Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hollywood Blames Rotten Tomatoes for its Rotten Summer
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hollywood rotten tomatoes
- Sort by reaction score
Generally speaking, I don't like iMax, for some some movies, I suppose it can be immersing but that seems of the exception and not the rule. The higher cost is also a major factor. Movies are too expensive as it stands, I'm not going to pay even more money.
Generally speaking with few exceptions I agree, although we can go a Showbiz Chain (discount chain) for $6.50 a ticket before 5pm. Now food is a killer, although they also have a discount for pop and popcorn, that makes it less outrageous.
I love watching foreign movies with English dubbing AND the subtitles on at the same time. Most of the time I get two different translations.
It's especially funny when I understand the movie's original language. Three variations of the same dialogue...woot!
IMAX is also more expensive to film and show. It's filmed in 70mm and the cameras are more expensive. The projectors cost more too.Avatar at the iMax was a real treat.
[doublepost=1504878287][/doublepost]
The iMax is a very special experience, but it's more expensive than a regular theater, and I go to them very infrequently, last time was Avatar, 7 years ago. So I'm not sure more of those theaters would be an answer of any consequence to Hollywood's bottom line.
This is the crux in my opinion. I can't remember the last time I went to the cinema and enjoyed it. I really wanted to see Dunkirk but, every time I considered going to see it, I just remembered the numerous times I've wasted an evening and a lot of money seeing a terrible movie.
Any other product, you get to try it out before you commit your cash, and if the advert was misleading, you can get your money back. The film industry is the only one that can show you a trailer which makes a movie look amazing, take your money and then show you the truth: a poorly made, poorly written, over-long, meandering pile of rubbish.
Budgets have got bigger and bigger, effects have got more and more amazing, but Hollywood is forgetting that, primarily, a film needs to tell a story.
Everyone should go and watch Duel. A man, a car and a truck. No computer effects, no green screen, just a gripping story.
I really wanted to like Dunkirk but the move was all over the place and moved way to slow.
Now that sounds like a nightmare.I've been to an IMAX a handful of times and can't even recall the movies I've seen at them.
How many of the audience caught pneumonia?
I already go to the cinema with earplugs. They are just too damned loud.
Agreed. I did like watching Avatar via the IMAX experience, however I don't like the fact most of the IMAX movies now are only done in 3D, at least most that I care to see. But, if there is an option between regular or IMAX, I tend to lean towards the regular.
There was an article a few months ago that Hollywood is getting away from 3D because ticket sales were down. They are moving back to IMAX 2D.
Gimmicks.
Special effects and gimmicks only work - and can work superbly - if they are in support of an already good story; once they are the story, and not the supporting element - the thing loses its raison d'être.
The original "Shrek" movie worked because it was clever, funny, well told, with a strong story and compelling characters given great dialogue in a stunning script. The fact that the artwork and CGI were superb added immeasurably to one's enjoyment of the movie, but - by themselves - they wouldn't have been sufficient to lift it (as the sequels subsequently demonstrated) had the story, characters and script been found wanting.
Last edited:
I watched it many years ago and it was really boring.
[doublepost=1504895750][/doublepost]
I mean foreign movies which are dubbed instead of being in the original language with subtitles.
You got that right. I very seldom see a movie that I would pay $10+ for. Car chasers, spider webers, teen girlies, religious, comic bookers, and kiddy animated for adults are NOT for me.
Then sales will be even more down, although IMAX 2D still makes sense for 2D movies.
And you get 3D in 4K at IMAX, while it is 2K in regular cinemas or [UHD] Blu Ray.
For regular cinemas, they need 3D, 4K, 70mm, or laser.
Last edited:
It was a novelty and the sparkle is wearing off, probably due to the extra cost involved in seeing it. When they come out with real, non-obtrusive 3D, then it might catch on.
Here in the US we have a service called MoviePass that lets you watch one movie per calendar day in almost all major cinemas for $10 a month. No blackout dates, no restrictions on new releases, no studio exceptions, etc.
In my area, tickets are $13, so I'd only have to watch ONE MOVIE to save money. And I still don't sign up, because there's not even one movie a month worth watching.
These all sound like technical qualities. The problem for me is the poor quality of the content itself. Making a crappy movie look sharper isn't going to get me into the cinema.
In my area, tickets are $13, so I'd only have to watch ONE MOVIE to save money. And I still don't sign up, because there's not even one movie a month worth watching.
These all sound like technical qualities. The problem for me is the poor quality of the content itself. Making a crappy movie look sharper isn't going to get me into the cinema.
The problem is not the glasses or cost, but that most live action 3D movies do not properly take advantage of the medium.
[doublepost=1504897238][/doublepost]
Don't they show foreign or independent movies?
Last edited:
Pretty much. My family hasn't been to a movie in several months because there really hasn't been anything worth seeing.
I watched Wonder Woman 7 times in theaters this year. I don't even remember seeing anything in 2016.
Once upon a distant time, some in the US made the sort of movies that - not only did you want to see - but you would happily succumb to repeat viewings.
Two superb US movies I would cite from the past twenty or so years:
"LA Confidential" is a movie I would happily watch half a dozen times (having already seen it - I think - thrice); and I write that as someone who hardly ever watches movies, and almost never a second time.
Likewise, "Lone Star" (which I have also seen twice, and would happily watch again).
These are intelligent, interesting, well written, thoughtful, beautifully shot (that is, lighting, pictorial composition, old style cinematography - not special effects, or bombs and blasts, or CGI), intelligently scripted compelling stories with excellent casts and good music.
That is what I call a movie.
Two superb US movies I would cite from the past twenty or so years:
"LA Confidential" is a movie I would happily watch half a dozen times (having already seen it - I think - thrice); and I write that as someone who hardly ever watches movies, and almost never a second time.
Likewise, "Lone Star" (which I have also seen twice, and would happily watch again).
These are intelligent, interesting, well written, thoughtful, beautifully shot (that is, lighting, pictorial composition, old style cinematography - not special effects, or bombs and blasts, or CGI), intelligently scripted compelling stories with excellent casts and good music.
That is what I call a movie.