Is it wrong that I am a pretty big geek but have very little desire to see Avatar and probably won't until it's on HBO or DVD?

crab66: Is it wrong that I am a pretty big geek but have very little desire to see Avatar and probably won't until it's on HBO or DVD?

not really. I am going to do the same thing.

Normally, I don't advocate property destruction, nor does Fark allow it; but why is arson wrong in cases like this? Provided the theater is empty, I mean? Isn't that more like providing a great gift to humanity, along the same lines as going back in time to kill Hitler?

It's the holidays, kids are out of school and rowdy. They are much more likely to want to see a movie like Alvin & The Chipmunks than Avatar. And when the kids go see it, Mom or Dad (or both) go with to see it; I'm not surprised that a kids movie with recognizable, cross-generational appeal did better at the box office than a movie that is apparently best seen in IMAX 3-D.

/woo, tangent
//will more than likely go see Avatar
///and the Sherlock Holmes

crab66: Is it wrong that I am a pretty big geek but have very little desire to see Avatar and probably won't until it's on HBO or DVD?

Now c'mon, fork out the $20, wait in multiple lines, watch 30 minutes of previews (read "advertisements"), brave traffic, and put fuel in the car like a good little consumer!

All this tells me is something I've known for a long time, that Hollywood ran out of ideas years ago, and all new movies suck.

crab66: Is it wrong that I am a pretty big geek but have very little desire to see Avatar and probably won't until it's on HBO or DVD?

Depends, are you a geek that actually enjoys storytelling, or just want to watch special effects?

If you're the former, skip it and rent Moon. If you're the latter go drop $15 to watch pretty colors and shiny things fly around for three hours.

Might also be because the general experience of going to a theater to see a movie has been so degraded by cellphones, rude people, and high prices, that it just isn't an attractive entertainment venue.

I don't doubt that the movie is awesome and should be seen on the big screen. I just don't really feel like dealing with the hassle, annoyances, and cost.

I know! People and their kids crotchfruit getting in the way of Cameron's cash grab. Bastards - how DARE they?

Nuclear Monk: Might also be because the general experience of going to a theater to see a movie has been so degraded by cellphones, rude people, and high prices, that it just isn't an attractive entertainment venue.

I don't doubt that the movie is awesome and should be seen on the big screen. I just don't really feel like dealing with the hassle, annoyances, and cost.

Not to mention you get a higher quality experience at home, what with Bluray/HDTV/surround sound, versus a projector that they turned the brightness way down on.

crab66: Is it wrong that I am a pretty big geek but have very little desire to see Avatar and probably won't until it's on HBO or DVD?

It's wrong in the sense that it was made to be seen in 3D and the visuals are the biggest reason to see it. The trailers and clips on TV just don't compare. The scenes where they're flying around go from "hey, that looks kind of pretty" to "holy shiat".

Anyone else notice that this was just single day sales and that it's highly likely that Avatar will be getting plenty of return viewings whereas Alvin probably will have more people walking out of it than returning to see it again?

crab66: Is it wrong that I am a pretty big geek but have very little desire to see Avatar and probably won't until it's on HBO or DVD?

I was actually going to go See Avatar, but then I ran into James Cameron outside and he wouldn't sign an autograph for me, so I went and saw Alvin and the Chipmunks instead. I bet Alvin would sign a poster for me....

im going to see it again in 3d.farking Brilliant

RadicalArcher: It's the holidays, kids are out of school and rowdy. They are much more likely to want to see a movie like Alvin & The Chipmunks than Avatar. And when the kids go see it, Mom or Dad (or both) go with to see it; I'm not surprised that a kids movie with recognizable, cross-generational appeal did better at the box office than a movie that is apparently best seen in IMAX 3-D.

/woo, tangent
//will more than likely go see Avatar
///and the Sherlock Holmes

I came here to say this.

But I guess Fark can continue with it's "modern culture is declining, the idiots are breeding too fast!" hysteria.

I've been away for a while . . . em, where's the psa to wish each of us a Merry Christmas!?!



/a cold Dr. Pepper is refreshing . . . ahhhh
//slashes!

Man everybody hates everything at 1 in the morning I guess.

Pretty amazing that Avatar has made 16 million dollars for three straight days during the week and didn't lose by all that much to a premiere of a sequel to a movie that did very well and was seen by a lot of kids. Avatar will still kick ass this weekend.

redcard: Anyone else notice that this was just single day sales and that it's highly likely that Avatar will be getting plenty of return viewings whereas Alvin probably will have more people walking out of it than returning to see it again?

Actually more people are watching Alvin, as a large percentage of Avatars gross is inflated due to absurdly high ticket prices at IMAX/3D screenings.

Not that it is a good thing mind you. It's sort of like watching Rosie Odonnell and Rosanne Barr mud wrestle: no matter who wins we all lose.

Fox is making bank on both movies. Also who cares what the idiot masses are watching in theaters.

crab66: Is it wrong that I am a pretty big geek but have very little desire to see Avatar and probably won't until it's on HBO or DVD?

I am farking tired of cinemas. The 3D gimmick is not worth the $14 ticket price. I could buy a blu ray for that much, and my girlfriend gets to watch it, too.

Also the movie looks farking boring. The lead actor was on letterman or some shiat and was like "this is the best clip" and it was basically that scene from harry potter 3 where he pets the flying horse.

