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

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.

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.

>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.

I dont think there are any extra steps, but yes. The point is moving the basis of the capital onto input rather than production.

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".

Superhot ice sounds pretty cool. How does water form a solid if there is no room to expand into the crystalline structure?

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

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a preponderance of Trekkies in astronomy, and that such places weren't some of the first checked for habitable planets.

How close is this to Wolf 359?

It would be a bit like looking at clouds from a plane. Only the things far away would have good definition. Other than that, I imagine it would be a lot like looking at the night sky from earth. You'd see lots of points of light - stars and galaxies, and some faint smudges of nebulae.

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.

True. Though there could be some that were shot out of a galaxy entirely. Or perhaps even rarer but possible is one forming in intergalactic space.

Planets outside our star system. They are either orbiting a different star, or there are rogue planets that move through space without orbiting some other object.

Oof, landed right on the incline. Either needed less speed or a lot more.

Hmm. I had to look it up, but the highest point of the US Interstate system is also a tunnel. I'm trying to remember if I've ever been through that one too.

Do a Robert Redford two-fer:

Jeremiah Johnson (1972)

All is Lost (2013)

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.

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.

I took that to be showing us more Sarah Connor's story and realization. I completely agree no one in the audience was supposed to be "fooled", but Sarah herself could only see the parallel to her first encounter and thus needed the change in understanding.

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?

I cant make any concrete connections, but I swear the TMBG song is a reference to that scene.

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.

Scarecrow, Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion all appear in the movie.

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.