Movie Thread

[BananaKing]

Oh my Tron Ares is the worst movie I have seen in a long time. It feels like a high school movie. I think it was about an hour in where it finally had a scene that was meh but at least "normal movie" meh.

Madam Web has nothing on this.

That bad huh? Never seen a Tron movie. I don't like  Harrison Ford. Though I heard the new (well not new anymore) one was really good with great cinematography... So I am tempted to watch it. 

[Legend]

That bad huh? Never seen a Tron movie. I don't like  Harrison Ford. Though I heard the new (well not new anymore) one was really good with great cinematography... So I am tempted to watch it.

Well good news! Harrison Ford isn't in Tron.


Yeah Tron Legacy is pretty good imo. I rewatched it last week.

[the-pi-guy]

That bad huh? Never seen a Tron movie. I don't like  Harrison Ford. Though I heard the new (well not new anymore) one was really good with great cinematography... So I am tempted to watch it.

Are you mixing it up with Blade Runner?

[kitler53]

i'll assume he's mixing it up with 'the dude'.  

[BananaKing]

Are you mixing it up with Blade Runner?

Ohh shame .... Yes I am

[the-pi-guy]

I really love Mulan. One of my favorite Disney movies. 

I'd say it's a little underrated. 

[BananaKing]

Avatar at 1.2 billion. How far can it go? And will greedy Disney consider it a "success"?

[nnodley]

Avatar at 1.2 billion. How far can it go? And will greedy Disney consider it a "success"?

probably 1.6ish.  If they don't consider a trilogy of films that will make close to 7 billion a success, then I don't know what they would want. lol

They should be in pure profit at this point. Even if you consider a billion breakeven, that's still roughly 500 to 600 million profit. Plus the billion or more profit of Avatar 2.  

[BananaKing]

probably 1.6ish.  If they don't consider a trilogy of films that will make close to 7 billion a success, then I don't know what they would want. lol

They should be in pure profit at this point. Even if you consider a billion breakeven, that's still roughly 500 to 600 million profit. Plus the billion or more profit of Avatar 2. 

It doesn't work that way. 

Studios take roughly between 45-55 percent of movie revenue. Theaters take the rest. And it varies around the world. But roughly the general estimate is that it's 50% 

So when avatar makes 1.2 billion. Disney got revenue of 600 million. 

Now remove production cost. Let's say 400 million?
Then remove marketing cost. Let's say 250$ for something like avatar?

That leaves Disney 50 million in the red. And they would need the movie to make another 100 million just to break even

Those production and marketing cost are just me guessing just to explain how these things work. 

[kitler53]

It doesn't work that way.

Studios take roughly between 45-55 percent of movie revenue. Theaters take the rest. And it varies around the world. But roughly the general estimate is that it's 50%

So when avatar makes 1.2 billion. Disney got revenue of 600 million.

Now remove production cost. Let's say 400 million?
Then remove marketing cost. Let's say 250$ for something like avatar?

That leaves Disney 50 million in the red. And they would need the movie to make another 100 million just to break even

Those production and marketing cost are just me guessing just to explain how these things work.

i was surprised by your statement.   i always believed the "AMC is a glorified popcorn seller" statement i've heard before.   Here is the AI response I got:

Studios typically get around 50-60% of domestic box office revenue, but this varies significantly: it can start at 80-90% (or even 100%) for major blockbusters in their first weeks and drop to 50% or less as the film runs longer, with art-house films often starting higher (like 70%) for theaters. Overseas, studio shares are usually lower, around 20-40%. 
How the Split Works (Theatrical Rentals)

• Negotiated Contracts: The percentage, called a "film rental fee," isn't fixed; it's negotiated per movie between the studio (distributor) and the theater.
• Time-Based Shift: The split favors the studio heavily at first (e.g., 90% studio/10% theater in week 1) and gradually shifts toward the theater (e.g., 50/50 by week 4), incentivizing theaters to keep popular films playing.
• Blockbusters vs. Indies: Blockbusters start high and drop; independent or art-house films often have higher initial splits (like 70%) to help theaters manage costs, with concessions becoming crucial for theater profit. 

Why Theaters Rely on Concessions

• Because studios take the majority of early ticket revenue, theaters rely heavily on high-profit concession sales (popcorn, drinks) to cover their operating costs like rent, staff, and overhead. 

[the-pi-guy]

Kitler listening to AI?

[kitler53]

Kitler listening to AI?

for meaningless crud in which having a correct answer is completely unimportant?   sure.   

that grammar was terrible and conflicting in like 2 sentences in that response to the point i'm not sure the heck to say about blockbusters vs indies.  but also i don't care that much.   

it's when my dev manager trys to skip a meeting and only read the AI summary and starts acting on those summaries to completely do the absolutely wrong thing and waste hundreds of hours of company time that i think AI is more negative than positive.    

[BananaKing]

i was surprised by your statement.  i always believed the "AMC is a glorified popcorn seller" statement i've heard before.  Here is the AI response I got:

Yeah it depends on the theater, studio and the negotiation power between the two. I think I remember that in china studios take just 30%, maybe even lower. I didn't want to get into all the detail of different ratios. But generally it's expected a movie makes 2 or 2.5 it's production budget to break even or be profitable. 

Smaller theaters wouldn't have the negotiation power of large brand theaters for example 

But yeah, theaters rely heavily on concessions, that's well known. 

[BananaKing]

for meaningless crud in which having a correct answer is completely unimportant?  sure. 

that grammar was terrible and conflicting in like 2 sentences in that response to the point i'm not sure the heck to say about blockbusters vs indies.  but also i don't care that much. 

it's when my dev manager trys to skip a meeting and only read the AI summary and starts acting on those summaries to completely do the absolutely wrong thing and waste hundreds of hours of company time that i think AI is more negative than positive.   

Sounds like he is just being efficient!!

[kitler53]

Sounds like he is just being efficient!!

he's super into AI and really hates meetings and constantly speaks out against them.   i'm constantly asking the teams to reach out to me when they have questions.    but several times now we've had to completely to mostly throw out 1 to 2 sprints (3 - 6 weeks) of works when the team worked on the wrong assumptions.   that almost 1000 hours off wasted effort to avoid about 5-10 manhours of communication. 

listen,.. AI is pretty good at search.   we all have a pile of documents with thousands of pages of stuff written down and none of us are good at locating the right part of the right document at the right time.   AI is pretty good at sifting through a pile of text and locating the relevant bits.  well,... it's good at giving answers to well documented questions.   when the question asked doesn't have a lot of supporting documentation the answers given are a whole lot of bullsh!t and AI needs to be better at simply saying "i don't know" instead providing a wrong answer.

but on the other side of things,... i've had search via google for like 25 years now.  i've had google translations for most of that.   AI isn't this multi trillion dollar amazingly new technology that the AI bros want to sell me on.   it's a sometimes improved, sometimes worse version of the technology i've been using for decades.