pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
May 2nd, 2011 at 9:22:13 PM permalink

Fast Five is the biggest hit of the year so far, though it looks like Thor will also be huge.
Critics gave fairly good reviews of Fast Five.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14460
May 2nd, 2011 at 9:33:38 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

Fast Five is the biggest hit of the year so far, though it looks like Thor will also be huge. Critics gave fairly good reviews of Fast Five.

I don't think critics gave fairly good reviews of all those Grade B movies about motorcycles, car crashes
sunrise089
sunrise089
Joined: Jul 12, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 209
May 2nd, 2011 at 9:49:38 PM permalink
Quote: zippyboy

I thought the picture was blurry. Then I realized I'm just used to my hi-def wide-screen at home with the crisp picture, and first run movies would likely always be blurry by comparison.

Man this is sad. One of the few advantages to 35mm film, or even better IMAX film is that it has really high resolution, and has more data per frame than BluRay, much less compressed HDTV via satellite or cable. Sadly though many studios only look backwards, and if they don't record films in 1080p digitally they run the film through digital post-processing and then back to film, knocking the resolution down in the process. They then show that mediocre resolution on a giant screen, and not surprisingly it looks blurry. Even worse is when the above is done and then the movie is shown in "IMAX," the quotes denoting that all they do is enlarge the crappy resolution even more.

When I saw Dark Knight in IMAX there were a few scenes shot on IMAX film, with that tens of millions of pixels of resolution that entails. The audience audibly gasped, that's how much better things looked. If I'm emperor for a day I want every movie shot in that kind of resolution, so when we have 4,320p holo displays in the future every movie made between 2000 and 2020 won't be considered unwatchable ;)
zippyboy
zippyboy
Joined: Jan 19, 2011
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1111
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:03:09 PM permalink
I'm looking forward to the day when "movies" are actually 3-D holographic projections shown on the center stage with the audience encircling the action taking place in the center of the theater. People would return for more showings because their perception of the action would change depending on where they sit in the theater, and their viewing angle. Similar to Star Trek's holodeck. Think this is possible in our lifetimes?
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:09:41 PM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

I don't think critics gave fairly good reviews of all those Grade B movies about motorcycles, car crashes



I think most critics try and judge a movie by about how good it is at achieving it's objective. Even an action movie can still have good pacing, decent dialogue, and realistic characters. Fast Five didn't get great reviews, like Thor, but the reviews are considerably better than Fast and Furious from two years ago.
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
May 5th, 2011 at 12:55:50 PM permalink
Quote: zippyboy

I'm looking forward to the day when "movies" are actually 3-D holographic projections shown on the center stage with the audience encircling the action taking place in the center of the theater. People would return for more showings because their perception of the action would change depending on where they sit in the theater, and their viewing angle. Similar to Star Trek's holodeck. Think this is possible in our lifetimes?



Off hand, I would say no. The hardware to pull something like this off would be insanely expensive, and how many "movies" would they have to have to make it viable? IMAX... real shot on film IMAX had, and still has, this same problem. The film, projectors and theatres are specialized and huge. Much of what is advertised as, and charged a premium as IMAX these days is unwatchable, shot on digital then re-mastered junk.

I had also heard that theatre receipts are down due to less films being in wide release. There are less choices at many multiplexes, with multiple screens showing the same film, sometimes in different formats (3-d, digital 3-D, IMAX, IMAX 3D, etc.)
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14460
May 5th, 2011 at 5:45:19 PM permalink
Quote: zippyboy

I'm looking forward to the day when "movies" are actually 3-D holographic projections shown on the center stage with the audience encircling the action taking place in the center of the theater.

Sure. Sort of a Theater in the Round but with sharp holographic images. Would probably be possible, its just that with the utter nonsense that available now, what is the use of seeing it in a holographic virtual image? This vampire stuff is utter nonsense and seeing displayed via a hologram is not going to make up for the utter lack of content.
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
May 5th, 2011 at 9:21:26 PM permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba

Off hand, I would say no. The hardware to pull something like this off would be insanely expensive, and how many "movies" would they have to have to make it viable? IMAX... real shot on film IMAX had, and still has, this same problem. The film, projectors and theatres are specialized and huge. Much of what is advertised as, and charged a premium as IMAX these days is unwatchable, shot on digital then re-mastered junk.I had also heard that theatre receipts are down due to less films being in wide release. There are less choices at many multiplexes, with multiple screens showing the same film, sometimes in different formats (3-d, digital 3-D, IMAX, IMAX 3D, etc.)



I think Ayecarumba has hit the nail on the head. The cinema chains are going to start buying their own movies just to have content. Similar to SYFY channel on TV producing all of these $1m-$3m exploitation films. They need content to fill the TV, it doesn't have to be great. Very few film productions are using the technology they already have.

I did talk to a producer who used the IMAX camera. He said they are crazy difficult to work with. They would constantly get great footage, and the IMAX film would break all the time because it was so flimsy.

Without a hit so far from the new movies released this year, it looks like the record numbers of sequels will continue to grow. So far there is one bomb among the sequels, two that did reasonably, and one breakout smash hit (Fast Five).

Of the 27 sequels,
Nine are second movies (Cars 2, Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2: Rodrick Rules, The Hangover Part II, Happy Feet 2, Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil, Johnny English Reborn, Kung Fu Panda 2, Piranha 3DD, Sherlock Holmes 2 )
Five are third movies (Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked, Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son, Madea's Big Happy Family, Paranormal Activity 3, Transformers: Dark of the Moon)
Five are fourth movies (Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Scream 4, Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Part One)).
Five are fifth movies (Fast Five, Final Destination 5, Puss in Boots, X-Men: First Class, Winnie the Pooh).
Two seventh movies (The Muppets, Rise of the Apes) and
One eighth entry (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two).
None of this is counting New Year's Eve, which may or may not be a sequel to Valentine's Day, or The Thing, which may be a prequel.

pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
May 6th, 2011 at 10:33:58 PM permalink
Thor was a good movie. I would say not as good as Spiderman or quite up to the first Iron Man, but comparable to X-men or Wolverine. Stellan Skarsgård plays a Swedish scientist so that one character grew up with the legends of the Nordic gods. The directing is excellent.

This comic book hero comes with an entourage of Frandal, Volstag and Hogun where most comic heros were loners. In the movie they are kind of a weak point, as they seem to do very little to propel the action.



Character of Darcy Lewis (actress Kat Dennings) is a subtle standout.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11883
May 7th, 2011 at 5:13:45 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

I think Ayecarumba has hit the nail on the head. The cinema chains are going to start buying their own movies just to have content. Similar to SYFY channel on TV producing all of these $1m-$3m exploitation films. They need content to fill the TV, it doesn't have to be great. Very few film productions are using the technology they already have.



Could they make their own movies? Both legally and practically. Legally, I think this type of vertical integration was banned in the 1920s as back then say MGM would own the studio and theatre. No other theatre got the flicks and no other flicks got in the theatre. Practically, I see a problem in that studios just don't care to entertain as much anymore. Creativity has been lost the more and more computer-power they get for special effects.

Another thing was back in the 1920s they made many more movies than they do today, with a smaller population to watch them. Stars got signed for so many years of pictures and they showed up to work that picture. Costs were thus controlled. Today a Tom Cruise gets $5-10MM off the top so a star-power film must be a big budget blockbuster to be viable.

I've said it here before, movie chains are real estate plays. Studios know the big money for the big budget film is in DVDs and international. If you want a storyline that is not cookie-cutter you need to see indie films.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

  • Jump to: