@Allen_Richards: That's essentially correct. Each print has a base price for its rental, called a guarantee, which is adjusted based on the movie in question. The exhibitor pays either the guarantee OR 90% of the box office take (in the first and sometimes second week), whichever is higher. Thus, the distributor gets 90% of the box office for Titanic, since the grosses are going to be MUCH higher than the guarantee, but still owes the guarantee for My Dog Skip, which does no business. The difference, then, comes out of the 10% kept by the theater for Titanic, and the theater relies on concession sales to cover their operating costs.
This is the reason first-run single-screen theaters are no longer viable business options, and mega-multi-plexes have become the norm. A theater must have enough screens to cover the guarantees for flops with the left-over from the blockbusters. Yes, the percentage does even out with time, but the exhibitor still has to cover the film rental for ALL their prints, whether those films are successful or not. And, of course, it's kind of a catch-22, because the bigger the theater, the higher the operating costs (the electric bill alone would give the average bill-payer a heart-attack).
Without the parts of the movie-going experience customers hate - advertisements, high concession prices - and extra revenue coming in from games, group sales, and theater rentals, theaters would not be able to stay in business.
BTW: This isn't a complaint or call for change - just an explanation.
@Bgdmnhr: gr. H's clrly tryng t b nc nd ccmmdtng (nbdy wnts t s "[nsrt Clbrty Nm Hr] s Cmplt ss t CmcCn" ll vr th ntrnt th nxt dy), bt h's nt nt th ntrvw t ll.
f crs, dn't blm hm. Th ntrvwr sms t b mr ntrstd n shwng ff hs gksh psychlgcl vltn f ths chrctrs thn fndng t wht Qnt mght hv t sy. ny frshmn ntrvwr knws hw t sk pn-ndd qstns - ths gy s ssntlly ntrvwng hmslf nd thn skng Qnt t prs hs ntllgnc by gvng hm "ys," "n," r "tht's brllnt! nvr thght f t tht wy bfr, bt nw tht y'v pnd my ys, 'm gng t ply th chrctr dffrntly, nd t wll ll b d t yr nsght!"
Hnstly, hv t gv Qnt prps fr gttng thrgh th rdl s plsntly s h ds. H's t
@Birdhead: Indeed.
And your description of the battle sounds about right . . . it could go on for days with neither one moving a muscle! Once one of them did, though, it would probably be a bloodbath with both of them lying on the floor, in critical condition, staring at each other again.
@vinylrake: River defeated Jubal Early without even being in the same room (or the same SHIP) with him. If we're defining badass as the ability to defeat foes, I'd call that pretty darned badass.
In reading through the comments, I'm noticing two trends that I find interesting - purely from a detached, "hmm, that's interesting" point of view - not from a right/wrong judgy point of view.
Trend 1: Many fans seem to see this match-up as a show vs. show or creator vs. creator match-up rather than a competition between two fictional characters.
CJ - perhaps when this poll is done, participants would gain satisfaction from a "fiction god match-up" in which they may vote for Gene Roddenberry or Joss Whedon as the greatest character/'verse creator ever.
Trend 2: Many seem to see the competition as a question of who would beat whom in a battle with each other. I can see how this would be one way to select a winner. On the other hand, it would seem to me that in determining badassness, one ought to consider the foes each character has faced and ask himself (or HERself!) how the other character would fare in said battle.
Based on those parameters, I don't necessarily think that River is the assumed winner of all match-ups from here on out. (And I say that as a Whedon and Firefly fan.)
In this case, though, I'm afraid River wins, if only by a margin.
When being attacked by Reavers or any other army, I want River over Kirk. Sorry, Kirk, I love you, but, as tough as you are, you can't take down a roomfull of insane cannibal monsters single-handedly. So, in regular combat, it's River.
In situations in which creative thinking is required, Kirk and River are on pretty equal footing. Kirk and River have both creatively saved the crew when forced to out-think, rather than out-whoop, a foe.
However, River's ability to read minds HAS to make this task easier. No offense to Kirk - he's pretty damn good at saving the day without psychic powers - but if it's a straight-across question of who has the higher badass-score, I think River's mental capacity has to win, simply because she has a super-power Kirk does not have.
Pit River against someone else with super-powers, though, and it could be a tough call. Each match-up is its own puzzle. I'd love to see River come out as the final winner, but I'm only going to vote for her if I truly believe she deserves the vote.
