Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel - Page 138

Moonliner · 04-25-2012, 01:36 PM

I wonder if the success or failure of The Hobbit at 48fps will effect what James Cameron does with Avatar2 (which is also rumored to be filmed at 48fps)

flippyshark · 04-25-2012, 01:44 PM

Will CGI critters look more or less convincing at 48 fps? I'm curious enough that I won't avoid going to The Hobbit on account of it, but I hope there will be a 24 fps option for the Blu-ray release. (Or maybe it will have no option but to be 24 fps?) The future is relentless.

Ghoulish Delight · 04-25-2012, 02:21 PM

I just hope theaters don't go through with the awful plan I've heard floating around which is to stop charging more for 3D screenings of movies than 2D screenings, instead raising the price of 2D screenings to subsidize the 3D*.

* Although the more I've thought about it the more I figure that really the theaters want to raise the prices in general and they're using 3D as the excuse.

flippyshark · 04-25-2012, 02:56 PM

Theaters are doing a great job of keeping me happily ensconced in my living room.

innerSpaceman · 04-26-2012, 12:11 PM

1) Back in the 80's Brainstorm used segments at 90fps. I didnt' really notice the difference nearly as much as those segments going to a wider aspect ratio. So I'm not quite sure what the advantage or disadvantage is to 48fps.

2) I ranted about this on Facebook recently, but AMC is charging more for something called "ETX" which is nothing more than letting you sit in their multiplex cinema with the best sound and biggest screen that they were charging regular price for a month ago. They received a pointed letter from me, and have lost me as a customer. If I must pay extra, I want something. 3D. IMAX. Other local theaters have offered plush leather chairs. Or no kids allowed. Or alcohol served. But AMC's ETX offers nothing - except charging you more for what they once did not.

Not a trend I'm happy with.

Ghoulish Delight · 04-26-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Not a trend I'm happy with.

What if they raised the prices across the board, charging the same price (somewhere in between their previous normal price and the higher "ETX" price) for any theater, whether it's the biggest screen with the best sound, or the tiniest screen with crap sound showing the romantic comedy that came out 8 weeks ago? Would you be happier with that trend? Because that would be the alternative.

Moonliner · 04-26-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

2) I ranted about this on Facebook recently, but AMC is charging more for something called "ETX" which is nothing more than letting you sit in their multiplex cinema with the best sound and biggest screen that they were charging regular price for a month ago.

On the other hand, one gripe I've always had with the neighborhood multiplex is that many movies are shown in multiple theaters with no easy way to tell which one is in the theater with the best sound and bigger screen. This would at least take care of that problem.

innerSpaceman · 04-26-2012, 12:28 PM

Yes, I'd be just as happy with that. Um, sorry GD, but that's exactly what all multiplexes have always been doing. Have you paid a different ticket price for that tiny theater of theirs, only slightly bigger than a 1 percenter's home screening room? No, never. Multiplexes have a wide variety of different size theaters, and charge the same price for all of them.

Well, at least, till now. But, as far as I know, only AMC is experimenting with this.

I thought they made all their money off the popcorn anyway. What do theaters care what admission prices are?

Ghoulish Delight · 04-26-2012, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Yes, I'd be just as happy with that. Um, sorry GD, but that's exactly what all multiplexes have always been doing. Have you paid a different ticket price for that tiny theater of theirs, only slightly bigger than a 1 percenter's home screening room? No, never. Multiplexes have a wide variety of different size theaters, and charge the same price for all of them.

Well, at least, till now. But, as far as I know, only AMC is experimenting with this.

I thought they made all their money off the popcorn anyway. What do theaters care what admission prices are?

So then you're okay with them raising the price for 2D showings and lowering the price for 3D showings so they are the same price and the 2D tickets subsidize the 3D?

I've always considered it BS that you're charged the same for a sh*tty screen as their best.

innerSpaceman · 04-26-2012, 02:49 PM

No, not at all. If they want to offer something extra, then let them charge extra for it. A larger auditorium is not extra - they are only now pretending it's so.

It's like if they suddenly charged for including sound with the picture. Oh, you wanted sound? That'll be five bucks.

And before you claim that a big theater with decent sound IS an extra - multiplexes have long waived that claim by their own policy of ALWAYS, since the invention of the multiplex, having charged the same for a ticket no matter the size of the auditorium your movie happens to be screening in. That size, btw, depends on the theater's determination of how popular a movie is. So are you suggesting theaters charge more for movies that are actually "good?"

That might not be a bad idea, since I have no desire to see The Hunger Games, but really enjoyed The Cabin in the Woods.

04-25-2012, 01:36 PM	#1
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	I wonder if the success or failure of The Hobbit at 48fps will effect what James Cameron does with Avatar2 (which is also rumored to be filmed at 48fps) __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

04-25-2012, 01:44 PM	#2
flippyshark Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 2,852	Will CGI critters look more or less convincing at 48 fps? I'm curious enough that I won't avoid going to The Hobbit on account of it, but I hope there will be a 24 fps option for the Blu-ray release. (Or maybe it will have no option but to be 24 fps?) The future is relentless.
	Submit to Quotes

04-25-2012, 02:21 PM	#3
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	I just hope theaters don't go through with the awful plan I've heard floating around which is to stop charging more for 3D screenings of movies than 2D screenings, instead raising the price of 2D screenings to subsidize the 3D. Although the more I've thought about it the more I figure that really the theaters want to raise the prices in general and they're using 3D as the excuse. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

04-25-2012, 02:56 PM	#4
flippyshark Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 2,852	Theaters are doing a great job of keeping me happily ensconced in my living room.
	Submit to Quotes

04-26-2012, 12:11 PM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	1) Back in the 80's Brainstorm used segments at 90fps. I didnt' really notice the difference nearly as much as those segments going to a wider aspect ratio. So I'm not quite sure what the advantage or disadvantage is to 48fps. 2) I ranted about this on Facebook recently, but AMC is charging more for something called "ETX" which is nothing more than letting you sit in their multiplex cinema with the best sound and biggest screen that they were charging regular price for a month ago. They received a pointed letter from me, and have lost me as a customer. If I must pay extra, I want something. 3D. IMAX. Other local theaters have offered plush leather chairs. Or no kids allowed. Or alcohol served. But AMC's ETX offers nothing - except charging you more for what they once did not. Not a trend I'm happy with.
	Submit to Quotes

04-26-2012, 12:28 PM	#8
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yes, I'd be just as happy with that. Um, sorry GD, but that's exactly what all multiplexes have always been doing. Have you paid a different ticket price for that tiny theater of theirs, only slightly bigger than a 1 percenter's home screening room? No, never. Multiplexes have a wide variety of different size theaters, and charge the same price for all of them. Well, at least, till now. But, as far as I know, only AMC is experimenting with this. I thought they made all their money off the popcorn anyway. What do theaters care what admission prices are?
	Submit to Quotes

04-26-2012, 02:49 PM	#10
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	No, not at all. If they want to offer something extra, then let them charge extra for it. A larger auditorium is not extra - they are only now pretending it's so. It's like if they suddenly charged for including sound with the picture. Oh, you wanted sound? That'll be five bucks. And before you claim that a big theater with decent sound IS an extra - multiplexes have long waived that claim by their own policy of ALWAYS, since the invention of the multiplex, having charged the same for a ticket no matter the size of the auditorium your movie happens to be screening in. That size, btw, depends on the theater's determination of how popular a movie is. So are you suggesting theaters charge more for movies that are actually "good?" That might not be a bad idea, since I have no desire to see The Hunger Games, but really enjoyed The Cabin in the Woods.
	Submit to Quotes