Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59

Author Topic: Movies in the Theater  (Read 106548 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1080 on: May 03, 2013, 02:41:43 PM »

You really think companies would make money if they charged 15$ for the next warmed-over romantic comedy starring Jennifer Aniston?

Er, I don't know how they do it up there, but I've never known a single American movie theater that charged different prices for different films -- even tacking an extra $2 on for the 3D version is a pretty recent development.  Guys, is this a thing that's happening in America now, or is it just a Canada thing?

I mean, it would certainly make SENSE to price blockbusters higher than obscure special-interest movies.  But they don't.  The excuse I've heard is that people would just buy a cheap ticket and theater-jump, which is probably true, and given how low theaters' margins actually are on ticket sales it's not worth spending the extra money it would take to make sure people were all in the theater they were supposed to be.  Theaters make their money on junk food and sugar water, and they charge you the same for those no matter what movie you're there to see.
Logged

Joxam

  • The Transformizzle
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65493
  • Posts: 2188
    • View Profile
    • Shadowrun
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1081 on: May 03, 2013, 03:09:37 PM »

Generally they charge a premium price for midnight or other special shows, but that has more to do with contract negotiations to get a midnight show.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1082 on: May 03, 2013, 04:03:13 PM »

I'm not sure I've even seen premieres priced higher than a normal ticket 'round these parts, but OTOH I don't think I've been to a premiere since like Episode 2 or some damn thing.

Hell, I haven't even been to Rocky Horror in probably 3 years.  Feel like I'm turning into an old fart; midnight's too damn late.

It probably helps that Arizona's in the -- presumably unusual? -- position of having a big single monolithic theater chain that is local and independent.  We've got more Harkins theaters than probably all the non-Harkins theaters combined, including AMC.  I've got my issues with Harkins -- mainly that they've run most of the smaller indies out, sometimes through underhanded tactics like opening their own theater across the street -- but the advantage of their big-but-not-national reach is that they have an incentive to price themselves lower than AMC and the clout to negotiate with the studios to keep it that way.

The upshot being, I think I paid $13 to see The Hobbit at the IMAX last December.

And it was a real-ass 6-story IMAX.  One of the old ones built to show movies about dolphins and bears.  None of this namby-pamby AMC crap where they sit you really close to the screen half that size and CALL it IMAX.
Logged

Joxam

  • The Transformizzle
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65493
  • Posts: 2188
    • View Profile
    • Shadowrun
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1083 on: May 03, 2013, 04:51:46 PM »

Well the thing about midnight shows is its great as a give back to fans of your theatre but having 4 people stay an extra 3 hours for one house does not make profit. :(
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1084 on: May 03, 2013, 11:46:37 PM »

I don't think we're that different from the US. Prices are usually the same for all movies at a given theatre, though prices from theatre to theatre vary. The ony exception are surcharges for 3D/IMAX, etc.
Logged

Niku

  • MEAT
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65350
  • Posts: 6705
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1085 on: May 05, 2013, 06:41:32 AM »

i have to say about iron man 3, [spoiler]i was not expecting the villain to actually be fin fang foom[/spoiler]
Logged
i'm a blog now, blogs are cool: a fantastic machine made of meat

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1086 on: June 14, 2013, 03:28:02 AM »

Mark Waid on Man of Steel

He ain't happy, if you're wondering.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1087 on: June 14, 2013, 01:32:05 PM »

I'll save it 'til after I see the movie, but Robot 6 quotes him talking about how he didn't even get a free ticket to see a movie that cribbed from Birthright.  He adds, too, that when DC DID recognize creators like that, it was Levitz's doing.

Levitz pissed some people off, but he really did look out for creators' rights as best he could.  It's not a coincidence that Before Watchmen was announced within six months of his ouster; he really WAS the guy who was keeping it from happening.

From what I understand, he's also the reason Len Wein gets paid for Lucius Fox's movie appearances.

Levitz didn't always do the right thing -- I'm still pretty put-off by his censorship of The Authority -- but I legitimately think his heart was in the right place and he did the best he could (and he would have given Bill Finger a co-creator credit on Batman if there was any legal way of doing so).

DC's current corporate-micromanaged, contemptuous-of-creators attitude started with kicking Paul out because he wouldn't play ball.  Waid's right about that much.
Logged

Bongo Bill

  • Dinosaurcerer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65431
  • Posts: 5244
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1088 on: June 14, 2013, 02:13:02 PM »

So, Man of Steel was an interesting movie. Impressions follow.

The product placement was really conspicuous. Just want to get that out there. I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, as it uses the same techniques to make the audience aware of the Lexcorp logo as it does for Sears, IHOP, Uhaul, etc.

[spoiler]This was very much an action movie. I can tell that it draws heavy inspiration from the Fleischer animated shorts of the 1940s. In those, Superman was powerful but not omnipotent, and the emphasis was very much on the feats of strength he used to overcome the villain. This is okay, I think.

I don't want to spend too many words on how the facet of Superman Snyder chose to emphasize is not the one I consider most powerful, but I will mention it a bit. It's very significant that Clark personally saves more people out of costume than in it, but I'm not sure what that signifies. Granted, blowing up the world engine as Kal-El saves billions, but as a certain other Man of Steel said, one death is a tragedy while a million is a statistic.

