Gatsby77

Also - pretty sure it's illegal to buy alcohol and drugs for minors in most states.

Absolutely not. She was underage - and (allegedly) groomed by him since she was 13. So Stockholm Syndrome is absolutely expected, even if she's now 18 - and thus, an adult. The parents have every right to bring the suit. See also Samantha Geimer - Roman Polanski's rape victim from decades ago. The fact that she's come out since and says she wants the case & charges dropped matter for zilch. Because she was 13 - a child at the time.

My god. We're *never* gonna' see this movie. At this point, Ezra Miller will be watching The Flash on HBO Max from their jail cell.

Looks *really* good. It's also cool that both Black Adam and Hawkman are portrayed by African-American actors.

Inflation-adjusted, didn't the first Top Gun gross $850+ million? Box Office Mojo's citing: $180 million domestic = equivalent of $439.4 million today + $177 million foreign = total worldwide gross of $357.3 million in 1986. Or ~$870 million worldwide today. Domestically, it was *easily* the top grossing movie of 1986 - 1988.

No. "Pandemic era" in this case refers to user behavior, not laws. Just because theaters were "allowed" to reopen at full capacity months ago doesn't mean *audiences* returned. Even moreso given that this week LA County, for instance, announced they may reinstitute indoor mask mandates as COVID hospitalization rates there are rising. The 7-day rolling average of new Covid cases there is 4,100+ new daily, more than triple what is was in the fall of 2020. Also - individual anecdotes are wildly_fanciful_statement, but I saw Top Gun: Maverick again last night and took my parents (who are in their late 70s.). First time either of them had set foot inside a movie theater in more than 2 years. And I'm sure they're far from the exception. BTW - they each loved the film. But we're all hoping neither of them shows symptoms in the next 7-10 days.

Umm...yes. Are you seriously defending Sony's being gaslit by obvious social media trolling here? C'mon, man. You're clearly smarter than that! @media_junkie's right on. Social media meme popularity (*especially* Twitter popularity) doesn't equate to reality...at all. I thought the studios learned that 15 years ago - when Snakes on a Plane bombed, despite becoming a pre-release pop cultural phenomenon on social. Meanwhile, I've been beyond amused at the tweets celebrating such a film - and its failed return to theaters.

Right... Even with ridiculous population growth, the chances that 35 years from now even 1 million people watch the Snyder cut in a single week are zero.

Well...yeah. 'Cuz one of those movies is actually good.

Hate to say it, but I think Depp's going to lose. Given the truth is an absolute defense to libel, the op-ed isn't defamation if the jury believes Depp abused her ever, as in even once. Shouldn't matter in the long run, however, because I think Depp has already (and rightfully) won (and Amber has lost - which are two separate things) in the court of public opinion. PR-wise, the trial has reminded studios - and the world - of just how much folks love Johnny Depp. And largely proven how much of an opportunist - and pathological liar - Heard is.

I think there are two different scenarios here. Scenario 1: Exact same copy of the book - sold multiple times? No - the price actually tends to go down on 2nd or 3rd sale in quick succession (defined as within two years). See...the Gary Keller More Fun & (I believe) Ducks / Disney sales. - Subsequent sales of these exact books often went for 30-60% less. Also..the Billy Wright books - many of them went down on initial resale from the prices secured when first brought to market. Scenario 2: Transaction volume in general. There are *tons* of Golden Age books whose values haven't kept up with those of key Silver or Copper Age books simply from lack of transaction volume. A book - like ASM 300 or AF 15 or even Spider-Man 50 - that sells dozens of times a year - will tend to have both more stable pricing *and* appreciate faster than a far rarer Golden Age book that may sell only once every 3-4 years in a given grade. The Golden Age book may achieve a price 20% higher than last GPA sale, but then again, last GPA sale was 4 years ago. Vs. some key (and far more common) Silver and Bronze Marvels may rise 20% a year just because there are more known sales on the books. Over the course of those same 3-4 years as the Golden Age books, that's significant. My personal example? I bought a CGC 4.0 copy of Startling Comics # 10 in 2013 for $2,151. Resold it in 2016 for $2700. Last sale / current value (as of Dec. 2020 GPA): $3,450. (Note: these were all the exact same book, but the result would have been the same if they were different CGC 4.0s) This is a semi-key Golden Age book (first appearance Fighting Yank) - and fairly rare. 15 total copies slabbed according to the census, with an average slabbed grade of just over 5.0. And yet...it's increased in value just ~55% or so in. 8 years. Compare that to any Marvel Silver or Bronze key over the same time period. It's not remotely comparable. Lack of transaction volume killed expected gains.

