A Thread About Movies

DanHibiki

After the first 10 minutes you kind of forget that Toy Story 3 was 3d when you watch it because they don't make much use of the 3d aspect so what you get is a normal Pixar movie just a bit darker.

TychoCelchuuu

I don't even understand 3d. It's not 3d in the way that the world is 3d, because you can't choose what to focus on. Some things are always in focus and some things are always out of focus. That works perfectly fine for a 2d movie, because it's just an image projected on a screen, but when you try to trick my brain into seeing in 3d, the whole "how come I can't focus on this object in the foreground" thing annoys the hell out of me. With normal movies, if I look at something that's out of focus, it's fine that it doesn't come into focus, because I'm just looking at a flat picture. When I look at what my brain thinks is a 3d object and it remains blurry, that's just a giant mindfuck. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a 3d movie, and I've seen stuff like Avatar, which seems to be built for that, and Up, which, as an entirely CG movie, would presumably make the transition to 3d perfectly. Hugo was one of my least favorite: Scorcese basically just shoved steam in my face for 2 hours because, well, he could?

ElJeffe

TubularLuggage wrote: »

Paying more for 2D to subsidize 3D is something I could not be more against. If you want to see something in 3D, then you're going to pay more.
I'm guessing it's more of a justification for raising prices though, and that it actually has very little to do with 3D. It once again proves that most of the people in charge of theater ticket pricing are completely braindead.
The fact that their reaction to 'fewer people are going to cinemas, largely because of the stupidly high prices' is 'well let's price gouge the hell out of those who are still going' is bad enough. They're just going to dissuade those people as well. I love going to the movies, and I've gotten to the point where I can't really justify it unless it's half price Tuesday.

I'm not sure how flat the demand curve for theater tickets is. It's already expensive enough that taking the family to the theater is a rare-ish event. At this point, maybe raising it further doesn't much matter. If you're already shelling out $70 for tickets and snacks for four, what's another $10?

Look at modern trailers. Everything is the "motion picture event of the year". Movies are currently billed as life-altering cultural events, and if the idea sticks, maybe people will pay through the nose. Because they never both to do the math and discover that a year's worth of theater tickets could, instead, buy them a damned nice television and all the microwave popcorn they could want.

KalTorak

I think the only movies I've seen in 3D are Avatar and Coraline. The glasses didn't bug me much, other than a very slight headache at the end of Avatar (which could have been the fact that it was a 3 hour long loud movie); it was different, I don't know that it was definitely an improvement. It definitely wasn't worth $3-4 extra.

edit: and it damn sure isn't worth buying a shiny new TV/blu-ray/glasses operation.

Atomika

You know, you never really see it because no one has it, but sporting events in 3D are fucking glorious.

Movies, not so much.

Linespider5

TychoCelchuuu wrote: »

I don't even understand 3d. It's not 3d in the way that the world is 3d, because you can't choose what to focus on. Some things are always in focus and some things are always out of focus. That works perfectly fine for a 2d movie, because it's just an image projected on a screen, but when you try to trick my brain into seeing in 3d, the whole "how come I can't focus on this object in the foreground" thing annoys the hell out of me. With normal movies, if I look at something that's out of focus, it's fine that it doesn't come into focus, because I'm just looking at a flat picture. When I look at what my brain thinks is a 3d object and it remains blurry, that's just a giant mindfuck. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a 3d movie, and I've seen stuff like Avatar, which seems to be built for that, and Up, which, as an entirely CG movie, would presumably make the transition to 3d perfectly. Hugo was one of my least favorite: Scorcese basically just shoved steam in my face for 2 hours because, well, he could?

This man has all the correct answers.

The big problem with 3D is most people do it backwards. 3D should be used to create depth by having objects recede behind the frame, but most uses of it are to show stupid crap being shoved out of the front of the frame, and, usually, being clipped by the edges of the frame anyway.

It should be subtle. All the best movie special effects work because you don't know it's there, you just know the movie is awesome.

