Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8 16 17 18
Results 511 to 523 of 523

Thread: Controversial Cinema-Related Opinions

  1. #511
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,075
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Space Suicide View Post
    As far as drama goes for superhero films I think it’s one of the best to date. Of course it had flaws but nothing insulting like some of these movies.
    I think there are quite a few insulting moments. For example when they play reverse-racism with the biggest, baddest looking and -of course- black dude on one of the ferries... the one who finally throws out the remote, just to have some kind of twist.

    One could also say it's insulting to the viewer and/or also offensive in general how they try to equate the Joker's nihilistic ramblings about social fragility with real jihadist terrorism.

    Then there's the surveillance thing, which shows Batman wiretapping Gotham's citizens, just to lazily resolve that "commentary" with Batman rigging his equipment with self destruction.

    I'm not against superhero movies in general, but all of this makes me think, the more serious or "real" or "adult" superhero films try to be, the more problematic/flawless they become. There are very few superhero movies that actually pulled it off. Watchmen comes to mind (albeit flawed in other areas). Chronicle may be another. Unbreakable.

  2. #512
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,150
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)


    Many controversial movie opinions in this... but also, he's not wrong. You go Cody...

  3. #513
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    4,212
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)

  4. #514
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    583
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegate View Post
    My view, many assumptions:

    I think streaming simultaneously makes sense, even for post-covid. With the streaming generation, they're guaranteed monthly cash instead of getting a 50% (or less) cut of a ticket sale when one was to MAYBE decide to go to the theater (overall attendance has been falling for a few years, or so I've read). The theater takes the other 50+%, plus those expensive treats.

    Taking the US household average of 2.5 people, they'd net about (9 x 0.5) x 2.5, or $11.25 for a household attendance. If we make an assumption that the usual household sees 1 movie a month, they're grossing a little more money this way with their $14.99 monthly streaming fee. People will pay that, but also still have the option to go to the theater for larger movies if they care about upping the experience. In that case, WB will have the potential to double dip, in a way, if one was a subscriber and still went out to see a WB movie. Also, more investors will show up if HBO manages to convert a lot of people.

    Theaters can still be around for those who want that, they'd just cut down to a few screens for bigger movies, instead of having 20-30 screens for every living fart directors want to squeeze out.

  5. #515
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    st. paul, mn
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    i'm interested in hearing more opinions about the warner bros streaming decision.

    up until 2020, i mostly went to the theaters to catch the next big blockbuster i was pumped for and couldn't wait for home release, marvel, starwars, james bond, etc. Theaters have come a long way, reclining seats and all, but even still, i find most of their sound systems to be shit, either too loud or not loud enough, muddy dialogue, etc. and the picture quality doesn't even usually match up to my fairly cheap 5 year old 1080p 46" TV. I feel like some them had been getting better lately, but not like watching a bluray for picture quality (i have no experience yet with 4K). also you get idiots making noise, checking their phones, etc at the theater, it's just a hassle.

    I would almost always choose to see a movie at home over in a theater. i have good tower stereo speakers (no surround) and an ok 1080 TV. I just don't subscribe to the "you gotta see this on the big screen" thing. i don't really find it more immersive, and frankly sometimes the screen is so big you cant see the whole frame with out swinging your head back and forth like a tennis match.

    All this said, i find it odd that the big directors have this love affair with the theater. I mean, i bet christopher nolan has an amazing screening room, that's like being in a theater. Maybe these guys just have a romantic memory of going to the movies 30 years ago vs watching a betamax or vhs on a 13" tube at home and they can't get over that.

    Also, maybe what i consider to be a modest, average set up isn't average at all. i mean, if people are watching at home with the sound coming though the awful factory speakers on their flat screen, that admittedly sucks.

  6. #516
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,776
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Isn’t the US the ONLY country that can access HBO Max though? But I suppose if a film came out I could get a Now TV subscription but it would be a pain

  7. #517
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    102
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by talkingnothing View Post
    i'm interested in hearing more opinions about the warner bros streaming decision.

    up until 2020, i mostly went to the theaters to catch the next big blockbuster i was pumped for and couldn't wait for home release, marvel, starwars, james bond, etc. Theaters have come a long way, reclining seats and all, but even still, i find most of their sound systems to be shit, either too loud or not loud enough, muddy dialogue, etc. and the picture quality doesn't even usually match up to my fairly cheap 5 year old 1080p 46" TV. I feel like some them had been getting better lately, but not like watching a bluray for picture quality (i have no experience yet with 4K). also you get idiots making noise, checking their phones, etc at the theater, it's just a hassle.

    I would almost always choose to see a movie at home over in a theater. i have good tower stereo speakers (no surround) and an ok 1080 TV. I just don't subscribe to the "you gotta see this on the big screen" thing. i don't really find it more immersive, and frankly sometimes the screen is so big you cant see the whole frame with out swinging your head back and forth like a tennis match.

    All this said, i find it odd that the big directors have this love affair with the theater. I mean, i bet christopher nolan has an amazing screening room, that's like being in a theater. Maybe these guys just have a romantic memory of going to the movies 30 years ago vs watching a betamax or vhs on a 13" tube at home and they can't get over that.

