"See while you can................." Topic

……………before it gets censored. Saw it this weekend and it is an excellent film told without any overt agenda. But because of the topic don't expect any awards for it.

link

Dont want to get into this debate, but Gosnell isnt on the list of US serial killers at link and even accepting his convictions the numbers dont seem to compare with others on the serial killer list. Hence the title establishes an overt agenda.

I guess you can take what you want from it. However, before you judge you should at least see it(if you ever get the chance) and not make a Knee-jerk reaction.

Nick,

Wikipedia says your link doesn't exist….

PZGeneral. How weird. You are right. Follow the link and you get an error. But google 'List of Serial Killers in the United States' and the Wikipedia link is near the top. And that link works. Same URL. Different result depending on where you are coming from.

box office last week, earning $1,235,000 USD on just 668 screens.

So, about $1,850 USD per screen in a week.

Or $264 USD a day.

Or based on ~$9 a ticket ( link ) about 30 people a day.

Yup, that's a film that did well to get a week of showings, and a lot of the cinemas that had it probably assessed it was played out for their locale.

Right – no agenda there. The title is obviously even indicates that the film has no bias in its approach to a very sad topic. And all those darned liberal movie theaters that are censoring it due to poor sales, very sad. Give me a break.

(edit: I am not commenting on the quality of the film as I have not seen it and for all I know it may be a well made film. But it has an agenda and to deny that is wrong, in my opinion)

Perhaps this link will work for the list of serial killers:
link

And all those darned liberal movie theaters……

Excuse this question from a foreigner, but movie theater chains are liberal?

Makes little sense on closing films that people are actually going to and seeing (if that is indeed the case). I'd assume putting people in the seats is what movie theaters do, irrespective of political leanings.

Bowman; Sarcasm doesn't always translate well from the spoken word to the written word.

Understood and thanks, Private Matter.

Well I was not on planning to see it anyway.

Actually, if one reads the article, the point is made that theaters are dropping the movie when it is doing well enough that movies with similar performance wouldn't be.

Without hard numbers to verify that one can't be sure, but if so that does indeed show a bias.

There's a claim that 15 cinemas were seeing good turnouts – I overlooked this in my average calculation because I don't know the size or location of these screens or how many tickets they need to sell for a film to be 6th of 15 screens. It's possible that the, say, top 3 films will account for a disproportionate amount of the sales. From a personal experience – this would be like when I tried to see Star Wars VII and it was sold out and I saw a different film on the 2nd screen which had only ~20 people in it, the number 1 film was outperforming the 2nd performing film by a ratio of about 1:100 (Screen 1 is big!).

However, if we say that these screens were getting 100 people a day (a little over triple my average figure calculated above), that actually makes little difference to the average visitors per screen at all cinemas.

$1,235,000 USD USD at $9 USD/ticket ~= 137200 tickets.

Assuming 15 cinemas had 100 ticket sales per day, that accounts for 15 x 7 x 100 = 10500

Remaining cinemas = 668-15 = 653

Therefore average daily ticket sales at the other cinemas = (137200 – 10500) / (653 x 7)

= 27.7 visitors per day.

Now if you say "no, no, those multiplexes were reporting 6th of 15 screens and 9th of 30 screens, they must have had a lot more than 100 people a day" then, ok, let's try a ten fold increase.

15 screens have 1000 people per day. This leaves only 32200 visitors for the other 653 screens.

Which will be 32200/(653*7) = 7 ticket sales per cinema per day.

Now – that also can't be right, or all the other 653 cinemas would have dropped the film.

So although I don't know exactly what the visitor rate at the well performing multiplexes was I can postulate that it was of the order of 100-200 ticket sales per day at best, as larger numbers destroy the averages at the other cinemas to the point that it is no longer credible that they would continue to show the film.

I then postulate that 700-1400 people could still be reasonably judged to represent a high percentage of the likely audience for the locale (note – we none of us actually know where these high performing multiplexes were) and a business decision could justifiably be made to replace this film with a new film.