Avatree

Only?! That's like almost one a week. I've seen 20-something films so far which is more than any year before. I only really got into the cinema last year. Before last year, I saw 3 films max at the cinema per year. 2012 was just Skyfall and The Dark Knight Rises (I think), for instance. I'd love to go every week but it's just so much money. By the end of the year I'll have gone over 30 times, and it feels like I'm there all the time!

Damn. I thought I could do all 100, but I ended up a bit short. If I made it 100 then the last few would be a bit arbitrary. So here are 75 To make up for the missing 25, all of these guys are in order! (Though I may have messed up on one or two) 1. Mitch Hewer 2. Chris Hemsworth 3. Matt Davis 4. Ian Somerhalder 5. Tom Cruise 6. Chris Pratt 7. Douglas Booth 8. Zac Efron 9. Colin Farrell 10. Orlando Bloom 11. Benedict Cumberbatch 12. Lee Pace 13. Luke Evans 14. Stephen Amell 15. Ryan Guzman 16. Daniel Gillies 17. Heath Ledger 18. Chris Pine 19. Colton Haynes 20. Channing Tatum 21. Paul Wesley 22. Matt Lanter 23. Joseph Gordon-Levitt 24. Michael Malarkey 25. Nicolaj Coster-Waldau 26. Johnny Depp 27. Matt Bomer 28. James Franco 29. Jared Leto 30. Bradley Cooper 31. Robert Downey Jr. 32. Robert Pattinson 33. Charlie Hunnam 34. Tom Felton 35. Chris Evans 36. Dave Franco 37. Brad Pitt 38. Joseph Morgan 39. Simon Baker 40. Austin Butler 41. Hayden Christensen 42. Andrew Garfield 43. Chace Crawford 44. Ewan McGregor 45. Sebastian Stan 46. Michael Trevino 47. Justin Timberlake 48. Leonardo DiCaprio 49. Taylor Lautner 50. Kellan Lutz 51. Stephen R. McQueen 52. Taylor Kitsch 53. Tom Hardy 54. Alex Pettyfer 55. Ed Speleers 56. David Tennant 57. Ben Affleck 58. Zach Roerig 59. Gerard Butler 60. Karl Urban 61. Zachary Quinto 62. Hugh Grant 63. Drake Bell 64. Aaron Eckhart 65. Ben McKenzie 66. Taylor Kinney 67. Jamie Dornan 68. Sam Claflin 69. Tom Hiddleston 70. Henry Cavill 71. Hugh Laurie 72. Viggo Mortensen 73. Jeffrey Dean Morgan 74. John Barrowman 75. Jason Isaacs

I assume they have to be alive, right? Need to know if I can include Heath Ledger...

You'll have to wait for me to reveal my set of gorgeous boys they're unquestionably actors so it sounds good. :3

Great I just have a couple of actors who are really not very well known at all or don't have anything other than a role in a couple of seasons of an unknown TV show

Kalo, do the actors have to be movie stars? Can they be TV actors, including lesser known ones? I may spend a few hours on this tonight =)

Was that comment aimed at me? Because I don't disagree; I wasn't saying that in order to make great films they should slow down the production rate.

I don't really agree. If they can pump out 2 new IPs a year and make one good and one barely break even (or even lose them money), then they will write the bad one off, and make 4 more films, a TV show and a toy line out of the other. In theory that's a pretty decent business model, in my honest opinion. In reality, clearly something is going wrong since they are making so little profit, but I like the way they produce movies. Yes, it means they produce a lot of rubbish films, but it also means we get a lot of good franchises.

Gravity opened with $5 million on Friday but $36 million weekend? Do they even have Friday in China?! Death... by exile.

Penguins will do fine, nothing amazing, particularly domestically, but I am not too worried about it. As for the next two years, they have a couple of new properties out each year and those are rarely "worth getting excited about" when there's so little info. One tends to hit while the other misses. In 2015, Home and BOO don't look particularly amazing (though I think Home could connect with kids pretty well) but one of them will likely be able to launch a franchise. They also have Kung Fu Panda 3 which will do well. Same thing goes for 2016 - two new films, one of which will probably fail and the other will do great. Nothing to be "excited" about but again, DW rarely has something you should be excited about.

THE WORLD IS ENDING.

If these numbers turn out to be correct - why is it getting such a big drop from OW? This should not be getting near a 50% drop, it's an adult oriented film and it's not based on existing material.