Cameron might be harder to destroy, but River is crazy. Cameron is programmed to fight other Terminators, which are programmed with clear objectives (or humans with clear objectives). She wouldn't know how to handle an opponent who is unpredictable.
River might be at a slight disadvantage because normally she has the ability to psychically predict her opponent's moves. Can a psychic read cyborg minds? Is there anything in there to read? Hmmm.
@not_Bridget: I'd gladly land on Captain Jack any day. He's dreamy.
@92BuickLeSabre: Start with the Dr. Who "Series One" (Christopher Eccleston season) episode "The Empty Child." This is the first appearance of Captain Jack Harkness. He appears in the last several episodes of that season (starting with The Empty Child), and they are a fabulous way to get to know Captain Jack before he gets all bogged down with running Torchwood. Once you've fallen in love with Jack, THEN move on to Torchwood. As someone else mentioned, the first season takes a while to find its legs - it helps to already be attached to one of the characters before diving in.
Also, don't read the rest of the posts here, as some folks have dropped some spoilers a newbie won't want to stumble on.
Holy hotness, Batman! I want one. Or all three. Mmmmmmm. Yummy.
This has to be one of the best reviews I have EVER read. I bow to the brilliance of Charlie Jane Anders.
@darthsidious_7: 30 Days of Night had a number of flaws that resulted in its general suckiness, but the vampires were not one of them. In fact, the vampires in the movie were PERFECT - exactly what vampires ought to be. It's too bad they didn't have a script worthy of their fabulous vampness.
>HELLO SAILOR
Nothing happens here.
I absolutely LOVED the Infocom games back in the day. What a treat to find out people still remember them as fondly as I do.
Having watched every episode of all of Joss's shows, I would still say that Firefly is his best work. That said, I really did enjoy the first season of Dollhouse, and the season ending worked for me and left me wanting to see more. I agree with all of your points with regards to why the show is good, even if I still feel Firefly was better.
Also, I would say that even Ballard has some moral ambiguity going for him, given that he still had sex with November after he knew she was a doll.
Nice work. Well thought out.
@Michael_GR: Dude! What movie did you see? The one I saw was brilliant! Wow. It is always fascinating to me how two people can watch the same movie and come away with such different impressions. Sorry you didn't like it, man. I, for one, can't wait to see it again.
@alphanumeric1971: The movie is brilliant (and I say this as a rabid Star Trek fan). You should definitely go see it. It's like a love-letter from J.J. Abrams to Gene Roddenberry.
@nachtwulf: You don't even want to rent it. Seriously. Your time is as valuable as your money.
@WaldenNanobug: ** SPOILERS **
In the movie, the teleportation power the Deadpool Freak has is the result of having Wraith's DNA injected in him, which the writer's claim gives him Wraith's powers.
While this makes no sense whatsoever, they go on to suggest that while injecting the DNA of most other mutants can enhance powers, apparently they have to do something horrible to Cyclops's eyes in order to give the Deadpool Freak HIS powers.
Yeah. The writers of X-Men Origins: Wolverine should be ashamed. Very ashamed.
@kkroeger:
** ONE MORE SPOILER **
Oops, sorry, forgot to include one more F - Professor Xavier walking: F
@Will Schneider: Regarding the quality (or lack thereof) of the movie, here was my report card after suffering through it:
** SPOILER ALERT **
** SPOILER ALERT **
** SPOILER ALERT **
Hugh Jackman as Wolverine: A+
Liev Schreiber as Sabertooth: A
Patrick Stewart cameo: A
Ferocity of battles between Wolverine and Sabertooth: A
Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool: surprisingly A
Deadpool and Gambit special effects: A
Daniel Henney as Agent Zero (Maverick): B unless you expect him to be German, in which case, F
Story: - if you don't expect it to resemble Wolverine's origin story: C
Story: - if you DO expect it to resemble Wolverine's origin story: F
Dialogue: D for being almost 100% cliches
Gambit's dialogue: completely intelligible, so F
Plenty of mutants doing cool mutant stuff: C
Introduction of a hybrid super-mutant who is controlled by a computer (supposedly Deadpool with other mutant DNA in him to enhance his powers): F
Introduction of a mystery female mutant who is supposed to be the love of Logan's life: F
Overall Grade: C-