DanHibiki

Linespider5 wrote: »

TychoCelchuuu wrote: »

I don't even understand 3d. It's not 3d in the way that the world is 3d, because you can't choose what to focus on. Some things are always in focus and some things are always out of focus. That works perfectly fine for a 2d movie, because it's just an image projected on a screen, but when you try to trick my brain into seeing in 3d, the whole "how come I can't focus on this object in the foreground" thing annoys the hell out of me. With normal movies, if I look at something that's out of focus, it's fine that it doesn't come into focus, because I'm just looking at a flat picture. When I look at what my brain thinks is a 3d object and it remains blurry, that's just a giant mindfuck. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a 3d movie, and I've seen stuff like Avatar, which seems to be built for that, and Up, which, as an entirely CG movie, would presumably make the transition to 3d perfectly. Hugo was one of my least favorite: Scorcese basically just shoved steam in my face for 2 hours because, well, he could?

This man has all the correct answers.

The big problem with 3D is most people do it backwards. 3D should be used to create depth by having objects recede behind the frame, but most uses of it are to show stupid crap being shoved out of the front of the frame, and, usually, being clipped by the edges of the frame anyway.

It should be subtle. All the best movie special effects work because you don't know it's there, you just know the movie is awesome.

only shitty directors need 3d to do this.
Kurosawa's been doing this for years and in black and white.

KalTorak

One thing I noticed about Coraline was that it made more use of the "things receding back from the plane of the screen" technique than I normally think of 3D movies using; most of the time in tv spots for 3D movies it's all about the random CGI shit flying straight at the camera in slo-mo.

shryke

Avatar's 3D was ok.

But it noticeably suffered in any scene where shit was moving quickly, because 3D utterly completely fails at showing fast camera movements.

Atomika

shryke wrote: »

Avatar's 3D was ok.

But it noticeably suffered in any scene where shit was moving quickly, because 3D utterly completely fails at showing fast camera movements.

As someone pointed out elsewhere, one of the bigger problems with 3D is that it often forces perspectives that are out of focus with how your eyes would otherwise perceive a flattened image. If the foreground takes up a large part of the frame but isn't part of the focus, your immediate visual cue is going to be drawn to a glob of blurry crap.

Tommatt

Got a question for you film thread.

What is the movie about hitler that is constantly used in YouTube parody's on the Internet? He's in a room, with a map, very pissed off, and kicks a bunch of people out of the room and there's women and soldiers listening to him yell. Every time I see it parodied I am amazed by how gripping the scene is, even though the subtitles are making me laugh. I really want to watch it.

B:L

Tommatt wrote: »

Got a question for you film thread.

What is the movie about hitler that is constantly used in YouTube parody's on the Internet? He's in a room, with a map, very pissed off, and kicks a bunch of people out of the room and there's women and soldiers listening to him yell. Every time I see it parodied I am amazed by how gripping the scene is, even though the subtitles are making me laugh. I really want to watch it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall_(film)

Behemoth

Tommatt wrote: »

Got a question for you film thread.

What is the movie about hitler that is constantly used in YouTube parody's on the Internet? He's in a room, with a map, very pissed off, and kicks a bunch of people out of the room and there's women and soldiers listening to him yell. Every time I see it parodied I am amazed by how gripping the scene is, even though the subtitles are making me laugh. I really want to watch it.

German film about Hitler called Downfall. I've heard it's quite good!

Tommatt

B:L wrote: »

Tommatt wrote: »

Got a question for you film thread.

What is the movie about hitler that is constantly used in YouTube parody's on the Internet? He's in a room, with a map, very pissed off, and kicks a bunch of people out of the room and there's women and soldiers listening to him yell. Every time I see it parodied I am amazed by how gripping the scene is, even though the subtitles are making me laugh. I really want to watch it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall_(film)

TY B:L that's the one! Seems like reviews for it are positive too.

Astaereth

Downfall is an exceptionally good movie. It's also terribly grim and depressing, though. Even Nazis shouldn't have to live/die like that.

nightmarenny

I guess I finally found a real bonus living in a small town. The most expensive show is 8$. No parking fees, no online booking.

