THE SHORT VERSION
- Regal and Cinemark declined to play The Further Mis-Adventures of Cliff Booth on their IMAX screens for the film's 25 November opening, IndieWire reported, leaving AMC plus smaller circuits at about 550 screens worldwide.据 IndieWire 报道，Regal 与 Cinemark 拒绝在各自的 IMAX 影厅放映《The Further Mis-Adventures of Cliff Booth》，11月25日上映时，全球 IMAX 银幕约为550块，主要来自 AMC 与少数小院线。
- The film runs two weeks in IMAX before it reaches Netflix on 23 December, which Deadline totals as a 27-day window from cinemas to streaming.影片在 IMAX 独占两周，随后于12月23日上线 Netflix，Deadline 把这段从影院到流媒体的间隔算作27天。
- The two reports describe the film's authorship differently, and neither carries a Netflix statement, a budget, or a Cinemark comment.两家报道对影片创作者的描述并不一致，且都没有 Netflix 的声明、预算数字或 Cinemark 的回应。
Two chains out, one in两家退出，一家接片
Regal and Cinemark will not put The Further Mis-Adventures of Cliff Booth on their IMAX screens. IndieWire reported at 1:40pm on 30 October that Regal and Cinemark had declined the film for their IMAX auditoriums, leaving AMC as the only major circuit playing it. Deadline, which ranks them second and third among exhibitors, followed at 2:19pm with a wider framing: the two chains would not be playing the Netflix release at all when it opens on Wednesday, 25 November.Regal 与 Cinemark 不会在各自的 IMAX 影厅放映《The Further Mis-Adventures of Cliff Booth》。IndieWire 于10月30日下午1点40分报道，这两家院线拒绝了该片的 IMAX 影厅，于是 AMC 成为唯一接下影片的大型院线。把这两家列为全美第二、第三大院线的 Deadline，则在下午2点19分跟进，口径更宽：11月25日周三上映时，这两家院线根本不会放映这部 Netflix 影片。
The difference in scope is not settled by either story. IndieWire's account is about premium screens and the IMAX booking; Deadline's headline reads as a general skip by the two circuits. Neither piece says whether the film will appear on their ordinary screens, and both describe the release as an IMAX-exclusive run that begins on 25 November, so the gap between the two accounts is a question neither outlet puts to the chains.两种说法的范围差别，两家报道都没有解决。IndieWire 讲的是高端影厅和 IMAX 排片；Deadline 的标题读起来像是两家院线整体拒映。两家都没有说明影片是否会出现在它们的普通影厅，而两家都把这次发行描述为从11月25日开始的 IMAX 独占放映，因此两份报道之间的落差，是两家媒体都没有向院线提出的问题。
A 27-day window27天的窗口
The theatrical life of the film is short by design. Deadline describes a two-week exclusive run in Imax followed by a Netflix launch on 23 December, and totals that as a 27-day window from cinema to streaming. IndieWire gives the same 23 December date, notes that the film lands on the service in time for Christmas, and reports that the IMAX slot was built around the Thanksgiving holiday rather than a later date.影片的院线生命被刻意压短。Deadline 写到，IMAX 独占两周之后，影片于12月23日上线 Netflix，并把这段从影院到流媒体的间隔合计为27天。IndieWire 给出的也是12月23日，并指出影片赶在圣诞前上线，还报道说这个 IMAX 档期是围绕感恩节假期安排的，而不是更晚的日期。
IndieWire explains the chains' preference plainly. Those IMAX houses will likely keep The Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping for a second weekend rather than take a Netflix title that starts streaming four weeks later, the site reports. Deadline frames the same decision as a market question, listing Hunger Games and Universal's comedy sequel Focker-in-Law as the competing holiday bookings, and arguing that a longer run would have found screens in a booming market with room over Thanksgiving.IndieWire 把院线的取舍讲得很直白。该网站报道，这些 IMAX 影厅很可能让《The Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping》再映一个周末，而不是接一部四周后就能在流媒体上看到的 Netflix 影片。Deadline 把同一个决定放进市场语境，列出《Hunger Games》和环球影业的喜剧续集《Focker-in-Law》作为同档期竞争者，并认为在市场景气、感恩节档期还有空位的情况下，更长的窗口本可以找到银幕。
