reel perspectives - Latest Comments

Re: Forget rising ticket prices, where have all the showtimes gone?

Carson Patrick — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 04:37:41 -0000

Don't mean to be "that guy," but there is an explanation to this.

Granted, I haven't worked at the movie theater in over 2 years, so who knows. Things may have changed. But, those earlier showtimes are always eliminated during the off seasons (September-early November and January-April) because the demand for them is deemed to be "not enough." And even if they suspect a demand, they'll only include the early showings on the weekends. Although to be completely honest, the reasoning of the Esco theater management mainly came down to getting to sleep in instead of waking up balls early.

You're right though, you're not alone, people like watching movies early. I remember we had an 8:15 am show of Pirates 3 for opening day and close to 100 people showed up. I personally don't like seeing movies early, but the demand is definitely there. And it does make more sense to only have those early showings during the more popular seasons (summer and Thanksgiving/Christmas), but I think if given the option, people will show, no matter what the timeframe. Especially, senior citizens, they always love the early matinees. They're pretty much all who show up on a weekday afternoon in the middle of January.

So, in summary, yes, I agree with you. More early showtimes!

Re: Is Discovery Channel reinventing the reality series with The Colony?

Lisa — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:34:26 -0000

Great review of The Colony and it's real life application in time of a disaster, I expecially enjoyed your reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment. I'm part of a team that has created an online simulation where Colony fans can take part in the social experiment themselves, by seeing what would happen to their family and friends if the Nuclear Flu were real. Check it out at www.jointhecolony.com

Re: FlashForward: ABC’s new time paradox

Christopher Schnese — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:57:28 -0000

The way I see it, the only real option they have is to hold to the "you can't change the future" method or "in tying to change the future you actually caused it". As you mentioned, if they changed the future then they can't have that flash forward.

Then again, depending on your concept of time travel, the argument could be made (albeit VERY poorly) that the rules for seeing the future and the rules for changing the past are completely different. By this I mean it could be argued that you can't change the past because it's already happened. While the future can be changed because the "vision" is really just one possible outcome of the future.

Personally, I believe that if one can travel backwards in time, then that proves the existence of a continual timeline. Which means that people ahead on that timeline could travel back to the first persons point.

So... the only way I think the time paradox can be reconciled is if the main character becomes aware of this. Then begins to leave clues for himself in the future so that they can be given back to himself in the present. There is the slightest hint of this when he puts the photographer's photo of the burnt doll on the board. Since he used the clue of the photo to figure out they should investigate the doll factor, then he need to put it on the board so he'll have it in the future to be able to let himself know in the past.

The film Time Crimes portrayed this concept very well. You have to make sure that everything happens in the exact same manner. If they main character understands this and begins to leave clues for his future self, then I might be able to go a little easier on the show.

Re: FlashForward: ABC’s new time paradox

mr t — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:01:14 -0000

i don't think the time-theory of the show works because of the paradox - but i think they'll get away with it.

there are two main problems with the paradox etc. as it stands after 2 episodes

firstly, the paradox of the self-fulfilling board of leads - where does the information come from?

secondly, in the future, fbi-guy should know that he is about to get shot - what is he doing there!?

time travel shows have to be based on one of two principles, either you can change whats going to happen or you can't. flashforward is mixing its drinks at the moment...but it might be short-lived.

if you can't change the future, then everyone who had a vision (rather than nothing) is invincible. you could fire a gun at their head and it would be impossible for the gun to go off - because they have to survive. even if you tried killing them 1000 different ways, you'd be thwarted every time because its certain that they're going to be alive in the future.

lets assume they're not going with that time-theory - there's already some evidence for it. unless the daughter of the main character (benford) is going to keep making him friendship bracelets, then he's already changed the future. so from that we can presume that the characters will change the future and that benford won't be in his office on his own waiting to get shot at the time of the flashforward...

so what was the flashforward then? it is definitely a snapshot of a future in which a flashforward event had happened, but that event could not have been for the same future-time as the flashforward we have been shown, otherwise benford wouldn't be in his office waiting to get shot, and FBI-boss would be on the toilet. so either through deep-thinking by writers, or by oversight, the only working theory is that the flashforward is of the future of a parallel universe where things went along a similar path, but not the same path. in that universe they would have had a flashforward of an another universe - maybe one in which a flashforward had happenned, maybe not - who knows. thats the only way to solve the paradox.

the 'warning' theory which goes like "the path you're on will lead to this future, now go and change it" doesn't quite work because the flashforward event is included in the future - if you're able to change it then you wouldn't have just seen what you've just seen!

the thing that will keep me interested in the show is seeing how they tackle this issue as they approach the time of the flashforward. if they've changed everything by that time then will they wonder what it was that they saw in the first place?