Edd

It's official. Anchorman 2 is on the way. God willing they keep their original concept and we get a full-on musical.

Houn

Edd wrote: »

It's official. Anchorman 2 is on the way. God willing they keep their original concept and we get a full-on musical.

Best film news I've heard in awhile.

UnbreakableVow

I tend to find myself very, very hard to please with comedies. Most films that people find hilarious, I'm not about. I did just see 21 Jump Street last week and found that pretty entertaining, though I don't know how it'd do on repeated viewings (which is where comedies tend to fall apart in my eyes).

Anchorman, however. Anchorman was the last comedy I can think of that stuck with me and only got better with repeated viewings. One of the very few movies where over-quoting hasn't killed it for me, either, despite it being one of the most quotable films out there.

I am excited for this.

Variable

I tend to be hard to please with them as well but I think 21 Jumpstreet was incredibly well done and will hold up on repeat viewings.

also looking forward to anchorman 2 although really it could just as easily be shitty

Nocren

I just hope they keep it in San Diego.
Granted none of the locations were actually filmed there, but it's my hometown.

Turkson

So did all these companies think 3d films were going to stay? That it wasn't going to be a fad? And now to cover their mistake I have to pay more for a 2d movie ticket? No sir, not this poor college student. Guess I'll just wait for movies to hit netflix or redbox.

Seriously, me and the gf have been going to fewer and fewer movies, mostly because everything recently looks like junk. This will most likely make us stop going altogether.

MrIamMe

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

MrIamMe wrote: »

My partner and I used to go to the cinema often, being movie buffs. Nothing pretentious, we just like seeing cool things on big screens, and pretend to kids again for a bit.

Now tickets are $18 each. Plus online booking fee ($2 a ticket). Plus parking (depending on time of day, can be up to $25).

We both make a very good living, have no debts, live together, and save heaps of money.

We can no longer justify going to cinemas.

Where do you live that movies cost $18 each?

Brisbane, Australia. Chermside is our nearest cinema. 3d movies can cost up to $22 a ticket.

nightmarenny

That is so insane. What happened to just charging 3 dollars for a 50 cent candy and calling it a day?

Kipling217

Online piracy.

At least that's the official explanation.

The rise of consoles and gaming is a more likely one. people only have so much money to spend and games are a better value for money in terms of entertainment.

Redcoat-13

In Oxford, you're looking at £10 for a normal ticket (so add a few more £ for 3d) per person. Want to buy a drink and anything else, and you can add another £5, and that's being conservative.

So if just the wife and I go see a film, we're looking at spending around £30, which is around $46 dollars before taking into account how we're going to get to the cinema in the first place.

I do remember back when I was 18 (so 12 years ago), tickets not being much more £5, so while I'd expect prices to go up, I don't really think it becoming as expensive as it is, is really justified. An evening out at the cinema used to be a nice cheap alternative to a night out.

Weirdly though, when we went to the Lake District, it cost us just over £10 for two tickets and this was in a fairly big multi screen cinema.

TheBigEasy

The only movie where I think 3D was a good feature was Avatar. That movie was specifically made with 3D in mind. Most of the other movies it is tacked on in post production and all it ever does is make the movie shittier.

Case in point - Clash of the Titans. The movie wasn't great to begin with, but it has become very rare for me to come out of the cinema and be pissed about the movie and the experience I just had. I usually know what awaits me, at least in a general sense and my expectations usually aren't higher than what the actual movie delivers. In this case the biggest reason I wanted my money back was the tacked on 3D effects.

Usually I go on cheap days (where it costs me 4-6€) and make it a point to seek out 2D showings - but I couldn't avoid seeing this on a friday evening in 3D. The ticket cost me 12.50€ (which is $16.50), 3€ of this was the 3D surcharge. If I had seen this in 2D on a cheap day, it would have been ok. But paying $16.50 for a so-so movie and the headache inducing 3D effects was just an insult. And Hollywood studios wonder why people are not willing to pay that much money for a crappy conversion of a crappy movie.

wandering

The Karate Kid remake:

The fight scenes are better than the original's: kid one leaps into the air to do a flying kick! kid 2 slides under him! kid 1 spins around and then kicks kid 2 off the platform!