I'd like to see Avatar at some point just for the effects, the buzz seems to be that it's "revolutionary". As a movie it doesn't really interest me, but I'm intrigued by the visuals. I'm also glad that someone is putting out a semi-original screenplay, instead of just pumping out remakes and sequels. I'll see it when it comes to the $2 theatre, but I doubt I'll pony up $12 for it.

Alvin on the other hand...what the hell? Who is going to see that garbage? Those commercials have been driving me crazy for weeks, I am shocked I haven't thrown anything at my TV by now.

DamnYankees:
It's 15-20 bucks (for 3D) for 2 hours of entertainment.

That's really not very expensive in the realm of "going out to see stuff". It's actually much cheaper than concerts, plays, and musicals.

Every GOOD concert I've been to has cost less than $20. I'm not a Tom Petty/Rolling Stones/Eagles fan.

Wow, so opening day for the chipmunks beats out a week old movie, aimed at a different audience, days before Christmas when parents are stressed to the max and the little ones are crawling the walls with excitement.

We'll see how Chipmunks do in a week.

/I really dug Avatar
//The story was predictable as hell, but still lots of fun with plenty of LSD prettiness and things going boom.

redcard: Anyone else notice that this was just single day sales and that it's highly likely that Avatar will be getting plenty of return viewings whereas Alvin probably will have more people walking out of it than returning to see it again?

There's no hate like Cameron hate.

DamnYankees: agoratrader: Fox is making bank on both movies. Also who cares what the idiot masses are watching in theaters.

If movies make money, we will see more movies like that in the future. That's why we care. If Avatar does well, hopefully we will see more balls-out epic movies made by great filmmakers using cutting edge technology. If it bombs studios won't take those kinds of chances.

But I'd rather see a film that is thought provoking with realistic characters, not just $300 million of flashiness. That's why I'm not seeing either movie.

DamnYankees: reverbblue: Actually more people are watching Alvin, as a large percentage of Avatars gross is inflated due to absurdly high ticket prices at IMAX/3D screenings.

Absurdly high? It costs 2 bucks more in 3D.

Damn you people complain alot.


If you're paying $12 for a normal movie ticket you're getting ripped off. Six to Seven bucks here.... $15 for 3D.

And no amount of 3D gimmicks will overcome the fact that the premise is laughably bad. I mean Rob Scheinder movie level of bad.

Confabulat: DamnYankees: Confabulat: I am sure most everyone of these Avatar whiners haven't actually bothered to see the movie.

Of course not. Because 14 dollars to see a marvel of technology and cinema is waaaay too much.

I plan on spending more to see it in IMAX when they get that damn Jim Carrey movie off the screens around here for a second time.

Saying you'll wait to watch Avatar on DVD is like saying you'll experience Disney World by watching a YouTube video of Space Mountain or something.

Normally I'd agree with the naysayers. Normally I would detest going to the theater. I'd wait for it on DVD.

But... the boyfriend drug me out there. And I have to admit, I'll likely never say this again, but this movie was made for 3D in the theater. It simply won't be as good at home.

Confabulat: crab66: Is it wrong that I am a pretty big geek but have very little desire to see Avatar and probably won't until it's on HBO or DVD?

I saw it the other night and if there's any movie to recommend seeing on a big screen it's that one, in 3D as it was meant to be seen.

My only regret was not seeing it in IMAX.

It's truly got the spectacle part down. If you like eye candy, DVD ain't gonna cut it.

Normally I agree. The only time I actually go to the theater are for movies that should be seen on the big screen.

I don't go often. I think the last thing I saw was District 9.

This just does not appeal to me for some reason. I might go see it anyway.

I can't figure out why on a planet that supposedly spawned six-legged mammalian life-forms, the apex humanoids are only four-limbed. Not even vestigials.

DamnYankees: reverbblue: If you're paying $12 for a normal movie ticket you're getting ripped off. Six to Seven bucks here.... $15 for 3D.

Yes I pay 12 bucks for movies. I live in NY.

Your theater is charging you more than double for 3D and I'm the one getting ripped off?

reverbblue: And no amount of 3D gimmicks will overcome the fact that the premise is laughably bad. I mean Rob Scheinder movie level of bad.

Premises dont mean jack shiat. The greatest piece of literature in English history is premised on a ghost telling his son to kill his uncle.

Yep.

And I doubt you'd find a premise in a movie today that isn't based off something written between 60 and 200 years ago.

krazydiamond: I'd like to see Avatar at some point just for the effects, the buzz seems to be that it's "revolutionary". As a movie it doesn't really interest me, but I'm intrigued by the visuals. I'm also glad that someone is putting out a semi-original screenplay, instead of just pumping out remakes and sequels. I'll see it when it comes to the $2 theatre, but I doubt I'll pony up $12 for it.

Alvin on the other hand...what the hell? Who is going to see that garbage? Those commercials have been driving me crazy for weeks, I am shocked I haven't thrown anything at my TV by now.

I'm not sure "semi-original" is quite there; I'm pretty sure at least 10% of the lines were lifted straight from Pocahontas and/or Dances with Wolves. But that didn't make it a bad movie. I enjoyed myself, and it was indeed very visually stunning. The story was much better than the trailers made it out to be, anyway. I originally watched a bootlegged version online, but I could tell watching that version that seeing it in theaters was worth it, and it was. This is coming from someone who watches maybe five movies in theaters a year. (The last one I saw was Precious, and before that 500 Days of Summer way back in August.)