Superman's humanity is present but it's not in focus; the iconic image is not Superman catching someone who's falling, but Superman tackling a bad guy who's about to blow someone up. Snyder evidently decided to make a movie about Superman-As-Protector rather than Superman-As-Savior. And that's a valid interpretation. It's hard to reconcile all the collateral damage - especially all the 9/11 imagery in Metropolis - with Superman-As-Savior, but Superman-As-Protector is necessarily more fallible and vulnerable, emotionally and physically.

Here, Superman-As-Protector has to choose between saving people who are in danger now and containing an escalating threat, and he doesn't hesitate to choose the latter. Zack Snyder was clearly aware of the choice there, and he made it boldly: while skyscrapers were falling, missiles were landing, cars were crashing, and people were panicking and dying in Metropolis, Superman was on the exact opposite side of the world, as far away as possible from the scary thing, breaking a machine on an uninhabited island.

I think a lot of people aren't going to like that interpretation of the character. How to reconcile the assertion that Superman inspires people, that Superman means hope, with the decision to make him save the world where nobody could see him do it? There are two answers: it could represent choosing real hope (that earth's atmosphere wouldn't be made toxic) over false hope (that a flying man in primary-colored space jammies will make everything better); or it might just mean that he wasn't really Superman yet.

He hides how much all that death hurt him until the very end. (Maybe the movie would have been been more emotionally resonant if we had seen Superman giving a shit about all the innocent bystanders who got crushed under rubble.) But that cry of anguish, once he had won - that is what connects Clark to the world. Previously, notwithstanding all his innate goodness and empathy, he'd been quite alienated from Earth - only when he had to kill the last Kryptonian did he choose to trust Earth, and reveal his true feelings. Only then does he take an active interest in being Earth's protector, immerse himself in its problems. Clark Kent can't stand by and watch people die, but it takes the strength of Superman to go out and look for them.

And then there's that climax. Some people don't like that Superman kills. Here's what I think. Superman chose to be Clark Kent, a person of earth. He doesn't want to kill anybody, and that's an ideal to strive toward. He stumbles, he falls, but, in time....[/spoiler]

There's an interesting parallel between [spoiler]General Zod and General Swanwick[/spoiler] but I'm not sure just how deep it runs. It's clearly related to the core theme of [spoiler]choosing Earth over Krypton[/spoiler], which is a necessary component of any substantial Superman origin, but far from the most interesting thing about the character. I expect that, like the last Nolan superhero, more interesting stories can be told now that the character is already established.

I think I have a negative (or at least ambivalent) take on it as well. I'm gonna resurrect the author so I can chew him out a bit.

[spoiler]Superman is a pretty multifaceted character and it's hard to pick just a few to center an entire movie around. This one chose to focus on the "Last Son of Krypton" element, the part where he chooses between the two worlds that he's important to.

But there's another element that I, personally, think is even more important, which was specifically not developed in this movie, and that's that Superman is inspiring. Certainly Henry Cavill flying around with a cape is majestic as all get out, and the "S" stands for "hope," but Superman didn't do a whole lot of inspiration in this movie. In fact, it goes so far as to have him save the world in a place where nobody can see him do it at the exact moment that the villains are sowing death and despair (importantly: echoing 9/11) at the point on earth he's farthest from.

Similarly, it had Jor-El telling his son that he'd be an inspiration to the human race, and failed to show him inspiring anybody. Not a single person followed Superman's example in this movie; nobody became a braver, kinder, or otherwise better person as a result of his actions. (The closest it came was those soldiers deciding he's not their enemy.)

This was a well-made movie, and those scenes are not a failed case of "show, don't tell." We were told that Superman means hope, and then shown exactly why Superman couldn't bring any hope on the day of his big debut. A script was written in which the task which was a job for Superman was the one that didn't involve anybody seeing him and knowing it was going to be all right. I said before that that's a bold decision - and I also think it was the wrong one.

If you're gonna spend fuckty-million dollars making a Superman movie for the modern age, I don't think it should specifically exclude Superman's most important quality!

Well, maybe I'm being unfair. This is an origin story: he's not really Superman yet until the end, when he goes to the Daily Planet to be ready for trouble wherever it happens. Maybe if they had pushed the "inspiration" angle too hard it would have turned into the sort of stultifying hagiography that Superman Returns sometimes was.[/spoiler]

Still a good movie, but the Superman fan in me notes that it may be sending the wrong message. The inevitability of a sequel may render this complaint moot.



As for Mark Waid's take: he's not wrong, but I get a strong feeling like [spoiler]being forced to kill Zod is going to be the reason why he will never kill again[/spoiler] in the future. Maybe that's what they were going for.
Logged
...but is it art?

Ted Belmont

  • Tested
  • Karma: 50
  • Posts: 3447
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1089 on: June 14, 2013, 03:37:11 PM »

WATCH OUT because apparently the url tag kinda wrecks spoiler tags. So uhh don't mouse over the blue words I guess.

