SaulsAll t1_jab1whd wrote

Exactly. when you open, you want to open all the theaters, so there's a rush. Then most movies are close to the same run length - maybe a 90 minute kid's movie or a big 3 hour blockbuster, but most are around 105m-120m. So there will be ~30 minute span where the movies are getting out and the crews are cleaning, then the next block starts ~10 minutes after that. So another rush. The manager is trying to keep each theater playing as many times as they can during operating hours.

The main reason to break from this model is when you have a long movie playing in multiple theaters. Like when Interstellar came out and the 15 theater plex I worked at had 4 theaters playing it including the IMAX so you could get a start time every 30 minutes or so.

Edit: more accurate runtimes


SaulsAll t1_jab0etr wrote

From my time working at a theater:

>showtimes scrunched together?

The theaters usually run in blocks with staggered times. So the theater would open around 10-11am, with shows starting every 10 minutes or so. That way they arent all getting out at the same time and the cleaning crew can hit each theater as it empties. Allow a few minutes in between for the new viewers to get settled, and then a new block starts.

>blockbuster movies release in november, december, march, april, and most of summer

There are various "seasons" to releases. Big tentpoles are usually in summer because school is out and allow for more viewers. Christmas and Thanksgiving time are also big release times, and usually have the largest crowds - more than summer. End of fall for horror. Jan-Mar is usually the time for the movies with lower expectations. And so on.

>senior citizens come to movies in flocks more than younger people not to mention they go to the movies on the slow days but younger people don’t as much?

Retired people have more free time and can choose times with cheaper tickets and smaller audiences.

>Why do some movies that people expect from to do bad become successful while some movies expect people to be a big hit flop?

You figure that out and you could make a career in Hollywood.


SaulsAll t1_ja12umd wrote

Definitely would have been a better message if the four were trials to test them, and their refusal even in the face of the world ending was the correct answer. Shyamalan is really hit or miss and this one felt like a miss. Might have worked as a 30 minute anthology episode. Maybe Outer Limits tier, not quite deserving of Twilight Zone.

Bautista did fine, but wasnt really exceptional. Just showing he's able to play more than walking muscle.


SaulsAll t1_j9vzex1 wrote

>I've read that you lose the meaning when watching a dubbed version but you lose even more with subtitles.

I dont agree with that at all. They are both translations and so will lose something, but a subtitle is not trying to match timing and mouth movement, so can change things to fit intent more.

>When watching dub you get to actually watch the movie

Half agree. some people have no issue reading subs out of the corner of their eye while keeping their main focus on the visuals. But to appeal to authority, Miyazaki preferred people watch dubbed (or at least watch the first time with dubbing) to focus more on visuals.

>how does sub improve the experience

For me, inflection. Language has a sound. The voice actors impart emotion and intention into the words, even if I cant understand the language. The timbre of a voice adds its own quality to a character that simply cant be replaced by a dubbed voice and actor in another language.


SaulsAll t1_j8u63m6 wrote

So much of what we are moving toward is reliant on info and data input. I really hope we can figure out a way to get individuals' societal value (i.e. money) based on how much the tech gleans from their input. Everyone would have a "base pay" of just being a person and giving those data points. But you go exploring? You create some writing or art? You do something over and above that the AI then references to improve - you get "paid".


SaulsAll t1_j78b80m wrote

Your thought is in the right direction: raising temp without increasing volume is going to raise pressure. And a higher pressure is going to mean it take more heat for water to change phase from liquid to gas. The phase diagram for water is what is important here. I think though this might be a better question for r/askscience, especially when hypothesizing an unbreakable container or an unlimited amount of heat.

Edit: Looking at other charts, there seems to be a region called supercritical fluid


SaulsAll t1_j6ljvut wrote

Which colonies are forming? Want to guess how many CFU are on your face? In your mouth? It's not the number, it's the type.

>recommends washing your hands regularly (and properly)

This is the proper take-away.


SaulsAll t1_j28ica9 wrote

I think the information would be severely warped and condensed, though. It's like saying the best way to see an IMAX movies is by shrinking the screen down to the size of a postage stamp. Sure all the info is closer in terms of angular resolution, but discerning individual parts becomes much harder.

Or just the difference between looking at the sky at night versus looking at a tiny section with the Hubble.


SaulsAll t1_j27peqy wrote

I think each observer would need to "turn around" and point their vision back toward the event horizon. There, each would see the entire sphere of visibility - including the other person on the other side of the singularity - condensed into a tiny bit of view. Everything else would look black.


SaulsAll t1_j1zwnfq wrote

As much as any TMBG song. Linnell takes a very "experimental jazz" approach to college rock. I prefer Flansburgh's more standard approach to the music, keeping the silliness more in the lyrics.

Have you never heard of They Might Be Giants?


SaulsAll t1_j1xjq27 wrote

Like any "entering a fantasy world" plot, I always assume how it appears is heavily influenced by the mind of the person entering.

Dorothy is at a very different mental state in Return to Oz.

As for why in regards to making the movie, I would assume some desire from the art department to be original and add their own take. Either as other person said to be more accurate to book illustrations, or to closer match the darker tone of the movie.


SaulsAll t1_j1oqbqk wrote

Much as I disagree (I was one to clean up those floors), it is generally some form of "that's what I pay for you to do." People feel very entitled to be taken care of, and apparently have no shame in being seen as extremely lazy and dirty.

I get popcorn on the floor (though I've seen half a bucket poured out, likely in protest to the quality of the popcorn - we've all gotten the "seeds and casings" bag before), maybe even a spilled drink. But some people go to the movie and make it seem like at every moment they were flailing wildly. Like a showing of Phantom Thread elicited a reaction more apt for a Kevin Hart movie.

A Kevin Hart movie, BTW, being the absolute worst cleanup the theater I worked at had ever seen. I dont remember the exact movie, but it was a special screening, and he had come to do a little intro, and bought the sold out theater all a popcorn and drink. It took a very long time to clean that theater.