They watch just-released films on the day they're released in their home (cost $35K buy-in, $500 per film). see https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/7/8361475/prima-cinema-luxury-movie-watching-furious-7
They have a current star singer perform a private concert for them (so this was probably a corporate event, but I'm sure centi-millionaire/billionaire have hired her to perform) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyonc%C3%A9_2023_Dubai_performance
Condolences to her family and to the wider Star Wars community.
On a film-related note: I'm assuming any role she might've had in Episode 8 might've already been shot since the film is in post production, but given that she's passed away and (I figure) Leia almost certainly won't be recast, how might Disney rejigger the storyline going forward? Furious 7 handled Paul Walker's death through CG and the use of Paul's brother to stand in for missing shots, but that was to close out a single film rather than to adjust for broader plot gaps in an overarching series.
When I saw Furious 7, there was a large multi-family crowd in front of me who thought it would be a good idea to bring multiple (>3) 3-4 year old kids to watch the movie... and let them run around effectively unsupervised.
Hollywood wants to make films that people want to watch. They might be able to trick people into going to the cinema before the reviews come out, if necessary. But that won't save it in home entertainment, which is where most of the money is.
They're pretty good at it, too. This year, Furious 7 and Jurassic World have been two of the top-grossing films ever. That's not because people were tricked into seeing them, and didn't know what they were in for. It's because people enjoyed watching those films.
> But do we really think that inadequate incentive to create new drugs or new movies is a major problem right now?
I found this line in Krugman's text surprising, because there actually are a lot of questions about incentives in both drug and entertainment markets.
In drugs, pharma companies are focusing on high-margin "lifestyle enhancing" drug categories like erectile dysfunction, blood pressure management, and various mood and mental management. Basically, the drugs that rich healthy people will pay a lot of money for. Pharma companies are not focusing on low-margin but highly useful categories like antibiotics, pests, and vaccines. Basically, the problems that affect poor people in 2nd and 3rd world countries.
In entertainment, companies are focusing on iterating well-known and well-used franchises for which they know they can drive immediate demand with marketing. Highly original hits like Inception are not nearly as common as they were in say, the 1970s or 1980s. Instead we get Furious 7 and a two remakes of 21 Jump Street.
Don't get me wrong, the drug and entertainment industries are making a lot of money. But the issue is how they are making it. Drug companies stick to first world problems because first world countries protect their IP, so that is where they'll get a return. Entertainment companies stick to movies that will pack the theater on opening weekend because the movie will be heavily pirated within a few days after that.
I'm not crying for the poor drug or movie executives. I'm saying that the rest of us have to live with the consequences of how we incentivize companies to do business.
Motion picture timelines are pretty long, so I imagine you are correct. Of particularly high likelihood (according to imdb) are: Furious 7, Wildcard, and Spy (2015, 2015, and 2015 respectively). I'm curious to know how often new movies come out quickly or secretly -- in particular, if I made the more precise prediction "Jason Statham will be featured in exactly 3 movies released in 2015", how likely is it that I'll be wrong?
That link is real time. State of the art server farm rendered is orders of magnitude better.
"The last movie I remember having a CG face was Clu" By strict definition if you remember it having a CG face then it wasn't good. It's not possible for you to remember a good CG face because if it's good you wouldn't know it was CG!
The next big test might by Paul Walker in Fast and Furious 7 or Philip Seymore Hoffman in Hunger Games 3. Both big budget movies where the actor died and CG will be used in at least some places. That's the ultimate. I think we can already get away with CG if the actor isn't known. But for actors who have faces we know and mannerisms we subconsciously recogonize it's another step up in difficulty.
Hacker Cinema
10 comments on Hacker News
They watch just-released films on the day they're released in their home (cost $35K buy-in, $500 per film). see https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/7/8361475/prima-cinema-luxury-movie-watching-furious-7
They have a current star singer perform a private concert for them (so this was probably a corporate event, but I'm sure centi-millionaire/billionaire have hired her to perform) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyonc%C3%A9_2023_Dubai_performance
Are you seeing the main rating (the Tomatometer) or the average? The Tomatometer is just the ratio of ratings over 50%, not an average of the ratings.
