I don't get this line of thinking by Universal. I'm not going to a movie theater right now. But I will pay $15-$20 to watch it. Why not do as Greenland did and release to VOD?


https://hiddenremote.com/2020/12/25/stream-news-of-the-world-online/

" News of the World, starring Tom Hanks, isn't getting that type of release. Universal Pictures has opted for only the theaters, which will certainly limit exposure.

Eventually, the Tom Hanks movie will head to a streaming service. We'll be looking at the DVD and Blu-ray release first, which is likely to be in about three months' time. Then we'll be looking at a streaming release."

News of the World will *likely* be on VOD around January 15 or so. Universal Pictures, the studio behind it, signed a paradigm-shifting deal with AMC theaters earlier this year that allows Universal movies to go to VOD after playing in theaters for three weeks. The hitch - which I just learned today - is that Universal can't advertise this fact in any of its marketing until each respective movie's three-week window is up. Seeing as News of the World and Promising Young Woman are Universal's most high-profile movies to date under this new deal, and both released in theaters on Christmas Day, we're likely about to see this new model/deal go into effect. Universal just can't mention it yet in their advertising. That said, again, this was a MASSIVE announcement a few months back, and if "Fansided" were an even a remotely competent site, they would know this. I would suggest not giving them the clicks from here on out.

Just saw it in the theater.
I enjoyed the movie although the scenery was off (NM) and parts weren't historically accurate.
The acting was great.

Bump.

Watched it on HBO Max.

Hanks was great. Helena Zengel stole the show.

Very enjoyable film.

I saw the movie and am currently reading the book.

I really liked it as well. Old Henry is another western I enjoyed that recently came out.

I finished the book.

The screenwriters took remarkably little from the book other than the title and the basic premise of a "reader" who is tasked with returning a captive girl.

The book is barely 200 pages long and does not really have much violent action in it. Most of the violence in the movie, other than the shootout with the three men who want to take the girl, is invented.

The story in the movie about the young man who winds up riding along with them for a while is not in the book.

The movie begins with the captain finding black men lynched by whites as a warning to blacks to stay out of Texas.

In the book the black men are savagely killed by Indians.

Gotta work that social justice narrative into it!

Johanna's visit to her ruined home does not happen in the book, nor does the gift of a horse from passing Kiowas, nor does the dust storm. In fact, the major theme in the movie that Johanna must recall her past in order to move forward is not an idea in the book at all.

In the book the captain is a veteran of battles with the Indians during the War of 1812 (he is 72 in the book) and the Mexican War, but was not in the Civil War.

The book reminds me a great deal of another Indian captivity narrative by another Texas author, "A Woman of the People." I suspect the book's author is familiar with that book as well as with the work of Cormac McCarthy, whose style she imitates throughout but mostly in the first 30 pages.

The book grew on me. Paulette Jiles must live in Uvalde or thereabouts and is meticulous in describing the flora, fauna, and geography of Texas.

The brief last chapter takes Johanna into adulthood and is very moving.

The book, with all its flaws, is still superior to the movie.