocked out. Pitt leaps from the tank with a knife to take out the dumbest Kraut in the 3rd Reich

Mustard:You like Kipling, Miss Scarlet? Sure, I'll eat anything [from movie]
May 6th, 2017 at 5:47:16 AM permalink
terapined
Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 35
Posts: 2898
I enjoyed Fury.
Good war movie.
It was pretty realistic to me except the last battle.
The highlight was seeing an actual Tiger in combat
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World"
May 6th, 2017 at 7:10:25 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 71
Posts: 1534
just noticed from the quote "10,000 metres/second (32.800 feet/sec)"

ummm, it is one or the other
Mustard:You like Kipling, Miss Scarlet? Sure, I'll eat anything [from movie]
May 6th, 2017 at 11:31:53 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 687
Posts: 7913
Quote: odiousgambit
just noticed from the quote "10,000 metres/second (32.800 feet/sec)"

ummm, it is one or the other


It should read "10,000 metres/second (32,800 feet/sec)"

Principles of shape charges explained below:


The critical thing about shaped charges is they not only penetrate the armor, but they send a blob of molten metal at supersonic speed into the compartment which presumably contains people completely shredding them and removing the threat entirely.

A typhoon class soviet Ballistic Missile Submarine was somewhat protected from shape charge weapons as it had two independent pressure chambers for personnel and the missiles were in the center of the submarine. Generally the people in the other chamber would survive the initial attack long enough to fire the missiles (some of which contained nuclear warheads).


USA SSBN submarines were more designed never to be detected than they were to survive an attack.