you say that like its a bad thing, subby.

It's time to get over the lens flare butthurt, old man.

Sounds good to me.

Now just to get together with my friend to figure out where we'll be going to see it, and when I'm going to catch her up on the Lord of the Rings movies.

At least they're not pulling a Nolan and showing it ONLY at IMAX locations that still use film. The nearest theatre to me with the Dark Knight Rises prologue was a 7 hour drive.

i just searched for the closest IMAX theater to me. i would have to drive a little over an hour to get to one. greenville sc or knoxville tn.

What_Would_Jimi_Do: i just searched for the closest IMAX theater to me. i would have to drive a little over an hour to get to one. greenville sc or knoxville tn.

If you want to drive up to DC, there's 6 or so all around the city.

Mugato: I'll see The Hobbit because I want to see what 48 fps looks like. I'll probably check out somewhere between the third and fourth ending though,

So what, you'll hang around the movie theater like the guy in The Terminal for a year?

Mugato: I'll see The Hobbit because I want to see what 48 fps looks like. I'll probably check out somewhere between the third and fourth ending though,

48fps I might like to check out - but it looks like only the 3D version is 48fps. I ain't doing 3D.

We...could do that.

I'm guessing that for the person who's interested in the next Star Trek movie, having to see The Hobbit is not such a great difficulty.

The only difficulty for me, subby, is living three hundred miles from an iMax.

This could mean longer waits between showings as theater employees clean up the nerdgasms.

why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer

Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.

*raises hand*

/ ....although I find Frank Herbert's "Dune" a little more compelling
// book, not movie

fusillade762: thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer

Quiet you! You'll give them ideas.

IIRC, that's already been done with Star Wars: Episode 1. Previews for that were shown before some forgettable movie starring Brad Pitt.

/ wish I could forget SW: Episode 1...

Who wants to see the first 9 minutes of a film? That's like paying for half a handjob.

ToxicMunkee: It's time to get over the lens flare butthurt, old man.

Why?

I'd love to watch it again but that shiat is farked.

They need to edit it withouth the damn things.

/farking lazy

fusillade762: thisiszombocom: why give a preview before a movie people are going to see anyways? why not add it before a crappy movie so people will but tickets for that one just to see the trailer

Quiet you! You'll give them ideas.

The Dark Knight Rises teaser was before MI:4 (which wasn't awful, but not worth the IMAX mark up).

Also, there really were too many...
http://vimeo.com/13430244

Star Trek 09 was a just a bad movie. Trek fan or not, comparing it to the show or not, it just plain sucked.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

The Hobbit was a crappy book, and there's not a damn thing in it that would make a good movie.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

So it's lose/lose or win/win depending on who you are.

Because a Hobbit audience is totally a STar Trek audience too.

lewismarktwo: Who wants to see the first 9 minutes of a film? That's like paying for half a handjob.

Half-handjobs usually end in blowjobs.

Movies are stealing age-old ideas from video games.

This is the revolution you were promised in the olden days of the Genesis.

Thought it would be more exciting, honestly... but the Marvel "stingers" hit the right note on the idea... IN THE SEQUEL, HAMMERS FALLING OUT OF THE FARKING SKY!!! BUY A GODDAMN TICKET!!!...

...and you ACTUALLY want to.

ds615: Star Trek 09 was a just a bad movie. Trek fan or not, comparing it to the show or not, it just plain sucked.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

The Hobbit was a crappy book, and there's not a damn thing in it that would make a good movie.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

So it's lose/lose or win/win depending on who you are.

Obvious troll is Obvious.

This just in: You can like BOTH Star Trek and The Hobbit

/Worf killed Dumbledore

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 48fps I might like to check out - but it looks like only the 3D version is 48fps. I ain't doing 3D.

Nice eye patch there Cyclops.

/what??? real life is 3D????

Am I the only person on the planet to never have seen the new Star Trek? Anyway, I'm seeing The Hobbit no matter what.

INeedAName: What_Would_Jimi_Do: i just searched for the closest IMAX theater to me. i would have to drive a little over an hour to get to one. greenville sc or knoxville tn.

If you want to drive up to DC, there's 6 or so all around the city.

that would be a 7.5 hour trip.

peterthx: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 48fps I might like to check out - but it looks like only the 3D version is 48fps. I ain't doing 3D.

Nice eye patch there Cyclops.

/what??? real life is 3D????

In real life, you can focus on different areas and see better.

moothemagiccow: ds615: Star Trek 09 was a just a bad movie. Trek fan or not, comparing it to the show or not, it just plain sucked.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

The Hobbit was a crappy book, and there's not a damn thing in it that would make a good movie.
Unless you're a drooling director fan boy anyway.

So it's lose/lose or win/win depending on who you are.

I thought it was pretty good apart from Abrams mandatory "everyone has daddy issues" nonsense. That man needs therapy.

I can understand why trekkies didn't like it. There was too much action.

//wrath of khan was boring and goofy

The Daddy issues of Kirk and Spock made sense. Spock's always had issues with his father and in TNG his father died before they could be resolved. In Star Trek '09 they were forced to face their issues and move forward. Kirk's daddy issues was first being that his father wasn't there and then thanks to Pike, it became living up to the legend that his father became in the 10 minutes he spent in command of the Kelvin, which became his motivation while in the Academy.

As a life long Trek fan, I'll admit that Star Trek 09 is not the worst Trek movie (Star Treks 1 and 5 compete for that spot), but it's not the best (2, 6 and 8 compete for that spot), but it's better than 3, 9 and 10. The only part that I didn't like was the look of the Enterprise, and I'm just talking about the exterior look. Interiors, I loved the dirty looks of the Engineering sections and shiny white clean looks of the Bridge. In many ways, it's interiors were better than the TNG bridge and engineering sections.

Though, honestly, instead of a new movie, I'd rather see a new series. Star Trek does much much better as a tv series than as a movie series. And if they went with a tv series, I'd actually want two series. One series would be set a few years after the last episode of Voyager and Nemesis, maybe shortly after Spock's failed attempt to save Romulas. In short, in the STO era. The other series I would like to see set in the Abrams-verse. Let's explore that a bit.

StoPPeRmobile: In real life, you can focus on different areas and see better.

You can't do that with a 2D film either so not sure what you're getting at....

Mugato: I'll see The Hobbit because I want to see what 48 fps looks like. I'll probably check out somewhere between the third and fourth ending though,

A minimum of 4 endings per film multiplied by three films means the film will have more endings than a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book

Forbidden Doughnut: Mentat: I'm not sure the Star Trek and LotR fanbases overlap.

*raises hand*


*also raises hand*


/ ....although I find Frank Herbert's "Dune" a little more compelling
// book, not movie

Agreed! Except I find it "a lot" more compelling.

/hey baby, how YOU doin'?