The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Cafe Society

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-03-2012, 11:18 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
So the new Hobbit movie is out (pre-screening) for reviewers and celebrities. Anyone seen it?

Heard some radio hosts (Opie and Anthony with Jim Norton) talking about the screening they saw the other night. They saw it in a new High Frame Rate D format and said it looked amazing.

Any dopers see it yet?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 12-03-2012, 11:42 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Yes, I am a celebrity. I own a mansion and a yacht.

no, actually, I'm not, and I haven't.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-03-2012, 11:48 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 27,191
One of our vendors has invited me and some of the senior staff to see a private screening of the movie next week. That's the closest I get to being a celebrity.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-04-2012, 12:22 AM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
From Aintitcool.com:

Quote:
And therein lies the potential problem with the next two movies. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY runs a healthy 160-plus minutes, and more than half of it is filler. Worse, I know goddamn well there's not 320-minutes worth of story left. Not even close. If I felt like Jackson was attacking this book with the all-in bravado he brought to THE LORD OF THE RINGS (and setting up more than Tolkien's book delivers), I'd forgive the bloat. But the listlessness of AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY reminds me of the slow boat to Skull Island in KING KONG. We're adrift. So please, Mr. Jackson, wrap this up, and get the hell out of Middle Earth. This is beginning to feel more like cartography than storytelling.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-04-2012, 01:05 AM
squeegee squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Gilroy CA
Posts: 8,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
From Aintitcool.com:
What an evil fortune. And I am already wary.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-04-2012, 01:09 AM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
What an evil fortune. And I am already wary.
Honestly, I have not found aintitcool reviews to all that accurate. They are mostly exercises in impassioned fanboy wankery.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-04-2012, 02:32 AM
squeegee squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Gilroy CA
Posts: 8,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
Honestly, I have not found aintitcool reviews to all that accurate. They are mostly exercises in impassioned fanboy wankery.
Sure, but that's no reason not to bust a Gandalf quote. And I am already wary.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-04-2012, 02:54 AM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
Honestly, I have not found aintitcool reviews to all that accurate. They are mostly exercises in impassioned fanboy wankery.
True, but they generally err to the side of over-enthusiasm. A negative review from them, especially for such a geeky movie, is troubling.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-04-2012, 03:11 AM
GuanoLad GuanoLad is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 20,029
Not only have I not seen it, but it doesn't get released in Australia until two weeks after the rest of the world. The entire rest of the world! They all get to see it on December 14th, and Australia gets it on that busy movie cinema-going day (not), December 26th. The day after Christmas.

I do not understand the madness.

Re: the AinItCool review, though - I liked PJ's King Kong (and cannot sit through the original). I have no problem at all with the setup time before we see Kong himself, I think it was well paced and works wonderfully. I stopped visiting AICN years ago because of their irritating nth degree nit-picking, poorly written articles, and arrogant assumption that they spoke for geeks everywhere, instead of the tiny subset of a subset that they actually do. Their time in the spotlight is long since over and they should now be ignored.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-04-2012, 03:21 AM
Carmady Carmady is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
It's not like we needed to be told that there isn't nearly enough story for 2 films, let alone 3. And we already knew it would be mostly "filler", using the definition of "story not based on the book."

The entire idea of this new trilogy is to spend half the time on a movie original Radagast sidequest. We just have to hope it is good.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-04-2012, 03:59 AM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuanoLad View Post
Re: the AinItCool review, though - I liked PJ's King Kong (and cannot sit through the original). I have no problem at all with the setup time before we see Kong himself, I think it was well paced and works wonderfully.
Myself, I thought the movie could have easily been an hour shorter. Jackson wouldn't know "tight" if you gave him a wedgie.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:06 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
So, it is Star Wars Prequels all over again.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:36 AM
Monkey Chews Monkey Chews is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Review in the Sydney Morning Herald here. It's pretty positive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuanoLad View Post
Australia gets it on that busy movie cinema-going day (not), December 26th.
Are you kidding? I always head to the cinemas on boxing day, and they are always packed. My sister and I saw the 3 Lord Of The Rings movies on Boxing Day - first session of the day - and always had to make sure we booked our tickets in advance, as most sessions were sold out. Looking forward to continuing the tradition with The Hobbit, although it is going to be hard to resist reading too much about them after the rest of the world has seen them.