More people need to watch Pride. Only made $1.4 million domestic and that's a crime. It's absolutely hilarious (yet manages to retain its strong message and themes, handling them with sensitivity yet poking fun at everything).

If you mean "eh" as in, "I am stating something, eh?", I don't think that's specific to Canada. I still cannot fathom how America has a drinking age of 21 it should be 18 at the absolute max, imo should be 16... ...but hey, this is a weekend threat and we aren't on topic.

I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't like Jim Carrey. He gets on my nerves and if he's in a film then I will avoid watching it. Admittedly I haven't seen him in any dramatic roles, but his comedies are just not funny. He drives me up the wall. Eh, well you're half way there better than Americans!

Huh, didn't know that. Is it only the US that has all these silly words, like color, theater and drive-thru? I had always assumed Canada uses English the same way that the US does. You may have changed my entire perspective on life.

Couldn't stand Neighbors, didn't see Ride Along, but 22 Jump Street was fab. Love the chemistry between Tatum and Hill, it feels so genuine. Also, out of curiosity: you're in Canada but you wrote "Neighbours". Do Canadians spell that word the proper way, with a U?

Interstellar will actually get a boost thanks to great word of mouth, good midweeks and Christopher Nolan's amazingness. It will still win the weekend with $75 million.

Agreed. The world is what impressed me about the film, not the performance capture.

1. Moon 2. Rise of the Planet of the Apes 3. Super 8 4. Under the Skin 5. Avatar 6. Revenge of the Sith 7. Vanilla Sky 8. Star Trek 9. Her 10. Chronicle 11. Looper 12. Cloverfield 13. Source Code 14. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 15. K-PAX 16. Inception 17. Dredd 18. War of the Worlds 19. Paul 20. Star Trek Into Darkness 21. Pacific Rim 22. Perfect Sense 23. Attack of the Clones 24. The World's End 25. Transformers Note that these are judged based on what they were designed to achieve. I don't think that Avatar is a more thoughtful film than Her, for instance.

Oh dear. If the people making this film genuinely think that Playmobil is anywhere near as well-loved as Lego then I worry for their mental health. The fact that it was a good film certainly helped, but an original animated film from a less popular animation studio doesn't get a $69 million opening weekend just like that. Its main selling point was that it was Lego - the most iconic toy in the world, loved by virtually everyone in the western world. This Playmobil film could get 100% on RT and it would probably still fail. The best bit about this is that its budget is bigger than that of TLM's, hehe.

Okay, thanks. I know Tele has said that IMAX has its own filters but is the change in picture quality noticeable? Thanks for replying and explaining, both of you =) Edit: just noticed my question has already been answered.

Working on my list at the moment. Struggling to think of 25 great modern sci-fi films (I know they don't all have to be amazing, but I don't want to be in the position of using mediocre films to fill out the 25)! Also a bit unsure whether to add something like The World's End to the list, given that it's mostly a comedy with sci-fi elements as background. I know comedy and sci-fi are far from mutually exclusive but still.

Thanks for the replies. I can see that IMAX-shot footage is much higher quality! But what I'm asking is, since most films with IMAX only have parts that are shot with IMAX cameras, is it just a larger screen for the rest of the film? For example, Star Wars Episode VII has one scene shot in IMAX, and will be available to watch in IMAX / IMAX 3D. Does this mean that (if watching in a real IMAX cinema) the film will suddenly become much higher quality for that one scene, but just be identical to the regular film for the rest of it? The Dark Knight Rises had like 50 minutes, I understand - so again, is it just those 50 minutes that are better in IMAX? And for films that aren't shot with IMAX but are showing in IMAX cinemas, isn't the resolution just worse, given the increased size? Films can look "blurry" enough (not the right word but I'm tired, can't think!) in 4K at a normal cinema, let alone on a massive screen. I'm so clueless about film display

I don't quite understand this LieMAX stuff; I hadn't heard of it before today. Is IMAX not just a bigger screen? I don't really understand how film works but I thought all movies are shown (and shot) digitally nowadays, and I can't imagine that IMAX cinemas get exclusive access to higher-resolution movies. I think I can wrap my head around the idea that sections of films shot with IMAX cameras are better quality in an IMAX cinema, but that's only for a small amount of the film. For the majority of a film, isn't it just the same as normal, but bigger? I don't see the difference between an IMAX cinema and a fake IMAX cinema when they both show the same film. Sorry for sounding stupid