Clash of the titans

[chiefsfan93]

Went with my girlfriend to this flick, we enjoyed it, any one else seen it or want to see it?

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

I didn't know that. I see the regular versions because I have a fundamental problem with paying the $3 glasses "rental" they charge. Screw that.

Regular (35-millimeter house) digital 3D, don't bother. True IMAX 3D, do it (and by that I mean original size screen, which is usually around 60'x90', and 400+ seats... don't pay extra to see "digital IMAX" or that crap, make sure it's a full-size).

[chiefsfan93]

Also saw a cool ass trailer of the A-team gotta see it because of it being my fav as a kid. It has lemm neison and rampage so might be good.

[mlyonsd]

They should re-do Jason and the Argonauts in 3D. When I was 6 or so and saw the original those skeleton guys that grew out of teeth scared the crap out of me.

[Hammock Parties]

There will be no Clash sequel. They've only made $15 million in 16 days. Pathetic and deserved. I wonder if they're gonna even break even cus it cost $125 mil.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

They should re-do Jason and the Argonauts in 3D. When I was 6 or so and saw the original those skeleton guys that grew out of teeth scared the crap out of me.

They should re do it and skip the ****ing 3D. It's a stupid gimmick that only reeruns care about it.

Spend more money making the movie good instead of on bullshit like 3D and those uber-reeruned rumble seats they have now.

[Miles]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

There will be no Clash sequel. They've only made $15 million in 16 days. Pathetic and deserved. I wonder if they're gonna even break even cus it cost $125 mil.

Ouch. Maybe this could help kill off the "everything must be in 3D" thoughts after Avatar.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

They should re do it and skip the ****ing 3D. It's a stupid gimmick that only reeruns care about it.

Spend more money making the movie good instead of on bullshit like 3D and those uber-reeruned rumble seats they have now.

I saw Clash in regular format when my wife and son wanted to go to the movies and our local theater is very old and there were only three to choose from. I went in thinking it would be lame but came out and didn't think I wasted the $5 to see it. Not the worst movie I've seen.

I've only seen a few movies in 3D and I think they were all computer generated and those I thought were worth the money if I had to sit through them.

Maybe the p0rn industry should consider 3D when the technology becomes cheaper.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

. It's a stupid gimmick that only reeruns care about it.

Spend more money making the movie good instead of on bullshit like 3D and those uber-reeruned rumble seats they have now.

Agree...its a dumb gimmick that hopefully will die off again like it did in the 50's and 80's..

Its kind of neat for the first 15 minutes, but after that, its like no big deal...

3D wont make a strong movie better....

3D might make a mediocre movie more mildly entertaining....

Hollywood only loves it for now because they can gauge the public for more money with it. I cant really blame them, but its contributing to the "dumbing down" of movies.

[Hammock Parties]

The only REAL use of 3D is for movies like Avatar, where it makes the experience more immersive.

And for Star Wars.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by JD10367

It might be busy because it's school vacation week. I don't officially get passes, I just walk into the theater and nab an empty seat, so my conscience would make me get up and leave if the show was sold out.

So..... your conscience will keep you from stealing a seat from a movie-ticket-buying patron, but not keep you from stealing the admission in the first place?

[Miles]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

So..... your conscience will keep you from stealing a seat from a movie-ticket-buying patron, but not keep you from stealing the admission in the first place?

I was thinking he was a projectionist but I could be off.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Agree...its a dumb gimmick that hopefully will die off again like it did in the 50's and 80's..

Its kind of neat for the first 15 minutes, but after that, its like no big deal...

3D wont make a strong movie better....

3D might make a mediocre movie more mildly entertaining....

Hollywood only loves it for now because they can gauge the public for more money with it. I cant really blame them, but its contributing to the "dumbing down" of movies.

First off, the 3D in the 50's and 60's died off because it ****ing sucked. It involved red and blue glasses and was NOTHING but a gimmick which made watching a movie painful.

Modern 3D is not a gimmick. It's been here since 1990 in IMAX film documentaries, and is quickly building itself a niche in the sci-fi/fantasy and family-film/animated areas. It's here to stay.

It amazes me how people think 3D can't make the filmgoing experience better. We SEE in 3D. How can it not make any film better and more realistic? It's like arguing HD vs. regular TV. If a film is made correctly ("Avatar", "HTTYD"), with lots of long-shots and using the 3D realistically--and not in a gimmicky "comin' at ya!" kind of way--I'd rather watch it in 3D than 2D, be it a shoot-em-up space epic or a frigging English chick-flick. Now that film is being replaced with digital, IMO there's no reason why all films don't become 3D (although I'm sure movie theaters will still offer 2D options for films, as they do now).

I'm also not sure how 3D is contributing to the "duimbing down" of movies. Aside from the pointless slasher flicks, which have been made in 3D for decades as a way to try to get butts in seats.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Miles

I was thinking he was a projectionist but I could be off.

yep, he works at the theater as a projectionist
Posted via Mobile Device

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Miles

Ouch. Maybe this could help kill off the "everything must be in 3D" thoughts after Avatar.

What the **** is GoChiefs babbling about? "Clash" made $15M this weekend. It's made $133M in 3 weeks.

"Alice" is a piece of shit and it's made over $300M.

3D may not make a bad film better, but it does get stupid people to pay more money to see it, so I don't think it's going away.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by JD10367

First off, the 3D in the 50's and 60's died off because it ****ing sucked. It involved red and blue glasses and was NOTHING but a gimmick which made watching a movie painful.

Modern 3D is not a gimmick. It's been here since 1990 in IMAX film documentaries, and is quickly building itself a niche in the sci-fi/fantasy and family-film/animated areas. It's here to stay.

It amazes me how people think 3D can't make the filmgoing experience better. We SEE in 3D. How can it not make any film better and more realistic? It's like arguing HD vs. regular TV. If a film is made correctly ("Avatar", "HTTYD"), with lots of long-shots and using the 3D realistically--and not in a gimmicky "comin' at ya!" kind of way--I'd rather watch it in 3D than 2D, be it a shoot-em-up space epic or a frigging English chick-flick. Now that film is being replaced with digital, IMO there's no reason why all films don't become 3D (although I'm sure movie theaters will still offer 2D options for films, as they do now).

I'm also not sure how 3D is contributing to the "duimbing down" of movies. Aside from the pointless slasher flicks, which have been made in 3D for decades as a way to try to get butts in seats.

hey, its great for your business...and thats great. I understand why hollywood is into it right now.

I still dont agree that it enhances an already solid film much. Case in point HTTYD, which we already discussed in another thread.

Same with HD and SD. HD is great, but it doesnt make a good movie or show better. It doesnt make the direction and writing any better.