Might go and see Les Miserables in the evening too. Assuming there's a session after the Doctor Who Christmas special has finished on ABC. And that I'm not too drunk and sunburnt.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:08 AM
GuanoLad GuanoLad is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 20,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Chews View Post
Are you kidding? I always head to the cinemas on boxing day, and they are always packed. My sister and I saw the 3 Lord Of The Rings movies on Boxing Day - first session of the day - and always had to make sure we booked our tickets in advance, as most sessions were sold out.
That's because it's the debut of a highly anticipated movie, not because it's the right day to release it.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:40 AM
Grumman Grumman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuanoLad View Post
That's because it's the debut of a highly anticipated movie, not because it's the right day to release it.
I agree with this. If Australian cinemas insist on shoving an entire month's worth of big movie releases onto one day (we have to wait for Wreck-It Ralph too), of course it's going to be busy.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:05 AM
Monkey Chews Monkey Chews is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Oh yeah, fair enough. I was just expressing incredulity at the notion that Boxing Day wasn't a "busy movie cinema-going day". I do like the tradition though.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-04-2012, 07:53 AM
C K Dexter Haven C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 16,081
160 minutes? Oh, Lordy. AND the DVD will have "extended scenes." Someone needs to reign Jackson in. Sigh.

It won't be as bad as STAR WARS prequels, no matter what, because at least there will be an underlying interesting story line with great episodes (the novel is, after all, episodic.)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-04-2012, 08:17 AM
GuanoLad GuanoLad is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 20,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Chews View Post
I was just expressing incredulity at the notion that Boxing Day wasn't a "busy movie cinema-going day".
On reflection, I think this is the same thought the distributors have: "Boxing day is really busy when we release the big blockbuster everyone was waiting for, so let's continue the tradition." Instead of the more logical thought of: "It doesn't matter what day we release it, this is the biggest movie of the season, whenever we show it they will come."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-04-2012, 09:57 AM
Rollo Tomasi Rollo Tomasi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Some more reviews, all of them mildly positive (except maybe the Hollywood Reporter one) with pretty much the same complaints as the Ain't It Cool Review:

Variety
The Hollywood Reporter
Hitfix

The 48fps shooting style seems to be a huge point of contention, with some loving it (after taking about a half hour to get used to it) and some absolutely loathing it.

Last edited by Rollo Tomasi; 12-04-2012 at 10:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-04-2012, 10:09 AM
well he's back well he's back is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
I am an LOTR book geek & surprisingly loved the Jackson LOTR movies. But I fear I will hate this. They should never have been so blinded by the $ signs that they expanded a small book into 3 huge movies. My daughter is already talking of taking me to the film as a treat. I hate to tell her that I dread seeing it.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:23 AM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
I'm such a Tolkien geek that Jackson could probably film the calendar appendix of LOTR and I'd go see it, so I'm just fine with an expansion to three movies. Can we make it six and film the Silmarillion (by which I mean the portion that's actually titled The Silmarillion of the book released as The Silmarillion)?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:38 AM
Telperion Telperion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
I'm such a Tolkien geek that Jackson could probably film the calendar appendix of LOTR and I'd go see it, so I'm just fine with an expansion to three movies. Can we make it six and film the Silmarillion (by which I mean the portion that's actually titled The Silmarillion of the book released as The Silmarillion)?
I think it would be fine if they had actually set out to make a movie version about the story of the Silmarils, but based on the descriptions so far it sounds more like they took all the travel details they had to cut out of LOTR and stuffed them into this movie instead.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-04-2012, 02:27 PM
lisiate lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
I'm such a Tolkien geek that Jackson could probably film the calendar appendix of LOTR and I'd go see it, so I'm just fine with an expansion to three movies. Can we make it six and film the Silmarillion (by which I mean the portion that's actually titled The Silmarillion of the book released as The Silmarillion)?
I bet you're wishing this wasn't satire. The comments are priceless.

I'm withholding any judgment until I see the film, but as I said back in the Radagast threat, I doubt whether Jackson and Boyens are good enough writers to raise any extra storyline above a mediocre standard at best.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-04-2012, 02:39 PM
Kinthalis Kinthalis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
48 FPS rules, 24 FPS drools! Suckers!

Ok, so I was looking forward to this movie a LOT. I even coerced some cow-workers (who hate 3D and think 48 FPS is the end of cinema) to come along to the premier with me.

But ever since watching the commercials/trailers for it... I don't know, several times my eyes just glazed over and I got sleepy. From a trailer! It seemed so boring and generic for some reason and all of a sudden. And this is from someone who loves fantasy movies and loved the original LOTR films.

