Movies Have Worst Summer Since 1997

BladeVenom

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
7,707
I with everyone else who thought Guardians of the Galaxy was the best summer movie.
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
Cinemas here have it all. 3D, ATMOS, 2D, and the normal ones. It's pretty much empty early in the day during the weekdays and pretty packed at nights. During the weekends and public holidays, you'll have a hard time getting tickets because they'll mostly be sold out. At night,most of the viewers are couples that are dating and have no where else to go. During the day, you'll see a lot of people who watch movies during their lunch breaks or whatever. Dressed up in their office attire and what not.

Anything ATMOS and 3D are expensive, but I've never really been much of a fan. Regardless, those movies are also sold out during weekends. They make their money from the snacks and popcorn. And on the weekends, both movies and that keep those places alive. As for me, I like going to the cinema to watch certain movies but it's a hassle because you have to book the tickets online, then actually go to the cinema. Find parking (which is always a problem at shopping malls and what not).

The satellite television we have here has the latest movies available for rental that appear in the cinemas but I'm not sure if they get much response. It's a 24 hour rental and it costs as much as a ticket for a 2D show.

I have Netflix, Hulu Plus, Showtime, HBOGO, and a few other channels that I have on Roku and that pretty much covers all the TV shows and movies I need. Full HD, great sound streaming in. There are other ways of getting latest movies that don't make it to those channels though, so I'm covered.

They just need to come up with better movies. I haven't been excited about many movies recently, I'm looking forward to the Boxtrolls, so that tells you something. LOL

The problem is that the "well" is dry in terms of creativity. The foundation that runs Hollywood is based on Lawyers now. Its a common complaint (outside of the racially motivated one that Hollywood is all ran by "Jews") that lots of great scripts never see the light of day because it doesn't please Hollywood's obsessive demographic of young teenage girls now.

We've probably lost out on some great movies. No , actually we HAVE lost out on some great movies for that very reason.

If anything Hollywood is painting itself into a corner and by the time its ready to see the error of doing so everyone else will have moved on and are doing so if not.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,820
I have not seen a movie at a theater in ages. The cost is too much, then you have people making noises, etc.
Best to rent it or wait till it comes out on cable and relax at home to watch.

Where I lived had a great drive in, that was nice.

Two movies for around $8 and the serenity of relaxing in your car to your own stereo.

  1. How long ago was that?
  2. Stereo? Movies used Dolby Surround at least 25 years ago. And they've been Dolb Digital or DTS or SDDS for at least 17 years.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,820
IMO the movie industry needs to keep tanking eventually they will break down and realize the best way to make the summer blockbuster break sales records is to switch to something more like a pay per view model. Its simple charge people a set reasonable price, and stream it directly to every home in America, or the world.

Meh. I'd rather watch it on a 50-75' screen with great surround sound. Yes, you can get the latter at home, but most people don't have it. Maybe Bill Gates has a 50' screen at home, but most people don't even have an 60" screen.

Most movies may not be worth a trip, but there are at least a dozen or 2 each year that are (and that's a conservative estimate), though work often prevents me from seeing them there.
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
I don't care how hi-tech the cinema is; movies are always more enjoyable in the privacy of your own home. People who have a better time doing things around strangers are fuckin' nutcases.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,820
Cameron is just as diluted as Jackson is when it comes to 48fps. Cameron saw the potential for 3D and seized it but with 48fps being available in very , very limited theaters it would take millions upon millions of dollars of upgrading to even get it seen by the general audience and many people just hate it.
I'll reserve judgement till I've seen it. I didn't like the Hobbit in 3D 24 fps. Then again, it was a pretty bad movie, so there wasn't much that could save it (other than losing the 3 film,and possibly the 2nd).

Film still has a place. It has a look , feel and experience working with it that keep it alive (plus some talented directors that refuse to let Film die helps).

And some people still shot film. Hell, there's a market for Polaroid SX70 film, but it's small and largely nostalgic look back by people who were barely out of highschool when Polaroid killed it. However, I have seen some pretty artistic stuff done with SX70 pics by using something hard to draw on pics that haven't fully developed.

3D being popular in China doesn't mean a lot to the West honestly (except for profits but China is weird about that when it comes to movies). If it isn't popular in your home then its very unlikely it'll be so at the theater.

3D in China is why 3D won't go away. And it does affect the west, because, it means eventually directors will figure out how to use 3D, just like they learned how to use sound and color.

Dolby Just introduced ATMOS and its already a bomb. Very few receivers are planned to even support it because it requires tons of speakers and people already think of surround sound as 5.1 not 10.2.

I don't know enough about Atmos. As I recall, at one point Dolby didn't intend it for the home market. My guess is that it will only be on very high end receivers for several years. Whether it'll do well with HT enthusiasts, I don't know. Honestly, most people I know don't have 5.1 at home. Many use the speakers in the TV. All of this is a reason for them to go to the Theater.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,820
17.00/ticket (non-imax) in San Diego.

Fuck Hollywood. Movies suck compared to almost anything else i can spent my entertainment budget on. This downward spiral will continue for them - they have priced themselves out of the entertainment market in many major cities.