    Also, maybe what i consider to be a modest, average set up isn't average at all. i mean, if people are watching at home with the sound coming though the awful factory speakers on their flat screen, that admittedly sucks.
    I have mixed feelings about all of this. On one level it does seem to me to be just a further degradation of the art form of cinema to throw everything on streaming. On the other hand I think the public at large doesn't, and hasn't, viewed cinema as art for a long time now. Its just mindless entertainment for most. I think my honest answer is that if I could just sit alone in a theatre then I'd prefer that but otherwise I'd prefer watching at home.

    Last year alone was pretty hit or miss in terms of actually being able to enjoy a movie in a theatre. For example I saw Joker and this girl a few seats over talked through the entire first hour of the movie. I don't mean she talked off and on, I mean she was spouting bullshit into her dates ear the entire film. I actually went over to them and asked them to leave if they wanted to continue to talk as I had paid money to see the film. And that's not my personality at all to do that sort of thing, it was just that egregious. The guy she was with actually apologized immediately and seemed just as annoyed as I was and thankfully they were quiet after that, but the movie was ruined by then.

    Earlier I had gone to see Midsommar which would have been great except that the multiplex played some spider man movie or whatever garbage marvel shat out that week right next door so throughout the entire movie there was the bass from all the loud explosion boom cgi effects and that kinda thing takes you out of the film you're trying to watch. I also saw the Lighthouse, which was great. Probably only 6 other people in the room and a great movie. It wasn't until I saw it again at home later that I really appreciated the cinematography because of how much better the picture was. And that's supposed to be where a theatre shines.

    But on the flipside seeing Jordan Peele's Us and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood in a packed house with the entire audience actually invested in the films made them a lot of fun.

    One thing I will never be on board with though, is food at the cinema. When watching a film, picture and sound are the only things that matter, anything that distracts or detracts from that is sub optimal. So why did anyone ever think it was ok to have every other mouth breather in there slurping up sodas and shaking the ice and crinkling the rapper to the snickers and chewing milk duds and popcorn the whole goddamn time. I mean there was even a dude eating nachos one time for christ sakes. Its a fucking movie and these people sell the loudest foods possible.

    At home it may be a smaller screen but the picture is better and I also have some speakers (which is probably more important than picture but most people don't realize it and use stock tv sound) so I'm pretty happy with it. Turn off all the lights and it feels more immersive than the theatre. Its more comfortable, cheaper, and no 30 minutes of adds to watch beforehand.

    I mean I don't want to see cinema die, but one way or another its going to move to home viewing. Real film fans will invest in equipment that makes it as enjoyable as possible. The other 95% of people will watch it on their phones. The same people that talk and eat and snore in the theatre anyways and then claim the movie sucked. I for one won't miss them one bit. Maybe the future is theatres become niche and only films fans actually go to them. Maybe that would help the experience some but it does feel like change is already happening and there's no going back.

  8. #518
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,052
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WorzelG View Post
    Isn’t the US the ONLY country that can access HBO Max though? But I suppose if a film came out I could get a Now TV subscription but it would be a pain
    Yeah, apparently due to how Warner did their international licenses they just don't own their stuff internationally to offer the service...which is fucking nuts when you think about it. That also puts in doubt just how the rest of the world will get the streaming, some might come to NOW but with a large markup, some might not be able to even stream internationally.

    I'm firmly of the "i think this is good for the pandemic but utterly sucks for cinema and peoples jobs" A large chunk of WB's films are big screen spectacles that need that vision and sound. With my current home set up i wouldn't even try watching them, it would suck and spoil my experience BUT for the none big blockbuster...this might be a great thing. Smaller indie films will reach a much bigger audience which can only be a good thing. I dunno i guess i'm mixed on this, valid arguments for and against here.

  9. #519
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    2,147
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Denis Villeneuve is not happy about that HBO Max thing:

    https://variety.com/2020/film/news/d...234851270/amp/

    I think we should have a new thread to talk about this. What I thought was brilliant a few days ago is a lot less shiny now. Not because of Denis, but because I've been thinking.

    Mmm...

  10. #520
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    10,068
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by marodi View Post
    Denis Villeneuve is not happy about that HBO Max thing:

    https://variety.com/2020/film/news/d...234851270/amp/

    I think we should have a new thread to talk about this. What I thought was brilliant a few days ago is a lot less shiny now. Not because of Denis, but because I've been thinking.

    Mmm...
    I'm pretty sure that's gonna kill most revenue for that movie. Unfortunate considering it was gonna be a two parter.

  11. #521
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,776
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by marodi View Post
    Denis Villeneuve is not happy about that HBO Max thing:

    https://variety.com/2020/film/news/d...234851270/amp/

    I think we should have a new thread to talk about this. What I thought was brilliant a few days ago is a lot less shiny now. Not because of Denis, but because I've been thinking.

    Mmm...
    I have had enough of the whole streaming service competitiveness - who can afford to subscribe to Netflix, HBO Max, Disney Plus, Amazon Prime, Hulu etc all at the same time? Not to mention you physically can't access HBO outside of US (and Canada I presume?)

  12. #522
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    st. paul, mn
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    I started a new thread for Theatrical Release vs Streaming Debate, apologies if there was a better way to split this off.

  13. #523
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,150
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Spielberg should have stuck with creature features. I find he does tension and suspense pretty well but to me, most everything else falls boringly flat.

Posting Permissions