If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   The day after Spielberg and Lucas announce the future of cinema will mean $50 tickets, Paramount says the future is now with $50 mega tickets for WWZ   (deadline.com) divider line 253
    More: Fail, Steven Spielberg, World War Z, Regal Entertainment, George Lucas, fandangos, moviegoers  
•       •       •

18554 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2013 at 10:18 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 02:44:36 PM
Did I inadvertently give a new quote for the f*cking leeches to suck on?
 
2013-06-14 02:45:14 PM

serpent_sky: Also, World War Z looks exactly like War of the Worlds with zombies. Annoying overpaid actor with a screeching kid through the whole thing and some monsters. I'd watch it if someone paid ME $50 to do so, but that's about it.


I don't think it'll be that bad, but I do remember cheering and getting looked at funny when they got captured
 
2013-06-14 02:46:13 PM
Typically, I pay between 13.50 to 15.00 for a ticket at my theater of choice (Cinemark Egyptian 24, Hanover, MD) because the theater has a absolutely amazing screen and sound system set up for most first run movies. The crowds are good, too - I've never had any major problems (PROTIP: Watching movies in ghetto or hick-ass theaters gets you ghetto or hick-ass crowds).

I was down in Clearwater, FL, recently (no Fark-worthy events, unfortunately) and there was this theater there that had Fast & Furious 6 playing with a DBOX setup (moving seats synchronized with the music/special effects). I'd seen it already, but my sister hadn't, so we got tickets. They were eighteen bucks a pop, and frankly, with the size of the screen and the sound system, they weren't worth that much. But the DBOX effects were nice, and I can't help but wonder what it would be like if the Cinemark had those seats along with their big screen and sound system.
 
2013-06-14 02:47:23 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: serpent_sky: Also, World War Z looks exactly like War of the Worlds with zombies. Annoying overpaid actor with a screeching kid through the whole thing and some monsters. I'd watch it if someone paid ME $50 to do so, but that's about it.

I don't think it'll be that bad, but I do remember cheering and getting looked at funny when they got captured


Were you eating popcorn with flecks of poo in it? That might be why you got funny looks.
 
2013-06-14 02:49:46 PM
Remember when we were all told that the lower production and shipping costs of DCPs were going to make movies CHEAPER?

Lately, Hollywood's budgeting and marketing strategy seems to be to concentrate on movies that appeal to 16-year-old males (and perpetual adolescents of all ages, many of whom can be counted on to drag along compliant significant others), with scripts written at a fifth-grade reading level (to increase sales not only to the post-literate American public, but also in non-English-speaking foreign countries), while spending as little as possible on script and actors and replacing expensive sets and stunt performers with special effects and fancy editing. Meanwhile, the CGI companies the Big Six rely on are all complaining that they are being underpaid to the point where they are going bankrupt.

In short, a typical 21st-century short-sighted, stingy, all-eggs-in-one-basket business plan. When it inevitably fails, it will do so spectacularly.
 
2013-06-14 02:51:42 PM

Mugato: I don't know what you all are going on about, I go to the movies all the time and there are no problems with "teenagers" with phones or talking. They
really are cracking down on all that.


ALERT: Farkers, we have someone who wants arational discussion here... On Fark... Please explain this to him.

i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-06-14 02:51:49 PM

Leader O'Cola: Lando Lincoln: Leader O'Cola: enderthexenocide: and television screens are rapidly approaching theater screen size.

bullshiat.

Angle of view is pretty close.

80' screen, sitting 70' away from it
54" screen, sitting 10' away from it

where to start....
in your theater design distances there,
trigonometry dictates that the horizontal field of vision is ~55 degrees
(LMFAO!!!!!!, PS guess you don't work for THX)

but that aside, in your 'home theater' design,
trigonometry dictates that the horizontal field of vision is ~22 degrees

but yes, those are really "close comparisons"


I have a 110 inch screen that I sit 12 feet from. what is my field of vision?
 
2013-06-14 03:03:07 PM

Supracentral: Mugato: I don't know what you all are going on about, I go to the movies all the time and there are no problems with "teenagers" with phones or talking. They
really are cracking down on all that.

ALERT: Farkers, we have someone who wants arational discussion here... On Fark... Please explain this to him.

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 248x249]


I dunno, I still like the act of going to the movies. Even if there is the odd talker/texter, which again in my experience, I haven't seen in awhile. Theaters now don't put up with that shiat.

/saw Man of Steel at 10:30, people were cheering and going aopeshiat but weren't texting
 
2013-06-14 03:04:26 PM
Greed is bad.
 