It’s a worthy sequel - and actually better than it has any right to be. 5 stars. And audience reaction was solid - folks broke out in applause 4-5 separate times.

So...is Brandt just gone from the series now? I mean, this looks great - but I was hoping to see Jeremy Renner.

Again - he was fired from Paramount. And continued his career by *buying a legacy movie studio." Now that is star power.

Again - not the point. Tom Cruise, after being fired by Paramount, bought a controlling stake in a legacy studio, United Artists - to continue starring in movies. That's f---kn star power. That's something Will Smith isn't close to being able to do, in the wake of his (multiple) lost roles from the slap. But...per contemporary reporting by the New York Times, it was ultimately unclear whether Cruise was fired or quit: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/business/media/23cruise.html The result was the same - At the least, Paramount "declined to renew his deal" after MI:3 - which led Cruise to buying United Artists. Also - Cruise's deal with Paramount for the Mission Impossible films wasn't nearly as "groundbreaking" as that 2015 article implies. 1) First-dollar gross points have been a thing since at least since the '70s. See Alec Guinness with Star Wars and Donald Sutherland with Animal House (a deal he turned down). 2) The article's also missing the obvious - Paramount only fired (ahem - "parted ways with") Cruise after Mission Impossible III grossly underperformed theatrically. They were well aware of the terms of the deal when they made it with him. But DVD revenue wouldn't have mattered nearly as much to the studio had the film performed as expected - i.e., as well or better than MI:2. So now the studio's in a situation where a toxic (at the time) star largely kills the studio theatrical gross but still stands to profit on DVD sales.

You're focusing on the part of my statement, tho. It's not about Cruise being fired by Paramount (which he was, for whichever reason you believe. Please forgive me for not reading a blog post from "We Minored in Film" nearly a decade later). It's that - even today, in the era of diminished star power, there are still 10-12 actors who can get a $150+ million action or sci-fi blockbuster greenlit "with a phone call." There are, however, *maybe* 2-3 with the resources and power to literally buy a controlling stake in a major movie studio. Tom Cruise did just that when he effectively bought United Artists. This is qualitatively different from owning a small production company - like DiCaprio's Appian Way or Nolan's Syncopy or Pitt's Plan B. Call me when any of them actually buys a controlling stake in Lionsgate or even STX. Cruise's star power, financial resources and Hollywood cache are nearly unrivaled. Full stop.

"Some rag" https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115628557000642662

This had been recommended to me by several people. Saw it yesterday with low expectations, and it was phenomenal! Highly recommended. As noted above, strong Matrix vibes - and I don't remember the last time I was in a theater where *everyone* laughed so much. Really good. And - if it needed any additional geek cred (it doesn't) - the Russo Bros. are credited as producers.

Nah - never forget that Cruise's true star power moment came 15+ years ago. Viacom's Sumner Redstone fired him from Paramount Studios after the Oprah couch-jumping, which Redstone claimed cost Mission Impossible 3 "$100+ million dollars" in box office receipts. So Cruise turns arounds and effectively buys United Artists. The man bought a controlling interest in an entire movie studio to be able to continue making movies.

Think of it this way: 30 years from now the DVD could be a super rare collectible, garnering $10s of dollars from auction houses like Heritage.

Pretty sure she's gone by "Kitty Pryde" for like 30 of her past 43-year history. Like...I think it's been a *long* time since she was referred to buy her superhero or code names in the comics.

I love the book as the first Emma Frost - especially since Frost was leading the X-Men ~15 years ago. But I've never understood the speculative interest in Kitty Pryde. IIRC, she was in each of the first three X-Men films, but played by three different actresses. In other words, I think the character has been as "potentialized" in movies as Sabretooth or Bane (two separate films each). And Emma Frost's appearance in First Class was...underwhelming.

As you highlighted, "He has concluded that higher budgeted offerings do not add enough value, ie., add a significant number of subscribers, as much as having the more modestly-budgeted movies that seem to do the job of retaining subs. " Name another HBO Max original film that cost significantly more than $35 million to produce - other than the Snyder Cut.

That's an interesting indictment of the Justice League Snyder Cut - which had a budget significantly higher than $35 million.

Props for the excellent use of the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang .gif