Originally posted by: sciwizam
Why would you NOT go for IMAX?
Originally posted by: Regs
I went to go see it last night (after it all ready being out 3 weeks) and the theater was still full.
It was an excellent movie and Heath Ledger, I thought, gave one hell of a performance. I think that movie was his "break out" movie. Such a shame to see such a young good actor go since they're so little in Hollywood. As for Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, you can't get any more loveable supporting acting than them.
As for Maggie Gyllenhaal...did she snort a lot of coke or somethin? Her face looks like it's falling off.
The story was a little choppy at first, but quickly smoothed out once they introduced the new elements into the movie. I also loved how they "Created" a new character near the end. Gave the plot a little more juice for the ending.
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Why would you NOT go for IMAX?
aren't only a few scenes shot with IMAX cameras, such that the other 90% of the film has an effed-up aspect ratio for an IMAX screen? Assuming this is true, this is why I would certainly not pay to see it at IMAX.
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Man, nothing even comes close to Titanic...doesn't look good to hit the ~$601 million required to dethrone it...although considering all the other films, breaching $500 million would be a major accomplishment. If they could leave the movie in theaters for 9 months like Titanic enjoyed then I'd wager it could break the record, but that's not going to happen when they can be selling and renting DVDs and BluRays.
A lot of the other major blockbusters really start to fizzle out after the 3rd complete week...makes me wonder how long and strong TDK can keep going. Also, I wonder what the next major IMAX release is supposed to be - TDK may very well slow down in traditional theaters, but I could see it going strong in IMAX for months...looking it up, the next IMAX releases aren't until November (Madagascar 2 and Harry Potter), so who knows how much business TDK will be able to sustain...
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Man, nothing even comes close to Titanic...doesn't look good to hit the ~$601 million required to dethrone it...although considering all the other films, breaching $500 million would be a major accomplishment. If they could leave the movie in theaters for 9 months like Titanic enjoyed then I'd wager it could break the record, but that's not going to happen when they can be selling and renting DVDs and BluRays.
A lot of the other major blockbusters really start to fizzle out after the 3rd complete week...makes me wonder how long and strong TDK can keep going. Also, I wonder what the next major IMAX release is supposed to be - TDK may very well slow down in traditional theaters, but I could see it going strong in IMAX for months...looking it up, the next IMAX releases aren't until November (Madagascar 2 and Harry Potter), so who knows how much business TDK will be able to sustain...
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Why would you NOT go for IMAX?
aren't only a few scenes shot with IMAX cameras, such that the other 90% of the film has an effed-up aspect ratio for an IMAX screen? Assuming this is true, this is why I would certainly not pay to see it at IMAX.
there are these wonderful yet very old techniques known as letter boxing, pillar boxing, and cropping, none of which would 'eff-up' the aspect ratio...
when it comes down to it, the worst case scenario is a merely higher resolution/quality image per square unit of screen space...
A high quality IMAX setup will generally have a much brighter and more vibrant (as well as gihugant) screen as well as a much better surround sound system than even already really nice stadium seating digital projection theater setups
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Man, nothing even comes close to Titanic...doesn't look good to hit the ~$601 million required to dethrone it...although considering all the other films, breaching $500 million would be a major accomplishment. If they could leave the movie in theaters for 9 months like Titanic enjoyed then I'd wager it could break the record, but that's not going to happen when they can be selling and renting DVDs and BluRays.
A lot of the other major blockbusters really start to fizzle out after the 3rd complete week...makes me wonder how long and strong TDK can keep going. Also, I wonder what the next major IMAX release is supposed to be - TDK may very well slow down in traditional theaters, but I could see it going strong in IMAX for months...looking it up, the next IMAX releases aren't until November (Madagascar 2 and Harry Potter), so who knows how much business TDK will be able to sustain...
Dude they ran Titanic for 24+ weeks or otherwords 6 months. If they run Batman that long it will easily surpass Titanic.
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I would like to take this opportunity to rain on everyone's parade and say this movie was significantly overrated. Wish it weren't so but it most definitely is. I thought Iron Man was much better.
EDIT: Forgot to mention how fugly Gyllenhal is, DAMN
Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I would like to take this opportunity to rain on everyone's parade and say this movie was significantly overrated. Wish it weren't so but it most definitely is. I thought Iron Man was much better.
EDIT: Forgot to mention how fugly Gyllenhal is, DAMN
You're overrated.