2013-06-14 03:05:12 PM
No. With the Alamo Drafthouse showing up in my neighborhood, I've gone from spending $20 a flick for tix/drink to spending $50+, stupid alcoholism. No way I'm spending a Benjamin just to watch a farking movie.
 
2013-06-14 03:09:23 PM
The fanholes show up early to shiat on something that they haven't seen, based on a mediocre book they think would be filmable some other way.  The Weenerss here are from ITGs who have substituted ragging on this movie for their usual Weeners of "FIRST!"
 
2013-06-14 03:13:56 PM

Rubber Biscuit: The fanholes show up early to shiat on something that they haven't seen, based on a mediocre book they think would be filmable some other way.  The Weenerss here are from ITGs who have substituted ragging on this movie for their usual Weeners of "FIRST!"


That all looks like words but what?
 
2013-06-14 03:31:39 PM
The really sad part is you probably don't get a small popcorn.  You probably get a gift certificate good for "1 Small Popcorn (up to $3.50)", and if your theater charges $4.25 for a small, you still have to pay the extra.
 
2013-06-14 03:34:53 PM

grimlock1972: not  chance in hell would i pay $50 to see a movie.   these guys are either morons or so out of touch with the common man its not even funny.


Maybe they figured that since some people are stupid enough to pay that kind of money (and higher) for sports events and concerts...
 
2013-06-14 03:37:39 PM

Milo Minderbinder: R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: Thats cute how a lot of you people are judging this film before even seeing it.

White-knighting Lindelof? You can do better than that.


Maybe he thinks Lindelof will suck his dick, too?
 
2013-06-14 03:39:29 PM

Jument: IdBeCrazyIf: Call me a cheap ass, but I take the large buckets and large drinks out of the trash take them to the bathroom, wash them out and then take them back to concessions for the free refills Then again I've also been known to pay for one show, and then dip in another as well.

I'm going to assume that you aren't being serious because that is farking disgusting.


I bet the sick fark reuses his glasses at home, too, just by "washing" them out a little.
 
2013-06-14 03:39:55 PM

Cornelius Dribble: Remember when we were all told that the lower production and shipping costs of DCPs were going to make movies CHEAPER?

Lately, Hollywood's budgeting and marketing strategy seems to be to concentrate on movies that appeal to 16-year-old males (and perpetual adolescents of all ages, many of whom can be counted on to drag along compliant significant others), with scripts written at a fifth-grade reading level (to increase sales not only to the post-literate American public, but also in non-English-speaking foreign countries), while spending as little as possible on script and actors and replacing expensive sets and stunt performers with special effects and fancy editing. Meanwhile, the CGI companies the Big Six rely on are all complaining that they are being underpaid to the point where they are going bankrupt.

In short, a typical 21st-century short-sighted, stingy, all-eggs-in-one-basket business plan. When it inevitably fails, it will do so spectacularly.


And here's the problem with that: Teenage boys are the ones who can not afford expensive tickets. Especially if they're trying to impress a girl by paying for hers, too. (Do boys still do that?) So they appeal to the target market who is less and less able to afford their increasingly expensive product. Which isn't the end-all of entertainment, now that there are so many ever increasingly realistic games which can go on indefinitely and in which you can impress chicks by killing the zombies yourself.
 
2013-06-14 03:45:49 PM

namegoeshere: Cornelius Dribble: Remember when we were all told that the lower production and shipping costs of DCPs were going to make movies CHEAPER?

Lately, Hollywood's budgeting and marketing strategy seems to be to concentrate on movies that appeal to 16-year-old males (and perpetual adolescents of all ages, many of whom can be counted on to drag along compliant significant others), with scripts written at a fifth-grade reading level (to increase sales not only to the post-literate American public, but also in non-English-speaking foreign countries), while spending as little as possible on script and actors and replacing expensive sets and stunt performers with special effects and fancy editing. Meanwhile, the CGI companies the Big Six rely on are all complaining that they are being underpaid to the point where they are going bankrupt.

In short, a typical 21st-century short-sighted, stingy, all-eggs-in-one-basket business plan. When it inevitably fails, it will do so spectacularly.

And here's the problem with that: Teenage boys are the ones who can not afford expensive tickets. Especially if they're trying to impress a girl by paying for hers, too. (Do boys still do that?) So they appeal to the target market who is less and less able to afford their increasingly expensive product. Which isn't the end-all of entertainment, now that there are so many ever increasingly realistic games which can go on indefinitely and in which you can impress chicks by killing the zombies yourself.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-06-14 03:47:16 PM

Rubber Biscuit: The fanholes show up early to shiat on something that they haven't seen, based on a mediocre book they think would be filmable some other way.  The Weenerss here are from ITGs who have substituted ragging on this movie for their usual Weeners of "FIRST!"


i never tire of seeing the filters.
 