I'm so meh about the movies that the only reason I'm going now is because I made plans to go and for the 48 FPS
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-04-2012, 03:41 PM
Qadgop the Mercotan Qadgop the Mercotan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 22,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by well he's back View Post
I am an LOTR book geek & surprisingly loved the Jackson LOTR movies. But I fear I will hate this.
Chill. Have some lembas. Try some of the cordial of Imladris.

It's only a movie. It won't change one line that the perfessor wrote.

I think it'll be cool to see what PJ's vision of The Hobbit and the appendices look like. It was a blast watching his LOTR films. I didn't agree with everything he did, and found some of his choices silly, and indicative that he just didn't understand JRRT as well as I did, but it was still fun.

The Hobbit flicks will be the same for me. Good or bad, I'll always have the books.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:02 PM
well he's back well he's back is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Thanks Qadop; I needed that.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:32 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 49,491
Despite some nitpicks, I really enjoyed the LOTR film trilogy, and have a lot of confidence in Jackson for a Hobbit trilogy. I'll see it soon after it opens, I'm sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
I'm such a Tolkien geek that Jackson could probably film the calendar appendix of LOTR and I'd go see it, so I'm just fine with an expansion to three movies. Can we make it six and film the Silmarillion (by which I mean the portion that's actually titled The Silmarillion of the book released as The Silmarillion)?
Seconded! Just take a look here, to get the ball rolling: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=668570
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:40 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 40,083
I'm not noticing any mention of it being part 1 of a trilogy anywhere in the television, radio or print ads.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:43 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir
Despite some nitpicks, I really enjoyed the LOTR film trilogy, and have a lot of confidence in Jackson for a Hobbit trilogy. I'll see it soon after it opens, I'm sure.
Well, if you liked it, who can argue??

(I enjoyed the films, though was disappointed in some of the things that I thought were important but were missing, or some of the things that they did that were changes that I didn't see the point of. Like Qadgop said though, still have the books, so doesn't really matter)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-04-2012, 07:02 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 23,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
I'm such a Tolkien geek that Jackson could probably film the calendar appendix of LOTR and I'd go see it, so I'm just fine with an expansion to three movies. Can we make it six and film the Silmarillion (by which I mean the portion that's actually titled The Silmarillion of the book released as The Silmarillion)?


Just six? I’d see a Jackson Tolkien film every year for the rest of my life. There must be enough material for that.

And yes once you know the true story, rather than just the little bit Bilbo saw, there’s plenty of story for three films. Hell, more.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-04-2012, 07:45 PM
tellyworth tellyworth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumman View Post
I agree with this. If Australian cinemas insist on shoving an entire month's worth of big movie releases onto one day (we have to wait for Wreck-It Ralph too), of course it's going to be busy.
December 26th has consistently been the busiest cinema day in Australia for decades.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-04-2012, 08:03 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by tellyworth View Post
December 26th has consistently been the busiest cinema day in Australia for decades.
Seems likely. After all, family's in town, and you've been smiling at each other for what, two, three days now, and the house is getting pretty crowded? Somebody's gonna take the family out of the house or a certain mom is gonna explode.

That's my theory, anyway. Also why bars do such great business the day after Christmas.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-04-2012, 08:04 PM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
I feel like I've said this before, but the series will not just be "the Hobbit." In the book, Gandalf mentions that he mysteriously has to go. He ends up fighting "the Necromancer" (Benedict Cumberbatch; also Smaug). Gives them opportunities to put in the other wizards. Elijah Wood is also slated, so either that's a flashback or a coda-type thing.

ETA: see some of that in the Variety review. Hmm...

Last edited by thelurkinghorror; 12-04-2012 at 08:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-04-2012, 09:48 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 49,491
Also reappearing from the LOTR series:
SPOILER:
Christopher Lee as Saruman and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, for a meeting of the White Council; Ian Holm as the elderly Bilbo; and Orlando Bloom as Legolas. And Hugo Weaving returning as Elrond, of course. I hope we'll see a young Aragorn, er, Estel at Rivendell, too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I'm not noticing any mention of it being part 1 of a trilogy anywhere in the television, radio or print ads.
No, it just has the subtitle, An Unexpected Journey.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-04-2012, 10:20 PM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
As long as the unimportant ones get cameos, but aren't shoehorned into the plot. I kinda hope the portray Legolas as a complete jerk to the dwarves.