That doesn't excuse the rest of the movie though.

Why didn't they call the movie "The Kung Fu Kid"? Wouldn't that be a great, grabbing title? Wouldn't it make you go "hey it's like the Karate Kid except with Kung Fu this time, that's neat"? Not that this movie deserves a great title but still. It's like if back in the 80's the studio was trying to decide between "Aliens" and "Alien 2" and they went with "Alien 2".

McFodder

To be fair to 3D movies, I've watched a few now (yes, on purpose) and Clash of the Titans was by far the worst use of it I've seen.

wandering

Ender's Game would be a good candidate for 3d, provided it's not a quick cut/close-and-shaky cam kind of film, because floating things look neat in 3d.

Bagginses

ElJeffe wrote: »

TubularLuggage wrote: »

Paying more for 2D to subsidize 3D is something I could not be more against. If you want to see something in 3D, then you're going to pay more.
I'm guessing it's more of a justification for raising prices though, and that it actually has very little to do with 3D. It once again proves that most of the people in charge of theater ticket pricing are completely braindead.
The fact that their reaction to 'fewer people are going to cinemas, largely because of the stupidly high prices' is 'well let's price gouge the hell out of those who are still going' is bad enough. They're just going to dissuade those people as well. I love going to the movies, and I've gotten to the point where I can't really justify it unless it's half price Tuesday.

I'm not sure how flat the demand curve for theater tickets is. It's already expensive enough that taking the family to the theater is a rare-ish event. At this point, maybe raising it further doesn't much matter. If you're already shelling out $70 for tickets and snacks for four, what's another $10?

Look at modern trailers. Everything is the "motion picture event of the year". Movies are currently billed as life-altering cultural events, and if the idea sticks, maybe people will pay through the nose. Because they never both to do the math and discover that a year's worth of theater tickets could, instead, buy them a damned nice television and all the microwave popcorn they could want.

$70 dollars could buy a TV and unlimited microwave popcorn?

TexiKen

With regards to Anchorman 2, wasn't there supposed to be an Old School sequel in the works?

Straygatsby

When I saw John Carter, I had to see it in 3d. I didn't want to see it in 3d, and I didn't want to pay the 10.00 (vs. a normal matinee of 6) price tag for it, but the theater was only showing the 3d "version." This is happening more and more here on films that are released in both formats (even at larger theaters that can spare a slot for both the 2d and 3d versions).

It's pretty damn infuriating. I'm a dyed in the wool "see it in the theater or it doesn't count" kind of guy, but even I'm being driven from the multiplex by this model conversion.

wandering

I am a "2001 looks good on VHS to me!" kind of guy.

So long as it isn't the 4:3 version.

KalTorak

But them black bars are covering up my movie!

Houn

KalTorak wrote: »

But them black bars are covering up my movie!

This is an actual thing my mom said when we rented Last of the Mohicans.

Pailryder

if movies were 4 dollars a ticket, would people go more often? do people jam pack the dollar theatres when the movie has been out for months? price may be "a" factor, but i'm not sure it is "the" factor.

Atomika

TexiKen wrote: »

With regards to Anchorman 2, wasn't there supposed to be an Old School sequel in the works?

Why would you ever want Todd Phillips to work again? Hasn't he done enough to this world?

Atomika

Pailryder wrote: »

if movies were 4 dollars a ticket, would people go more often? do people jam pack the dollar theatres when the movie has been out for months? price may be "a" factor, but i'm not sure it is "the" factor.

It's definitely a meeting of the "cost" and "novelty" curves.

By the time most movies get to the dollar theaters, they're already out on DVD/Netflix/On-Demand, so the impetus to pay money to see a film in a crappy theater is pretty low.

TubularLuggage

Pailryder wrote: »

if movies were 4 dollars a ticket, would people go more often? do people jam pack the dollar theatres when the movie has been out for months? price may be "a" factor, but i'm not sure it is "the" factor.

If tickets to newly released films were several dollars cheaper, more people would go.