Using this theater
http://www.regmovies.com/Theatres/Theatre-Folder/Edwards-Mira-Mesa-Stadium-18-IMAX-RPX-2122

Showing before noon is $6.50. The only non IMAX film that's $17.00 is the ATMOS screening of Guardians of the Galaxy.

First showing is cheaper than what I pay and the rest are pricey, but other than one screen it's significantly less than $17.00. I don't live in SD, so i just searched for the best theaters in SD and picked one that had a lot of screens.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,820
The only movies worth watching this year have not yet been released: Hunger Games 3 and The Hobbit 3.

I'm not convinced by the Hobbit 3. It may be good, but the first one was bad and the 2nd one pretty good. They should have called the trilogy "The Bloat"

Christopher Nolan's Interstellar is far higher on my list than the Hobbit, but Hunger Games has my attention after that stellar middle movie. I just hope that splitting the last part in 2 isn't just another money grab.

I'm also moderately hopeful that Dumb and Dumber To will be good.
Wild has a lot of potential as well. I'm not sure what else is coming, but I bet there's more than that that I'll want to see (even if I don't have the time to go).
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,820
I wouldn't care about netflix if only moves that came out 15 years ago are still better.

There were times when Kevin Spacey, Robert Williams and Tom Hanks were young and still doing good movies. It didn't involve built up boys stripping and punching every fking two minutes while a girl is shaking her boobs left and right.

Well no, that's what Stallone and Arnold were making. With that said, I never complained about gratuitous use of boobs. YMMV.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,820
The problem is that the "well" is dry in terms of creativity. The foundation that runs Hollywood is based on Lawyers now. Its a common complaint (outside of the racially motivated one that Hollywood is all ran by "Jews") that lots of great scripts never see the light of day because it doesn't please Hollywood's obsessive demographic of young teenage girls now.

We've probably lost out on some great movies. No , actually we HAVE lost out on some great movies for that very reason.

If anything Hollywood is painting itself into a corner and by the time its ready to see the error of doing so everyone else will have moved on and are doing so if not.

There's a reason for that. Kids go to more movies and they buy more popcorn. That said, my parents go to the movies almost every week (and they buy popcorn and a drink), so there are exceptions.

Bottom line is many great movies don't do well. And look at this thread. Everyone is talking about not going to theaters. Would you make movies for those people? I wouldn't. I'll make crappy movies for people who go to movies, rather than a bunch of fogies bitching about being around people they don't know and movies not being as good as the good old days (which varies by age).
 

Kowan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 28, 2000
Messages
5,316
Ticket sales have been dropping for years. People paying around twice the price to see the movie in IMAX is what has kept the dollar amount similar.

I haven't gone to see a movie since 2004. I rent or buy the Blu-ray/DVD and watch it without distraction.
 
S

sonsonate

Guest
When theaters are able to accommodate the hard-of-hearing with a hassle, let me know.
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
I'll reserve judgement till I've seen it. I didn't like the Hobbit in 3D 24 fps. Then again, it was a pretty bad movie, so there wasn't much that could save it (other than losing the 3 film,and possibly the 2nd).

It was a flawed movie. It couldn't hold up to the standard LOTR's set. Peter knew that and attempted to throw in a different director , no one was up to the task. Its like painting a masterpiece then being asked to paint another but only better , it isn't possible.

Believe me , 48fps is a total waste of time. The vast majority of people that saw it didn't like it. The second Hobbit barely even pushed the standard and it totally was sidelined in terms of being advertised.

Wise choice.

And some people still shot film. Hell, there's a market for Polaroid SX70 film, but it's small and largely nostalgic look back by people who were barely out of highschool when Polaroid killed it. However, I have seen some pretty artistic stuff done with SX70 pics by using something hard to draw on pics that haven't fully developed.

I hope to hell Film doesn't go away. I'm glad directors are pushing Hollywood to keep it going. Its the one thing you can't get at home that's worth going to the theater for.



3D in China is why 3D won't go away. And it does affect the west, because, it means eventually directors will figure out how to use 3D, just like they learned how to use sound and color.

3D will die out. Ticket prices for 3D are already beyond reason. In China its also more expensive. Most Chinese don't have the cash to spare and going to movies is a luxury for them. 3D is doomed. If it can't make it in the home theater its unlikely even Hollywood's push will keep it going much longer. 3 years ago it was all the rage and constantly in our faces at the theater. Now? Not so much.


I don't know enough about Atmos. As I recall, at one point Dolby didn't intend it for the home market. My guess is that it will only be on very high end receivers for several years. Whether it'll do well with HT enthusiasts, I don't know. Honestly, most people I know don't have 5.1 at home. Many use the speakers in the TV. All of this is a reason for them to go to the Theater.

Dolby doesn't do anything without the home market in mind. Dolby's fortune has been thanks to the home market leasing its technology and pushing it everywhere. When people think of Dolby they think of "good" sound and "surround" sound. Nothing Dolby does doesn't have an end game at home.

ATMOS requires a pretty gnarly setup to really flex its muscle and I've heard it in action and its amazing but at home? 10.2 setup? Nope. No one at the consumer level baseline will spend $3,000 just for sound. Like you said most people don't even bother with 5.1.