Also, Crixus as the orc/goblin Azog. And Billy Connolloy!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-04-2012, 10:28 PM
GuanoLad GuanoLad is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 20,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by tellyworth View Post
December 26th has consistently been the busiest cinema day in Australia for decades.
Even if that's true, it doesn't have to be the release date.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:58 PM
jackdavinci jackdavinci is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
I bought tickets for the 14th but I'm not even sure what we're seeing. I got the IMAX 3D tickets but it didn't specify which frame rate it would be at. Does anyone know?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-05-2012, 12:05 AM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdavinci View Post
I bought tickets for the 14th but I'm not even sure what we're seeing. I got the IMAX 3D tickets but it didn't specify which frame rate it would be at. Does anyone know?
List of IMAX theaters that will show The Hobbit in High Frame Rate 3D
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-05-2012, 07:57 AM
C K Dexter Haven C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 16,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan View Post
I think it'll be cool to see what PJ's vision of The Hobbit and the appendices look like. It was a blast watching his LOTR films. I didn't agree with everything he did, and found some of his choices silly, and indicative that he just didn't understand JRRT as well as I did, but it was still fun.
At the same time, I thought a few of his choices were unexpected and brilliant -- such as the marking of the orcs with the white hand. I have trepediations that THE HOBBIT trilogy will be too long and thus boring (altho' a New Zealand travelog will still be enjoyable to watch), but I'm certainly going to see them. And buy the DVDs when they come out. I agree, the movie is never the same as the book, nor could it be, but it can be an enjoyable experience on its own.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-05-2012, 09:39 AM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
From Aintitcool.com:
This accords pretty much perfectly with what I have predicted about the films in the past, except that it seems to characterize the LOTR films positively, whereas I (though I originally liked them) think that the LOTR films are really, really bad. The Hobbit films are going to be worse.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 12-05-2012, 09:39 AM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 7,339
Stories are starting to come out that the 48fps is making people sick:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/p...-sick/1742247/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/short...plain-sickness
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-06-2012, 09:20 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
This accords pretty much perfectly with what I have predicted about the films in the past, except that it seems to characterize the LOTR films positively, whereas I (though I originally liked them) think that the LOTR films are really, really bad. The Hobbit films are going to be worse.
So let's say you're the director. How would you have approached presenting LOTR on film?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-06-2012, 09:42 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 17,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan View Post
Chill. Have some lembas. Try some of the cordial of Imladris.

It's only a movie. It won't change one line that the perfessor wrote.

I think it'll be cool to see what PJ's vision of The Hobbit and the appendices look like. It was a blast watching his LOTR films. I didn't agree with everything he did, and found some of his choices silly, and indicative that he just didn't understand JRRT as well as I did, but it was still fun.

The Hobbit flicks will be the same for me. Good or bad, I'll always have the books.
Totally agree. I didn't like all his choices but on its own merits LOTR is one of my favorite movie(s). It adds or takes away nothing from the books.

WTF? Only 2 in the state?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-06-2012, 10:57 PM
Baker Baker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tottering-on-the-Brink
Posts: 14,811
You're lucky to have two. My state has only one!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-06-2012, 10:59 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baker View Post
You're lucky to have two. My state has only one!
As does mine. Admittedly, mine's probably closer than many other people's are to them, but it's still a good hour, hour and a half away.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-07-2012, 12:22 AM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
8 hours in state, 3-4 hours out of state.

Last edited by thelurkinghorror; 12-07-2012 at 12:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-07-2012, 12:29 AM
Eyebrows 0f Doom Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post

WTF? Only 2 in the state?
Surprisingly, New York only has one! And unfortunately it's not the real IMAX at Lincoln Center, but one of the "fake" IMAX screens.

IMAX vs IMAX Lite (Link has an image showing the difference in size between the Lincoln Center screen and the smaller IMAX screens. It's pretty amazing, the Lincoln Center screen is about 4.5 times bigger!)

Last edited by Eyebrows 0f Doom; 12-07-2012 at 12:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-07-2012, 12:01 PM
DMark DMark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
Surprisingly, New York only has one! And unfortunately it's not the real IMAX at Lincoln Center, but one of the "fake" IMAX screens.
Same in Las Vegas - showing at the Red Rock Casino movie theater at the "fake" IMAX. We went to see a film in IMAX there once - what a rip off - screen is not really any larger than the largest screen of any multiplex and it was a waste of money to pay extra. If you have ever been to a "real" IMAX, you will never settle for these rip offs again.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-07-2012, 12:18 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 17,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
Surprisingly, New York only has one! And unfortunately it's not the real IMAX at Lincoln Center, but one of the "fake" IMAX screens.

IMAX vs IMAX Lite (Link has an image showing the difference in size between the Lincoln Center screen and the smaller IMAX screens. It's pretty amazing, the Lincoln Center screen is about 4.5 times bigger!)
I'm pretty sure both are IMAX lite in NJ. But at least it's not that far.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.