Back to 1942渥村有放的吗？

[苦逼热狗]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y1W9fPDb9U[/media]

 

[臭农民]

by 冯导？:blink::blink::blink:

 

[forrrest]

应该是没有。Toronto场次较多4个影院放一周，Vancouver有两家影院播放，Montreal和Ottawa没有。应该在投放市场之前，就已经根据观众人群做过收看预期的测算，才决定多少块银幕播放多久的。Ottawa要播放，一算成本，ROI就太低了。

 

[Riven]

华狮取消在渥太华播放所有中文电影，就是因为根本收不回成本。 其他的大城市也就刚刚持平。 好电影可能会赚点。

 

[臭农民]

华狮取消在渥太华播放所有中文电影，就是因为根本收不回成本。 其他的大城市也就刚刚持平。 好电影可能会赚点。

好电影?有吗？
BTW以前引进的那些，可真是垃圾中的战斗机，谁会去看啊:blink:

 

[Riven]

好电影?有吗？
BTW以前引进的那些，可真是垃圾中的战斗机，谁会去看啊:blink:

非诚勿扰2还是赚的。

 

[臭农民]

非诚勿扰2还是赚的。

非2,其实很难看，看都看不下去啊:blink:

 

[ccc]

YES.

The Elgin Theatre, a 750-seat cinema, was opened in 1937。

 

[forrrest]

YES.



The Elgin Theatre, a 750-seat cinema, was opened in 1937。

When?

 

[ccc]

When?

Why when? It was stated up there.

 

[forrrest]

Without an object like '电影' following the verb '放', it is still not an ambiguous question, especially there is the 'Back to 1942' used as the subject of the passive voice.

 

[ccc]

Without an object like '电影' following the verb '放', it is still not an ambiguous question, especially there is the 'Back to 1942' used as the subject of the passive voice.

"Back to 1942" functions as an adverb here, NOT the subject actually though it is at the start of the subject line.

 

[forrrest]

Nobody says that "Back to 1942" is the subject just because it is at the beginning of the sentence. I thought all people know that in chinese, especially in above context the verb '放' is a vt instead of a vi, and in this sentence, "Back to 1942" is the only eligible formal object or say subject overthere, as expected. On the opposite, if "Back to 1942" is deemed the adverb, then the vt '放' without its formal object(subject of the sentence) causes a grammar error undoubtedly.

 

[臭农民]

wtf:blink:

 

[资深爱地]

好电影?有吗？

BTW以前引进的那些，可真是垃圾中的战斗机，谁会去看啊:blink:

我去看过2场

一场看的是非城2看的人还有些，就是孩子闹妈妈跑的不少，是我在加拿大看的电影经历里最痛苦的一次，烦死人了

一场看的是大武生，我很喜欢那电影，其实主要是去看京剧的:blowzy: 那场电影加上我就三个观众，一位女儿陪她妈妈去的，我LD进影院后看的另外一电影。



8过，记得CFC上很多人象老何啦，这个哥那个哥的不少人去看了那啥建党大业