Re: FlashForward: ABC’s new time paradox

Christopher Schnese — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:06:40 -0000

Obviously the average person, being boring and mundane like we all are, wouldn't be waiting for the pointless event that they had flashed forward to, but you're right. Anyone who had experienced an event such as... oh I don't know, being gunned down while staring at a board of mysteries you couldn't solve, might try and avoid staring at said board.

Re: FlashForward: ABC’s new time paradox

Metanome — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:26:55 -0000

How come no-one in the future was waiting for the moment they'd had a vision of 6 months earlier? Surely you'd be thinking "This is the date when I had my Flash Forward" and if something bad happened in the vision, alter it. But then would the vision change accordingly?

Re: FlashForward: ABC’s new time paradox

Christopher Schnese — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:11:49 -0000

Yeah, we could probably go on forever about the absurdity of the plot. I guess I could kind of buy the fact that the government might be concerned that "someone cause this", but I'm pretty sure that scientists would be the first ones investigating. Not any agency. You know, unless the FBI reopened the X-Files...

I think the worst thing about the show is that most people didn't even have a vision of anything bad. Maybe there is some greater conspiracy, but no one in the general population should or would be able to figure that out. It may be a scary / religious experience to some people, but it's not like everybody had a Heroes-style vision where the world blew up or anything like that...

Re: FlashForward: ABC’s new time paradox

John Heltsley — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:56:38 -0000

Yeah, the causality loop can be a cliche, but I didn't see it as too big of an issue, really. I had more of a "problem" with the whole "the entire world blacks out for 2 min 17 sec, and the FBI chooses to investigate this, and is given the power to do so. But more than that, it's only 3 agents from LA that are doing it." Wouldn't you have it run out of DC? Maybe not by the FBI, but a joint-task force? And certainly more than just 3 agents?

Regardless, I liked the premise of the show, and it gave me enough that I'll tune in next week.

Re: Should all CG films go 3D?

Christopher Schnese — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:09:19 -0000

I'd love to see that test footage. As I said in my post, "9" was just begging for it to be presented in 3D.

How does the Legend Films process compare to what PIXAR is doing with Toy Story 1 & 2? From what John Lasseter told the Wall Street Journal their process from the Original source was able to be cranked out super fast ("...We've always been making 3D films, we've just been looking at them with one eye closed..."). It's sounds like Legend Films does a more hands on, manual conversion.

Re: Should all CG films go 3D?

Barry Sandrew — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:21:02 -0000

Chris, Actually there is an awesome 3D conversion test of "9" produced by Legend Films (http://www.legendfilms.com). Unfortunately Focus Features requested the test less than two months prior to the 9/9/09 release date. Consequently, there wasn't enough time for Legend Films to convert the whole film. Given another 2 to 3 weeks and it could have been completed. The test is going to be screened for the first time at the 3D Summit on Wednesday, 9/16/09.

Re: My concern about the 3D in Avatar

Nathaniel Keifer — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:00:33 -0000

Yup, I agree with that. Here's to hoping that the 3D effects haven't been finished yet...

Re: My concern about the 3D in Avatar

Christopher Schnese — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:39:53 -0000

One would hope, but I have a feeling it is going to be the way the final one would look too.

It's not completely terrible and it isn't going to ruin the film for me, but this is supposed to be the best possible example of both 3D and CGI. If they're going to hold it as setting the new standard, it's only fair that I judge it by the same standards.

Re: My concern about the 3D in Avatar

Nathaniel Keifer — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:25 -0000

Hopefully it's just the fact that it's a trailer and the final version will be better...?

Re: Transformers 2 TV spot proves the studios don’t care

Melatoninmg — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:27:39 -0000

Transformers movie rocks. i am a fan of Transformers ever since childhood. Now i have three kids and they all like the Transformers cartoon series and the Movie.