Why the chains were allowed to say no院线为什么可以说不
Normally the exhibitor does not get that choice. IndieWire reports that IMAX decides which titles play on its screens and that theaters have little say, but that on this film IMAX came aboard as a partner late enough that it let chains opt out and keep Hunger Games instead. Deadline does not mention the opt-out at all, so the permission that let the two chains decline is reported by one outlet only. The detail turns a refusal into a permitted decision, which is why Regal's explanation is about policy rather than about the film.通常院线没有这个选择权。IndieWire 报道，IMAX 决定哪些影片能上它的银幕，影院几乎没有决定权，但这次 IMAX 作为合作方介入得较晚，因此允许院线退出，转而保留《Hunger Games》。Deadline 完全没有提到这项豁免，因此“院线可以退出”这一前提只有一家媒体报道。这个细节把拒绝变成了被许可的选择，也解释了为什么 Regal 的解释谈的是政策而不是影片本身。
Regal is the only chain that speaks on the record in either story. Brooks LeBoeuf, senior vice president of US content for Regal Global Entertainment, told IndieWire that premium screens are among the company's most valuable assets and that a distributor's level of commitment is one factor in how they are allocated. He said: “Shortened theatrical windows have a direct impact on those decisions, as they limit the opportunity for audiences to experience films on the big screen.” The statement names Hunger Games as a release Regal will back in IMAX.Regal 是两篇报道中唯一具名表态的院线。Regal Global Entertainment 美国内容高级副总裁 Brooks LeBoeuf 对 IndieWire 表示，高端影厅是公司最有价值的资产之一，而发行方投入的程度是分配这些影厅的考量因素之一。他说：“缩短的院线窗口会直接影响这些决定，因为它压缩了观众在大银幕上看片的机会。”声明还把《Hunger Games》列为 Regal 将在 IMAX 全力支持的影片。
The precedent, in figures先例与数字
Deadline supplies the history in numbers. It reports that Knives Out: Wake Up Dead Man, released with a 17-day window last holiday season, was refused by the top three circuits and took about $4M domestically, against $13.3M for Glass Onion over the five-day Thanksgiving frame in 2022, when Netflix allowed 30 days and 696 theaters at a $19K average. Deadline also records that the first Knives Out, released by Lionsgate, opened to $41.4M over five days in 2019 and finished at $165.3M domestic and $312.8M worldwide, before the sequels went to Netflix during the pandemic. IndieWire's contribution to the arithmetic is the screen count: about 200 IMAX houses for AMC in the United States, about 100 for Regal and closer to 20 for Cinemark.Deadline 用数字交代先例。报道称，上一个假日档以17天窗口上映的《Knives Out: Wake Up Dead Man》被三大院线拒绝，本土票房约400万美元；相比之下，2022年感恩节五天档期上映的《Glass Onion》在30天窗口下于696家影院取得1330万美元，单馆平均约1.9万美元。Deadline 还记下更早的数字：由 Lionsgate 发行的第一部《Knives Out》2019年感恩节档五天开画4100万美元，最终本土1.653亿美元、全球3.128亿美元，之后续集才在疫情期间转投 Netflix。IndieWire 补充的是银幕算术：AMC 在美国约有200块 IMAX 银幕，Regal 约100块，Cinemark 接近20块。
