Re: Kal Ho Na Ho

"Raghu Jetley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> V wrote:
> > "Raghu Jetley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> Follow what - can't this be the case ?
> >>
> >> Assume cost of running a movie in a theatre - X
> >> No of seats in a theatre - Y
> >> Revenue from every Z
> >>
> >> If movie is released in 1 theatre & it's house full then
> >> profit =  (Y*Z) - X
> >>
> >> If released in 2 theatres & say it runs only 75% capacity in both.
> >> then profit =  (1.5*Y*Z) - 2X
> >>
> >> For arbitrary values, X = 25 Y = 100 Z = 1
> >>
> >
> > yes, but these values aren't exactly arbitrary. If you pick up X=1
> > and Y=100 the profit would be much higher. However, if you pick up
> > X=75, and Y=100 Z=1, lets look at those numbers again.
> >
> > Profit1  = 100 - 75 = 25
> > Profit2 =  150 - 150 = 0.
> >
> > The movie with a lower per screen average ended up making no profit
> > at all. Also, a movie with a higher per screen average provides you
> > with a better percentage return on your investment.
>
> My point is that - your original point that
> "Everyone who intends to make money from a movie, specifically the
> distributor and the theatre owner. Consider the cost of running a movie in
> single theatre and you would follow the rest."
> is not true all the time.
>

I never said it was true at all times, did I?  I totally agree with you.


>IMHO, it may not be true even in the vast majority of the times.
> Many a times Naz8 in the Bay Area has a movie running in 2 of their own
> theatres
> in the same complex - they aren't stupid to this.

Why is this an anomaly to what I said? BTW, North bergen in jersey had KHNH
running on all 8 screens, or so I heard.