He wasn’t able to accomplish his plan simply because there are not enough theaters equipped to handle it yet. Once there are, he will be able to impose a “No 2D” condition on a future film. The fact that he wanted to do so is the point, not that he failed to do so.
Would it kill you to read a web site? Their ticket price for half their theaters (including the biggest one in which I watched Invictus an hour ago) is $10. The ticket price to the “Cinema Suites” package is $25, with a $15 “Dining Voucher” - i.e. the same $10 ticket with a $15 compulsory food purchase. I think the luxury theater trend is moronic, and I’ll never watch a film in one of those. But I could if I wished. Unlike a 3D showing.
I’m thinking about going to the midnight IMAX showing, but it’s not listed as being in 3D. I don’t like 3D much (stupid glasses) and I don’t want to see 2D disappear either but this particular movie, I want to see it both ways. I’ll have to call to make sure the IMAX is 3D.
But seven people in a theatre is a terrible house for an opening night.
I sincerly hope you are underestimating the number of other people going to see the film. Unless I misunderstood, and you are getting a private screening because of your wife’s involvement in the film…
It reads to me as if he’s going with a group of 6 other people.
The existence of negative reviews doesn’t mean a thing as every film has its detractors. Casablanca. Pulp Fiction. GWTW. Chinatown. Godfather. Great films all, all with people who hate them/think they’re over-rated/don’t see the big deal.
I don’t think this thing is going to bomb, if that last sentence turns out to be true.
And and I know there are those who love to show off their lack of taste by saying “oh, if Ebert likes it, then I know I won’t” but it’s not going to matter.
Not that there aren’t “bad” reviews out there. Rotten Tomatoes has the movie at 88%, with 29 “Fresh” reviews and 4 “Rotten” reviews, but even the “bad” reviews praise aspects of the film (usually the special effects, of course), just as what happened with Titanic (which is at 82%).
Well, Ebert’s review tends to make me less interested in seeing it than I was before. (My disinterest is due to my habit of reading science fiction, thus being more than familiar with the plot since Le Guin wrote “The Word for World is Forest” and earlier. My sixteen-year-old daughter is looking forward to the film, but she is still wowed by special effects for their own sake.)
I am contrartian enough to want to be entertained by a movie, and not be bullied into fearing I am missing out on an “Event” that will be the topic of water-cooler conversations for weeks to come. I am apolitical enough to not want my entertainment to be a thinly disguised “Green and anti-war message.”
But don’t let my curmudgeonlyness keep you kids from going to the film. Enjoy.
(I missed the edit window, but I wanted to add that they are not going to miss my money. i am not a film-goer, so my opinion is not relevant. I don’t think I went to see a half-dozen films in the theatre in 2009, so I am not a demographic any film maker is courting.)
Well I picked that showing intentionally for the reason that it probably wouldn’t be packed. And no unfortunately my wife’s company didn’t get free screening passes.
I can’t tell whether the rest of your post was a joke or whether you were serious.
This is a stunningly stupid and insulting post. Had you read Ebert’s review you would have seen: *“Avatar” is not simply a sensational entertainment, although it is that. *
Although I don’t know what to make of the fact that you are “bullied” by his reviews into making movie watching choices.
But at least you have granted us “kids” permission to watch the movie even if you don’t. Thanks old timer, now back to sleep.
Heh, all good literature/film has a moral message. If you don’t want a moral message, then stick to crap. I am sure there are plenty of Komodos fighting Cobras out there.
You could see it as green and anti-war. I’ll prefer to see it as about the right to self-determination of sentient beings.
What are you on about? Ebert’s bolded quote is right up there for you to see what DrFidelius was commenting on. Ebert: “It is an Event, one of those films you feel you must see to keep up with the conversation.”
I can relate. I never saw Titanic in the theater nor on DVD for two years afterwards. Eventually I saw parts here and there until I’d seen the whole thing. I didn’t purposely avoid it to seem cool and counter-trendy, but I also didn’t feel like watching something I wasn’t that interested in just so I could rave about having watched it 20 times like most of my friends apparently did.
I have not seen such passion on both sides about a movie in years. One group does seem, as you say. angry that the film was made. Another group seems to feel this is the second coming of Citizen Kane, or that their personal well-being is connected to the success of the film.
It is fascinating to watch from the sidelines.
As I said, I have no interest at this time to see this film, although I might change my mind once it is released and people whose opinions I trust have seen it.
Well, my taste in films and knowledge of the filmmaking arts is only slightly above that of the average hairy-nosed wombat. I suppose ignorance of the finer points of the critic’s craft can come across as stupidity. Mea culpa.
But being told that I will not want to miss a film because all the cool kids will be talking about it later is bullying through predicted peer pressure. That approach does not work on me.