Movie theaters are dying. Its a fact at this point. VOD will end up replacing it. Theaters will be used for events , film festivals and screenings of various things but the general public is much more comfortable sitting at home , relaxed , with their favorite food and watching and pausing the movie they choose.

Its evolution. You can choose to not believe it but it doesn't require your belief to function.
 

Phyltre

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
181
Meh. I'd rather watch it on a 50-75' screen with great surround sound. Yes, you can get the latter at home, but most people don't have it. Maybe Bill Gates has a 50' screen at home, but most people don't even have an 60" screen.

I strongly prefer a backlit, high pixel density screen to a projected image slung up onto a white screen who knows how many feet away at 24Hz.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,820
I hope to hell Film doesn't go away. I'm glad directors are pushing Hollywood to keep it going. Its the one thing you can't get at home that's worth going to the theater for.

It'll die long before theaters do. It's simply too expensive. If we're not at 35mm quality with 4k cameras, then surely we will be with 8k. At some point, digital will be better than film. We're already there with photography. Current DSLRs have greater dynamic range and the low light capabilities than 35mm SLRs. And I'd much rather work with a raw file in lightroom than a scanned negative in Photoshop. I've got plenty of htem, and even though they're all in nice sleeves, scratches are almost always there.


3D will die out. Ticket prices for 3D are already beyond reason. In China its also more expensive. Most Chinese don't have the cash to spare and going to movies is a luxury for them. 3D is doomed. If it can't make it in the home theater its unlikely even Hollywood's push will keep it going much longer. 3 years ago it was all the rage and constantly in our faces at the theater. Now? Not so much.

You're mostly wrong on this. Yes the Chinese are mostly poor, but there are 2 billion people and they are the 2nd largest market outside of the U.S. They will eventually eclipse the U.S. market and half foreign movies must be either Imax or 3D. Thus, 3D will continue. Besides, eventually they'll figure out how to do 3D without glasses. Once they do that, everything will be 3D.


Dolby doesn't do anything without the home market in mind. Dolby's fortune has been thanks to the home market leasing its technology and pushing it everywhere. When people think of Dolby they think of "good" sound and "surround" sound. Nothing Dolby does doesn't have an end game at home.

ATMOS requires a pretty gnarly setup to really flex its muscle and I've heard it in action and its amazing but at home? 10.2 setup? Nope. No one at the consumer level baseline will spend $3,000 just for sound. Like you said most people don't even bother with 5.1.

3 grand? If that's all it costs for a base Atmos system, then this will do well (assuming you can get the speakers set up in a way that doesn't piss off your better half), then this falls solidly in the range of mid-fi buyers (and prices will fall).

The real issue, IMO, is the wiring may not pass the wife test, though if you run them through walls and put speakers in the attic, it might and you can't do it in apartments and all the speakers would be hard to install in a house without wires and/or speakers all over the place.

Movie theaters are dying. Its a fact at this point. VOD will end up replacing it. Theaters will be used for events , film festivals and screenings of various things but the general public is much more comfortable sitting at home , relaxed , with their favorite food and watching and pausing the movie they choose.

Its evolution. You can choose to not believe it but it doesn't require your belief to function.

Everything is dying, that doesn't mean it's going to die soon. If everyone ends up with surround sound in the home, then I can see this happening, but we're not even close right now. Streaming video is horrible compared to Blu Ray and theater picture quality. Most TV's aren't that great either. LCD is not a great way to watch video, unless you're in the right spot. I love home theater, but it's hard to get the sound right and most of us don't have a screen that's nearly as big as a theater (adjusted for distance to the screen). You'd have to sit 6 or 7' away from an 80" TV to get the theater experience, and I've yet to see an 80" screen with chairs set up 6' away.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Meh. I'd rather watch it on a 50-75' screen with great surround sound. Yes, you can get the latter at home, but most people don't have it. Maybe Bill Gates has a 50' screen at home, but most people don't even have an 60" screen.

Most movies may not be worth a trip, but there are at least a dozen or 2 each year that are (and that's a conservative estimate), though work often prevents me from seeing them there.

Funny, I can at BEST think of 2-3 movies per year TOPS that might be worth going to a theater for. Even with that the service at least around here is so shitty and the prices so high I just buy it on blu-ray when it comes out. Costs the exact same amount as 2 tickets (I have a family of 4) and I can watch it again, pause it, have better snacks, better seating, not put up with rude assholes and their cellphones, not put up with sticky floors, and if I really hate it trade it in for most of my money back.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,820
I strongly prefer a backlit, high pixel density screen to a projected image slung up onto a white screen who knows how many feet away at 24Hz.

As far as I know, the top 3 chains converted to 4k and 4K resolves more than 35mm film prints did. I actually believe that most prints were closer to 2K (when in pristine condition).

As for the distance, the only variable is if I go with someone who wants to sit further back than I would. Otherwise, the screen is close enough to mostly fill my FoV, but not so much that I have to move my eyes to follow the action. As for 24 fps, that's what they were shot at. We can argue that they should be at a higher FPS (some say yes, others say no), but it is what it is.
 
Top