2013-06-14 03:53:54 PM

Mugato: I dunno, I still like the act of going to the movies. Even if there is the odd talker/texter, which again in my experience, I haven't seen in awhile. Theaters now don't put up with that shiat.


Maybe, but theaters ten years ago needed to be the ones not putting up with that shiat to keep my interest. At $10+ a ticket ("cheap" tickets at any nearby theater here are $9) and 20 minutes of advertising before we finally get to the 90 minutes of entertainment, I don't feel particularly compelled at this point to see if you're right.

For the cost of two people going to the movies anymore we can have a nice steak dinner at home and watch Netflix all night with a couple of beers instead. That's a hard bit of value to overcome, especially when my last experiences at the theater were less than stellar.
 
2013-06-14 03:55:25 PM

Leader O'Cola: Mr. Cat Poop: Plus, you can control the volume, pause the flick if you need to take a piss and snacks are cheaper.

Plus, you can notice I didn't bring those points of the debate into contention.


Leader O'Cola: Mr. Cat Poop: Plus, you can control the volume, pause the flick if you need to take a piss and snacks are cheaper.

Plus, you can notice I didn't bring those points of the debate into contention.


I was just adding bonus reasons to stick with your home theater. Movie theaters offer only one advantage and that's new release exclusivity. Let me download Man of Steel opening night, legally, for 10 bucks and I'll be all over it. Until then I'll be waiting for it to hit the second run $2 theater in a few months.
 
2013-06-14 04:09:46 PM

Okieboy: I just read WWZ, how the hell are they making that into a movie???  A BRAD PITT movie??  There's no character in the book to play, just short two or three page short stories from various people....


/I'll wait till it's on SPIKE then DVR it so I can skip the 100 or so commercials


It should have been made like a WW11 documentary, like it was written. Played straight, it would have been awesome. As usual, Hollywood has to fark up the wet dream.
 
2013-06-14 04:20:38 PM
NutWrench: Well, let's see what's playing at the local theater:

Man of Steel. Maybe


Please don't suck
Man of Steel 3D:     No Agreed
This Is The End:     No Micheal Cera dies, enough said.
The Internship:     No Fark no.
The Purge:     No Netflix
Now You See Me:     No It was cool.
Fast & Furious 6:     hell No Damn good movie.
After Earth:     Aww, hell no Ugh...
Epic:      And . . .  no. I liked it.

Must be "piracy" that's costing the studios all that money.

If the movie doesn't appeal to you that's fine but if you are not looking forward to Pacific Rim...get out.

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-14 04:33:31 PM

Carth: Leader O'Cola: Lando Lincoln: Leader O'Cola: enderthexenocide: and television screens are rapidly approaching theater screen size.

bullshiat.

Angle of view is pretty close.

80' screen, sitting 70' away from it
54" screen, sitting 10' away from it

where to start....
in your theater design distances there,
trigonometry dictates that the horizontal field of vision is ~55 degrees
(LMFAO!!!!!!, PS guess you don't work for THX)

but that aside, in your 'home theater' design,
trigonometry dictates that the horizontal field of vision is ~22 degrees

but yes, those are really "close comparisons"

I have a 110 inch screen that I sit 12 feet from. what is my field of vision?


assuming 16:9 (or very close to, as you know, matting, blah)
~36.8

you're spot on to THX design criteria.

thumbs up
 
2013-06-14 04:58:25 PM

namegoeshere: Cornelius Dribble: Remember when we were all told that the lower production and shipping costs of DCPs were going to make movies CHEAPER?

Lately, Hollywood's budgeting and marketing strategy seems to be to concentrate on movies that appeal to 16-year-old males (and perpetual adolescents of all ages, many of whom can be counted on to drag along compliant significant others), with scripts written at a fifth-grade reading level (to increase sales not only to the post-literate American public, but also in non-English-speaking foreign countries), while spending as little as possible on script and actors and replacing expensive sets and stunt performers with special effects and fancy editing. Meanwhile, the CGI companies the Big Six rely on are all complaining that they are being underpaid to the point where they are going bankrupt.

In short, a typical 21st-century short-sighted, stingy, all-eggs-in-one-basket business plan. When it inevitably fails, it will do so spectacularly.

