Weekend Official Estimates: SA 53.2m, PP 14.4m, TL 13.8m, MMFR 13.6m, AOU 10.9m, Aloha 10m

[CJohn]

Damn you, Jim. Congrats on the 14 likes. I posted this same gif yesterday. Shoulda posted it in here instead of the CC thread...

 

Pretty salty, but the salinity will drop throughout the evening...

I gave you my like there as well  

[Mango]

Damn you, Jim. Congrats on the 14 likes. I posted this same gif yesterday. Shoulda posted it in here instead of the CC thread...

Pretty salty, but the salinity will drop throughout the evening...

Haha, Enjoy this like as a consolation.

[DeeCee]

Too bad, the first half of TL was actually pretty good, IMO. Very Steven Spielberg-ish. But as soon as they step foot on TL is where it quickly falls apart.

I'll find out this afternoon. I'm going to squeeze in a screening before my footy teams on TV.

[Travod]

Think we'll get an evening update, or just wait for numbers at midnight PST?

[Jack Nevada]

I gave you my like there as well

This is way funnier

 

[Michael Gary Scott]

Aloha is actually fairly decent. The first 30 minutes are pretty bad but the last hour and fifteen minutes are actually quite good. It's not overly funny except when John Krasinski in on screen and there is one hysterical moment that was really well done. Not a great film but far from bad.

As for Crowe, he wrote Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Wild Life and directed Vanilla Sky, Jerry Maguire and Say Anything. He'll always have a free pass in my eyes because of this.

Almost Famous my favorite film og all time

[Michael Gary Scott]

Saw PP2 and MMFR today a good double feature

[Dementeleus]

Saw PP2 and MMFR today a good double feature

Lady power!

[Jandrew]

So I have to agree with Baumer. I'm sorry, but: San Andreas was more thrilling than Mad Max. San Andreas actually raised my blood pressure. Maybe because it was more realistic and seeing 800 foot buildings roar and topple on a huge screen just impacts me more than sexy fights in a desert or in a large tornado, which I'll never see in real life. Not to slight Max, its still the better movie, but San An is the better ride to me.

 

Speaking of San Andreas. It was cliched to the heavens, and had your typical disaster movie story, acting, and character problems, but Jesus Christ, what a thrill ride. I love how they make buildings sound like they roar like a lion when they crumble. That is a movie I'll enjoy watching over and over and over on FX for years to come. Why pay all that money for a theme park, when I could pay $8 to see that? Didn't even see in IMAX, but the screen and sound still did justice. San Andreas almost turned into a horror movie it was so in your face with the destruction.

 

And my family actually liked it! Didn't even have to ask. I thought all the human suffering was gonna make my mom a little uncomfortable, but first thing she said when we got in the atrium was "I really liked that." My dad said it was pretty good, too. Which means he loved it, considering his grading range is literally "corny" to "alright." Brother loved it too. 

 

And I got through it headache free, so I'm set to get back to Max next week. Check San Andreas out guys. It's not the deep, emotional Oscar drama, no, but damn is it a good thrill that can easily get your nerves in a bunch. 

Edited May 31, 2015 by Jandrew

[Travod]

[baumer]

I don't think you have to apologize for liking San Andreas.  It followed a formula for a reason, because that reason works.  I could name every movie they paid homage to or ripped off or whatever.  The eerie music was right from Armageddon and Titanic, the disaster scenes might as well have been directed by Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay and the smart science guy was right out of every disaster movie....and I fucking loved every minute of it.

[4815162342]

 Maybe because it was more realistic 

 

Gonna have to stop you right there.

 

The earthquakes in the film are physically impossible due to the San Andreas fault being a "slip fault" as opposed to a "subduction fault." The highest you could potentially get for that particular fault is an 8.2 or so on the Richter Scale, as opposed to the ones in the 9 range in the film.

 

And before you say "well 8.2 and 9ish isn't that big a difference," a difference of 1 on the scale is a 10-fold difference in shaking intensity and over 31 times more energy released.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Numbers of Westeros

[DeeCee]

A dust storm not to far from that swept through Sydney once. The winds weren't as strong but the dust was very thick.

[baumer]

Gonna have to stop you right there.

 

The earthquakes in the film are physically impossible due to the San Andreas fault being a "slip fault" as opposed to a "subduction fault." The highest you could potentially get is an 8.2 or so on the Richter Scale, as opposed to the ones in the 9 range in the film.

 

And before you say "well 8.2 and 9ish isn't that big a difference," a difference of 1 on the scale is a 10-fold difference in shaking intensity and over 31 times more energy released.

 

But you aren't really supposed to get that detailed about it.  Michael Bay covered that on the Criterion Collection Armageddon DVD.  He said he knows that you can have an explosion in space, but it's so much more fun to have one.  He made Armageddon to be fun, no scientifically accurate....I'm sure you can say the same thing about San Andreas.

[The Futurist]

Well all know what was the best VFX in San Andreas, don t feel ashamed.

We re just wired that way.

 

[4815162342]

But you aren't really supposed to get that detailed about it.  Michael Bay covered that on the Criterion Collection Armageddon DVD.  He said he knows that you can have an explosion in space, but it's so much more fun to have one.  He made Armageddon to be fun, no scientifically accurate....I'm sure you can say the same thing about San Andreas.

 

baumer I'm not attacking the film for being unrealistic, I am negating Jandrew's claim that San Andreas was a more realistic film than Mad Max.

[baumer]

baumer I'm not attacking the film for being unrealistic, I am negating Jandrew's claim that San Andreas was a more realistic film than Mad Max.

 

Yes, ok.  My bad.  

[The Futurist]

Gonna have to stop you right there.

 

The earthquakes in the film are physically impossible due to the San Andreas fault being a "slip fault" as opposed to a "subduction fault." The highest you could potentially get for that particular fault is an 8.2 or so on the Richter Scale, as opposed to the ones in the 9 range in the film.

 

And before you say "well 8.2 and 9ish isn't that big a difference," a difference of 1 on the scale is a 10-fold difference in shaking intensity and over 31 times more energy released.

 

In maths , I think the Richter scale is exponential if I am not mistaken so yes going from 8 to 9+ is huuuuuge.

The biggest earthquake ever recorded I think was the one in Chile in 1950 which was a 9,2.

 

And the earthquake that caused the massive tsunami in 2004 in Indonesia was also one of the most powerful one.

Edited May 31, 2015 by The Futurist

[baumer]

In maths , I think the Richter scale is exponential if I am not mistaken so yes going from 8 to 9+ is huuuuuge.

The biggest earthquake ever recorded I think was the one in Chile in 1950 which was a 9,2.

 

According to the movie, it was a 9.4 in Chile.

[4815162342]

Yes, ok.  My bad.  

 

No problem. Disaster films are the films where realism matters the least. Pretty much nothing that happened in Day After Tomorrow or 2012 could ever actually happen, but that didn't stop me from thoroughly enjoying the movies.