Re: Transformers 2 TV spot proves the studios don’t care

Nathaniel Keifer — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:47:11 -0000

HAHA! That's great!

Re: How an audience ruined my film experience

Christopher Schnese — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:33:35 -0000

haha, I can see how that could make things... less than enjoyable. But in theory, you could have moved to another seat and (provided there wasn't another couple in that area) changed the experience.

In my case, it was the theater as a whole, not small groups of people, that screwed up the experience. It also wasn't them being annoying, obscene, or disruptive. It was then just not getting the film and projecting that out like some strange "point-missed" hive mind.

There was no seat in that theater I could have moved to that would have made the experience any better.

Re: How an audience ruined my film experience

Kerry — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:17:27 -0000

i've had worse... we went to see valkyrie back around christmas time and there was two high schoolers behind us marking out the whole time... and then she started giving him a hand job under his gym shorts and he had his hand up her shirt. pg-13 in front of us, nc-17 behind us.

now i won't go to a movie that is not rated R unless it is like a 10 oclock showing.

Re: How an audience ruined my film experience

jake zander — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:31:52 -0000

there was a guy with a similarly aged child at the showing of Underworld: Rise of the Lycans that I went to... it was really retarded

Re: How an audience ruined my film experience

Jo2u — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:11:14 -0000

As I mentioned to you the other day...THIS is exactly why I tend to wait and view films via Netflix. Don't get me wrong...I'll still go for the midnight show of the new Harry Potter, because the audience really becomes part of the movie experience. For the most part, though...I'll just stick with watching movies in the comfort (and quiet) of my own home.

Re: How an audience ruined my film experience

Christopher Schnese — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:20:46 -0000

Yeah, I could tell with some of the parents there that Obsessed was probably not the worst film they were taking their kids to...

Re: How an audience ruined my film experience

Christopher Schnese — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:19:00 -0000

It's so weird how sometimes the audience experience can make the film just that much better, but other times it just kills it.

When I saw Coraline (and even Monsters vs Aliens), the reaction of the kids amazement made it just that much more cool because I could feel their awe at what they were seeing.

This just sucked!

Re: How an audience ruined my film experience

Amanda B — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:39:58 -0000

That's absolutely horrendous! I am appalled that so many parents would take their children to see that film anyhow...talk about a complete decay in decency in the general public. I really hope you (and the rest of us) never experience anything like that in the future!

Re: How an audience ruined my film experience

Stephen — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:34:08 -0000

A similar thing happened to me when I saw Vicky, Christina, Barcelona (the Woody Allen movie). Not that it's not supposed to be a comedy (like most of his movies, it's funny-sad), but the audience was terrible. It was obviously made up of older people who were familiar with Woody Allen when they were younger, and just ready to laugh and laugh and laugh. So every line, even the most serious, devastating, or completely unimportant line, was met with howls of laughter which would drown out the next three lines. I have no idea if I liked the movie or not.

Re: A good ‘bad film’ vs a bad ‘good film’

Hammy — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:43:29 -0000

I know what you mean. When you watch Push or Crank High Voltage you kinda get in a mood for something not too serious and you get exactly that. But when you watch Seven Pounds you kinda get in the mood for something profound and when it fails to deliver it sucks. I think this is what you mean!

Re: A good ‘bad film’ vs a bad ‘good film’

Stephen — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:20:07 -0000

I think a lot of it is less about the film and more about the filmmaker. A movie doesn't just exist in a vacuum, it was made by someone, for a particular reason. When we judge a movie, we judge a) is good in its own right, but b) what was the filmmaker intending to do with it? Plenty of movies pass with flying colors in both criteria (see: Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, etc.) The ones you are apologizing for are all B.

Movies that are knowingly terrible and thrive in their terribleness, can be hilarious to watch. It's as if you were friends with the director, and he told you "watch, I made this movie purposely bad. The producers are going to be pissed, but they can't do a thing." You'd laugh your ass off, because you're not viewing it just as a movie, but as a means to an end for the creator. Without that aspect, it's like trying to judge a joke by only listening to the punchline; even though the punchline is what brings the laughs, the context is what makes it funny.