And here's the problem with that: Teenage boys are the ones who can not afford expensive tickets. Especially if they're trying to impress a girl by paying for hers, too. (Do boys still do that?) So they appeal to the target market who is less and less able to afford their increasingly expensive product. Which isn't the end-all of entertainment, now that there are so many ever increasingly realistic games which can go on indefinitely and in which you can impress chicks by killing the zombies yourself.


Mentally, about 70% of American males are sixteen years old today.
 
2013-06-14 05:08:34 PM

skozlaw: Mugato: I dunno, I still like the act of going to the movies. Even if there is the odd talker/texter, which again in my experience, I haven't seen in awhile. Theaters now don't put up with that shiat.

Maybe, but theaters ten years ago needed to be the ones not putting up with that shiat to keep my interest. At $10+ a ticket ("cheap" tickets at any nearby theater here are $9) and 20 minutes of advertising before we finally get to the 90 minutes of entertainment, I don't feel particularly compelled at this point to see if you're right.

For the cost of two people going to the movies anymore we can have a nice steak dinner at home and watch Netflix all night with a couple of beers instead. That's a hard bit of value to overcome, especially when my last experiences at the theater were less than stellar.


Agree - I think this idea that theaters are getting better and don't put up with this shiat is a case of too little too late.  They're now getting burned because people have so many other ways of getting entertainment (and are willing to wait a couple of months to see movies)  I know in my case, it has to be a movie that will be a way better experience on the big screen than our 50" tv (The Avengers, etc.)

Even for Iron Man 3 - we waited a couple of weekends to go to the matinee so we might have a less-obnoxious group of people in the theater....
 
2013-06-14 05:08:36 PM
I will not see this movie. Why? Two words: DAMON FARKING LINDELOF.

That is all.
 
2013-06-14 05:35:25 PM

thurstonxhowell: Mugato: LOL, a "small" popcorn. Because popcorn is so expensive to make, they couldn't spring for a large.

Since the small is usually roughly the size of a toddler, maybe they just didn't want to spring for a U-Haul to carry the large in with.


No. I asked for a small once and it was the size of a toddler's sippy cup and only $.75 cheaper.
 
2013-06-14 05:37:36 PM
Man of Steel: Pretty good. Definitely a little too serious at times, and they never really show you who Clark Kent is, just Kal-El learning how to handle who he is. But Clark seems like way too blank of a slate. Kill Bill was absolutely wrong; Superman is Clark Kent, and Superman/Kal-El is who he pretends to be to save the world (which is the opposite of Batman). Action is pretty good, especially the villain chick, and the final Zod/Superman fight. Other stuff is too chaotic, and Snyder keeps zooming in/out when he really doesn't need to. Otherwise, it's almost as good as Batman Begins, but not quite as good as Iron Man 3. And no, it's not nearly as good as Donner's first Superman movie, even though they nail a lot of the fighting/action.

This is the End: Hilarious. Very, very farking funny. Can't discuss the best parts w/o spoiling too much. Definitely worth seeing in the theater, b/c A) the special effects are top notch and should be seen large, and B) it's good to laugh in a group sometimes.
 
2013-06-14 05:42:26 PM

skozlaw: If I had $50 to just completely waste for two hours I'd rather break it into ones, buy a 5 pound block of decent cheddar, eat it all at once, and use the remaining $25 to wipe my ass in intervals as it came out.


if you were in Canada, 50 bucks would just get you the block of cheese!
 
2013-06-14 05:55:54 PM
Can't help but think that every time someone posts, "I haven't been to the theater in 5 years," what they're really saying is "I haven't been able to fit into a theater seat in 5 years."
 
2013-06-14 06:24:13 PM

doglover: Wait, this might be a good idea. If you pay $50, maybe you can watch the secret good version that's true to the book on a little screen while everyone else gets to see Brad Pitt vs the CGI


'Brad Pitt vs the CGI" - genius!

/I'm going to call it that from now on
//
 
2013-06-14 07:04:12 PM
After reading the article, $50 is not a bad deal at all...at least not in San Diego.

Single movie ticket, free download, 3D glasses, movie poster and popcorn.

Now, consider that this is a movie you have wanted to see for a very long time without the emotions and you may actually find this a decent deal as well here in San Diego.

At least for people who would like to screen the movie for their 10-15 year old kids for appropriateness, then get the download and let the whole family watch.  All the other stuff is just extra but for me, this seems reasonable.

THIS movie, however, I will wait for blu-ray 3D to rent.
 
2013-06-14 07:07:12 PM
50 bucks for a movie?!? Hell nyet..