[spoiler]Chris Sims wrote a pretty good column about that last year.

He also wrote one specifically about Batman, which isn't quite as relevant, but still good.

Still, the idea of Superman, even movie Superman, killing someone just seems wrong, somehow.[/spoiler]

Logged

Friday

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65374
  • Posts: 5122
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1090 on: June 14, 2013, 05:41:41 PM »

Bongo, it's better to just label your entire post with a spoiler warning and then not use tags if you're going to block out 90% of it anyway, especially if it's an essay.
Logged

Bongo Bill

  • Dinosaurcerer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65431
  • Posts: 5244
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1091 on: June 14, 2013, 06:20:54 PM »

It was originally two posts, which I merged lazily.
Logged
...but is it art?

Rico

  • Tested
  • Karma: 18
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1092 on: June 14, 2013, 07:54:28 PM »

As an aside, if anyone likes Superman but hasn't read Waid's Birthright, you really should.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1093 on: June 25, 2013, 02:24:37 PM »

Logged

Mothra

  • ┐('~`;)┌ w/e
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -62198
  • Posts: 3778
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1094 on: June 26, 2013, 02:03:48 AM »

To be fair, the book was terrible.
Logged

Ocksi

  • Guy on a buffalo
  • Tested
  • Karma: 14
  • Posts: 575
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1095 on: June 26, 2013, 07:40:13 AM »

the book had some very interesting stuff and some pretty horrifying stuff, so I wouldn't call it terrible. I would say it was a book that could never be functionally translated into a cohesive movie, though. It could have made an interesting miniseries or even three season television series, though.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1096 on: June 27, 2013, 09:10:07 AM »

http://comicsalliance.com/warner-bros-legendary-split-up/

Well, I think we can kiss Man of Steel 2 goodbye.
Logged

Bongo Bill

  • Dinosaurcerer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65431
  • Posts: 5244
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1097 on: July 12, 2013, 05:36:11 PM »

Pacific Rim was every bit as good as I was expecting it to be. Movie of the year so far, for me at least. Action was fucking mind-blowing (I'm having difficulty finding anything to say about it except "holy shit" over and over again), the robots were the stars, and yet all the people doing their people things were good enough that I never felt disappointed that I wasn't watching more jaeger-vs-kaiju fights.

The script was economical and punchy and got out of the way of the action, but to call it just a vehicle for the fight scenes would do it a disservice. It's sincere and deftly executed, not falling into the nerd-action-movie trap of deconstructing its premise, or worse, apologizing for it. The characters are larger-than-life, but the only ones who venture into cornball territory are the comic relief. It's uncomplicated but not unintelligent; digging for subtext in this film would be missing the point, but a critic attempting it would find it conscientious and substantial:

[spoiler]Raleigh has to rediscover trust and heal from the death of his brother; neither he nor humanity can afford to hide away behind a wall instead of going out and taking a chance in a jaeger with a co-pilot. Relationships with other people change us, and the humans' conflict with the aliens led to them learning from each other and imitating in order to try to win. Kaiju and jaegers are both giant engineered forces of destruction with two legs and two brains. Leatherback is an echo of Cherno Alpha and Otachi is an echo of Crimson Typhoon. Gypsy Danger has to mimic a kaiju to pass through to the other side of the rift.[/spoiler]

The only way this movie could be improved is if there were more of it.
Logged
...but is it art?

jsnlxndrlv

  • Custom Title
  • Tested
  • Karma: 24
  • Posts: 2913
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1098 on: July 13, 2013, 03:22:08 AM »

I don't get to watch many movies in the theater anymore, thanks to a certain crabby lady with a burning rage over theater pricing, but today I am watching Pacific Rim in one of the largest Imax theaters in the country, and I am so excited. I tried to convince Julie to come since she likes the Metal Gear games so much, but she's stubborn, so instead I'm just seeing it with my friends and parents and a huge number of people that I don't know.
Logged
Signature:
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

Frocto

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 76
  • Posts: 2628
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #1099 on: July 13, 2013, 05:12:53 AM »

Came here hoping people were discussing Pacific Rim more! Here's my two cents, anyway:

Pacific Rim was a total hotbed of childish wish fulfilment. The one-two combo of the dorky white guy hooking in to not just an Asian girl, but an Asian girl with a black father left me floored. For your average spineless geek moviegoer, this had to be a dream come true, right? You grow up watchin' anime, getting rejected by white girls, you want that saucy asian gf, but then, wait, what's this, you can also have this fuckin macho as fuck BLACK DAD action goin on, imparting all sorts of badass manly black dad advice on you, in case said spineless geek moviegoer ever blamed his parents for him turning out to be a total damn sissy. I mean, shit, they bond so fast that manly black dad is willing to die just so he can live at the end of the film.

One thing that made my day, though: no inexplicable kiss at the end, I am honestly addicted to movies where this is a male and female character and they DON'T just arbitrarily get to smoochin' with no explanation at the end. Man of Steel was super fuckin bad for that, Clark and Lois were just making out despite getting on about as well as Superman's dad and a tornado.
Logged
"And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability."
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59