If you see Furious 7, for example, it has a Tomatometer rating of 80%, but the average is just 6.6/10.
(Note: you have to open the movie page to see the average rating)
Condolences to her family and to the wider Star Wars community.
On a film-related note: I'm assuming any role she might've had in Episode 8 might've already been shot since the film is in post production, but given that she's passed away and (I figure) Leia almost certainly won't be recast, how might Disney rejigger the storyline going forward? Furious 7 handled Paul Walker's death through CG and the use of Paul's brother to stand in for missing shots, but that was to close out a single film rather than to adjust for broader plot gaps in an overarching series.
When I saw Furious 7, there was a large multi-family crowd in front of me who thought it would be a good idea to bring multiple (>3) 3-4 year old kids to watch the movie... and let them run around effectively unsupervised.
Hollywood wants to make films that people want to watch. They might be able to trick people into going to the cinema before the reviews come out, if necessary. But that won't save it in home entertainment, which is where most of the money is.
They're pretty good at it, too. This year, Furious 7 and Jurassic World have been two of the top-grossing films ever. That's not because people were tricked into seeing them, and didn't know what they were in for. It's because people enjoyed watching those films.
And yet Hollywood studios would have you believe piracy is killing the movie industry. Furious 7 cleared $1.5 billion at the Box Office.
> But do we really think that inadequate incentive to create new drugs or new movies is a major problem right now?
I found this line in Krugman's text surprising, because there actually are a lot of questions about incentives in both drug and entertainment markets.
In drugs, pharma companies are focusing on high-margin "lifestyle enhancing" drug categories like erectile dysfunction, blood pressure management, and various mood and mental management. Basically, the drugs that rich healthy people will pay a lot of money for. Pharma companies are not focusing on low-margin but highly useful categories like antibiotics, pests, and vaccines. Basically, the problems that affect poor people in 2nd and 3rd world countries.
In entertainment, companies are focusing on iterating well-known and well-used franchises for which they know they can drive immediate demand with marketing. Highly original hits like Inception are not nearly as common as they were in say, the 1970s or 1980s. Instead we get Furious 7 and a two remakes of 21 Jump Street.
Don't get me wrong, the drug and entertainment industries are making a lot of money. But the issue is how they are making it. Drug companies stick to first world problems because first world countries protect their IP, so that is where they'll get a return. Entertainment companies stick to movies that will pack the theater on opening weekend because the movie will be heavily pirated within a few days after that.
I'm not crying for the poor drug or movie executives. I'm saying that the rest of us have to live with the consequences of how we incentivize companies to do business.
edit: word fixes
Furious 7 got banned in Pakistan: http://www.shareonfb.com/n4nqp0/film-censor-board-bans-furious-7-in-pakistan
As regards Mr. Statham:
Motion picture timelines are pretty long, so I imagine you are correct. Of particularly high likelihood (according to imdb) are: Furious 7, Wildcard, and Spy (2015, 2015, and 2015 respectively). I'm curious to know how often new movies come out quickly or secretly -- in particular, if I made the more precise prediction "Jason Statham will be featured in exactly 3 movies released in 2015", how likely is it that I'll be wrong?
That link is real time. State of the art server farm rendered is orders of magnitude better.
"The last movie I remember having a CG face was Clu" By strict definition if you remember it having a CG face then it wasn't good. It's not possible for you to remember a good CG face because if it's good you wouldn't know it was CG!
The next big test might by Paul Walker in Fast and Furious 7 or Philip Seymore Hoffman in Hunger Games 3. Both big budget movies where the actor died and CG will be used in at least some places. That's the ultimate. I think we can already get away with CG if the actor isn't known. But for actors who have faces we know and mannerisms we subconsciously recogonize it's another step up in difficulty.