/It's the talkers I cannot abide.
//And there's always someone who talks during a movie.
 
2013-06-14 07:39:43 PM

Eagles409: How is this a $75 value or even a $50 value?

$10 for a ticket to the movie
$15 for a download of the movie in 6 months
$5 for a movie poster
$5 for a small popcorn
so those crappy plastic 3D glasses are worth $40? or even $15?

I don't think so.  I can wait the 6 months to see it for a $1... or not at all.


plus they want you to hand in the glasses, after you paid an extra 5 bucks or whatever.
 
2013-06-14 07:56:35 PM
Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of all these movies I'm downloading.
 
2013-06-14 08:01:21 PM

Harry Knutz: I will not see this movie. Why? Two words: DAMON FARKING LINDELOF.

That is all.


Bob Orci is an even bigger hack. And they do all the work for JJ Abrams, who does everything now.
 
2013-06-14 08:12:48 PM
The local drive-in is $22 for the carload including the $4 outside food fee (I bring healthy snacks and some beers with me), and that's for a double feature. Plus you're outdoors which is awesome compared to a typical movie theater.
 
2013-06-14 08:37:11 PM
I am convinced that the hollywood writers strike never actually ended.
 
2013-06-14 08:42:38 PM

Cornelius Dribble: Mentally, about 70% of American males are sixteen years old today.


You know, your average American male is in a perpetualstate of adolescence, you know,arrested development.
 
2013-06-14 10:37:30 PM
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-14 10:43:47 PM
fark no.

Ain't doin' it.
 
2013-06-14 11:45:34 PM
Who knows, movie tickets may cost that someday.  I will never pay that though.  I don't go to the movies but once every few years due to what they cost now.  Its not that I cant afford.  Its just that what they charge is offensive.
 
2013-06-14 11:58:26 PM

gfid: Decillion: Going to a movie is the most basic date night. Date night is not going away. People used to scoff at $15 tickets. You will go to $50 movies and you will like it.

Holy shiat - $15?

/haven't seen a movie in the theater since Shaft and I probably biatched about the price of that ticket - and look, I haven't been back.


You haven't been to a theater since 1971? You missed Star Wars. It was pretty cool.
 
2013-06-15 12:24:38 AM

Cork on Fork: Prank Call of Cthulhu: $50? Does that mean the girl at the popcorn stand is going to give out complimentary BJs?

Still seems expensive. Hell, a Z-Job only costs $15.


What's a ZJ?
 
2013-06-15 12:39:29 AM

FedExPope: Cork on Fork: Prank Call of Cthulhu: $50? Does that mean the girl at the popcorn stand is going to give out complimentary BJs?

Still seems expensive. Hell, a Z-Job only costs $15.

What's a ZJ?


Maybe it's a blowjob from a toothless zombie. I bet that would cost way more than $15, though.

// Unless you just pulled a used zombie out of the garbage and rinsed it off on the sink...
 
2013-06-15 12:46:51 AM
The bigger picture is that the dollar is going the way of the peso. $50 is the new $5, $20 is the new $2. Just add or take away a zero for conversion. You have our future market prices.
 
2013-06-15 04:54:09 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: $50? Does that mean the girl at the popcorn stand is going to give out complimentary BJs?


she likes it salty.

Seriously, though, there are parts of the UK where you can get blown for the equivalent of $50.
 
2013-06-15 05:04:31 AM
count_chimpula:As for the movie, it's at 80% on RT currently, with positives from both the Hollywood Reporter and Variety, both of whom have pretty good movie critics. It is funny to read people screaming about the 'canon' of the book being violated ha ha, like it was some Nobel prize winning material. I enjoyed the book, but there is no possible way that it could be made into a 2 hour movie as it was.

Okay, I agree with you that there is no way a 2 hour movie could have crammed all of the book into it.

But why so many unnecessary changes? Like the zombies being runners, the virus only taking 12 seconds to convert you into a zombie, etc. None of that stuff had to be changed to make an entertaining movie in the spirit of the book. If anything it's kind of insulting. That's a big part of why I don't want to see the movie. About the only thing it has in common with the book is the name only.

Thank the gods for Pacific Rim. Going to get atleast one badass action movie this summer.
 
2013-06-15 05:09:18 AM
Seems off topic, considering the thread, but every time I see the zombies scrambling over each other and making a path over the wall at the same time I get freaked out.

/won't see it. Don't need the nightmares.
//wuss... But fark 50$ tickets on principle.
 
Displayed 50 of 253 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report