The first Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the comparison Deadline finds hardest to answer. That film opened to $41M, the director's best domestic start, finished at $142.5M domestic and $409.3M worldwide, and won Brad Pitt a supporting actor Oscar. Deadline argues that a follow-up to it has been given a shorter window than the 50 days set for Greta Gerwig's Narnia and the 47 days planned for Charlie Vs The Chocolate Factory, both family titles the streamer treats differently.Deadline 认为最难解释的对照是第一部《Once Upon a Time in Hollywood》。该片本土开画4100万美元，是该导演本土最佳开画，最终本土1.425亿美元、全球4.093亿美元，并为 Brad Pitt 赢得奥斯卡最佳男配角。Deadline 据此认为，这样一部影片的续集拿到的窗口，比 Greta Gerwig 的《Narnia》50天和《Charlie Vs The Chocolate Factory》47天还短，而这两部都是流媒体平台另眼看待的家庭片。
Two reports, two authors两篇报道，两个作者
The two reports do not agree on who made the film. Deadline calls it the Quentin Tarantino penned follow-up to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which puts the script with Tarantino and the story inside that film's world. IndieWire calls it “David Fincher's film with Brad Pitt” in its standfirst, then opens with Fincher as the director and Pitt as the star, and describes it as one of Netflix's big upcoming releases. Both agree on the star, the 25 November opening and the 23 December streaming date.两篇报道对影片的创作者说法不同。Deadline 称它是“Quentin Tarantino 执笔的《Once Upon a Time in Hollywood》续作”，把剧本归给 Tarantino，并把故事放在那部电影的世界里。IndieWire 的导语称它是“David Fincher 与 Brad Pitt 合作的影片”，正文第一段则把导演写成 David Fincher、主演写成 Brad Pitt，并把它列为 Netflix 即将推出的重要作品之一。两家在主演、11月25日上映和12月23日上线这三点上是一致的。
Neither story mentions the other's credit or explains the gap, and neither prints a synopsis that would settle the authorship. IndieWire credits Puck with the original disclosure of the booking, and adds that Puck also reported Regal, Alamo Drafthouse and AMC declining to hold Amazon's Ali G: Who Iz I? for an extended run, after a 150-theater stunt last weekend. Amazon did not answer IndieWire's question about how many screens that film would play this weekend.两家都没有提到对方的署名，也没有解释这一差异，更没有刊出能够定论的剧情简介。IndieWire 把这次排片消息的最初披露归给 Puck，并补充说，Puck 还报道 Regal、Alamo Drafthouse 以及 AMC 都不愿为亚马逊的《Ali G: Who Iz I?》延长放映，该片上周末刚做了150家影院的短期放映。对于该片本周末将在多少块银幕上放映，亚马逊没有回应 IndieWire 的询问。
What is still open仍然悬着的问题
The commercial detail that would size the loss is absent. Neither story reports advance sales, a budget, a Netflix statement or a projection for the IMAX run; Cinemark does not comment in either piece, and Regal's statement is about premium screens in general. IndieWire carries three screen figures, about 500 for AMC worldwide in its standfirst, about 200 AMC IMAX houses in the United States and about 550 worldwide once smaller circuits are added, and it does not reconcile them.能够衡量损失大小的商业细节是缺失的。两家都没有报道预售、预算、Netflix 的声明，也没有对 IMAX 放映做出预测；Cinemark 在两篇报道中都没有发声，Regal 的声明谈的是一般意义上的高端影厅。IndieWire 给出三个银幕数字：导语里是 AMC 全球约500块，正文里说 AMC 在美国约有200块 IMAX 银幕，加上小院线后全球约550块，而它并没有把这三个数字对上。
The open questions are ordinary ones: how many IMAX sites outside the United States lose the film, whether it plays non-IMAX screens at the two chains, and when tickets go on sale. Related coverage on this site includes Only Living Pickpocket's New York theatrical release, the theatrical release of Social Reckoning and the release context for The Invite on HBO Max.悬着的问题都很日常：美国以外有多少块 IMAX 银幕看不到这部影片，它在两家院线是否会进入非 IMAX 影厅，以及预售何时开始。本站相关阅读包括《Only Living Pickpocket》的纽约院线上映、《Social Reckoning》的院线上映以及《The Invite》在 HBO Max 的上线背景。
Sources & reporting limits来源与核查范围
Follow Film to find related stories on your next visit.关注电影，下次访问时阅读相关文章。
