criterionforum.org

If I recall, my main argument on why Kingsman was better than the last Die Hard movie was because Jai Courtney wasn't in Kingsman.

Yeah, I'm not a fan. His presence makes anything he's in instantly bland (see the Divergent movies, though they didn't need much help).

I do think he was perfectly okay in the Terminator though I recognize I'm in the minority on everything in that film.

hearthesilence wrote:Not true - they forced 3D and digital projectors into all theaters, thus gauging most viewer goers at the box office from here on out over a useless, expensive, unwanted gimmick.

Is this even true? Of the three cinemas I frequent now, only one offers 3D. Of the two I frequented a couple of years ago at university, neither did.

HOME in Manchester opened with five screens last year and didn't adopt 3D at all (which is actually a pity as there is some arthouse fare in 3D).

Just remembered, this was a problem with Godard's Goodbye to Language. They wanted to push for 3D screenings, but the only theaters that would book it in the U.S. were smaller, prestigious theaters who didn't universally adopt 3D the way the multiplexes did. This made up a small percentage of movie theaters in the U.S. though - probably a double-digit number of theaters versus the thousands of theaters that book primarily Hollywood studio films. Are theaters more independent in the UK? Growing up in the suburbs, 99% of theaters were pretty much big-chain multiplexes, usually located in or around malls, all uniformly designed the same way (i.e. now with 3D theaters).

Part of it is that England is much smaller country I guess, so I probably have around 10 cinemas within an hour's drive, even though I live in the rurally and 10+ miles from the nearest.

TMDaines wrote:

hearthesilence wrote:Not true - they forced 3D and digital projectors into all theaters, thus gauging most viewer goers at the box office from here on out over a useless, expensive, unwanted gimmick.

Is this even true? Of the three cinemas I frequent now, only one offers 3D. Of the two I frequented a couple of years ago at university, neither did.

HOME in Manchester opened with five screens last year and didn't adopt 3D at all (which is actually a pity as there is some arthouse fare in 3D).

Avatar had nothing to do with the mass migration to digital, which was an industry seachange that was happening anyway (and happened faster than most people expected), but it definitely ushered digital 3D into the mainstream. The format needed a massive film to force adoption, and this was the film. Then lots more films were made / remade to take advantage of that new capacity. That said, the adoption of 3D falls well short of "all cinemas" and huge films still do huge business in 2D (even when there's a 3D option), so I think it still counts as a very large niche.

And what are my lasting impressions of the film? It was terrible and bits of it looked like old Yes album covers (which is obviously a horrible thing, as it reminded me of Yes).

zedz wrote:Avatar had nothing to do with the mass migration to digital, which was an industry seachange that was happening anyway (and happened faster than most people expected)...

Because Avatar catalyzed that transition, pushing exhibitors to get off the fence about making that transition in 2009, as one exhibitor put it.

I live in a part of New Jersey where there are a dozen theaters within a 30 minute drive and all play almost exclusively digital at this point. One closed a few years ago and it was certainly the type if theater you imagine couldn't afford to convert to digital.

hearthesilence wrote:

zedz wrote:Avatar had nothing to do with the mass migration to digital, which was an industry seachange that was happening anyway (and happened faster than most people expected)...

Because Avatar catalyzed that transition, pushing exhibitors to get off the fence about making that transition in 2009, as one exhibitor put it.

Something had to. If it wouldn't be that movie, it would be another. Or it would have become incrementally obvious to them to make that transition.

Avatar: The Jazz Singer of digital.

aox wrote:I don't remember a single scene from the entire film. It certainly didn't have a "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.", "forget it Jake, it's Chinatown", "May the force be with you", or "Hasta la vista, baby" moment.

Actually...

James Cameron now says there will be four (4) Avatar sequels, if that excites you.

Hard to tell if this is Cameron gone amuck, Fox's attempt at trying to compete with Star Wars, or both.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Hard to tell if this is Cameron gone amuck, Fox's attempt at trying to compete with Star Wars, or both.

Probably both, Fox wanting a big cinematic universe, Cameron happy to spend their money and sprawl out.

Sometimes I look down my street on a dark, quiet weekday evening and 3 or 4 big flatscreen TVs are all displaying well-worn Blu-ray copies of Avatar; my neighbors' whole families curled up by the fire enjoying the most memorable film of the last 50 years. I'm sure these sequels will be greeted with the same inviting warmth that still encircles the original film.

This dude is planning and announcing films for 2023??

They have fallen behind schedule again and will not be able to make their hoped December 2018 release

Seeing as it was looking like Disney was willing to play nice and let them release in the new best window for a big-budget film without facing Star Wars for one year this is not a good move financially, but if it takes this long it takes this long.

It's just reached total insanity - ten years between movies! I'm still, obviously, rooting for Cameron to show every moron who writes off the movie as this secret failure or something why he is who he is, but it's looking more and more unlikely this will be able to bring out the crowds it'd need to.

James Cameron wrote:What people have to understand is that this is a cadence of releases. So, we're not making Avatar 2, we're making Avatar 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Thread title updated to be appropriately obnoxious

A+

Is a cadence different from a covenant? What about a concordance?

You forgot quadrilogy

At any rate, the Avatar theme land is on schedule to open at Disney's Animal Kingdom in May; just not sure how many park visitors will remember this was inspired by a film - by the time the sequel comes around, some might think it was inspired by the Disney rides.

Naw, my sister who doesn't even care about film was talking about it the other day. The will and memory still seem to be there.

I think the lasting effect of literally everybody having seen this movie is often ignored when trying to guess whether they can even come close to doing it again