Monday #s - TLJ 21.6M

[IronJimbo]

2 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Cameron better have come up with something new on the tech side because theaters aren't jumping back in bed to retro-fit their screens and lenses and upcharge on already expensive tickets.  China and overseas may go for it, but the domestic market isn't going to do it again.  

Jim promised to “push” innovation in service of storytelling in his Avatar sequels as he accepted an honorary membership in the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/james-cameron-promises-innovation-avatar-sequels-as-hes-feted-by-engineers-942305

 

Jim had this to say about HDR technology.

"Seeing a film that everybody knows, but seeing it in HDR in 3-D with proper light levels on a Dolby Vision laser projector—it’s really a glimpse of the future. . . . We had the whole film remastered in HDR, and it’s stunning. It’s beyond 70 millimeter, it’s beyond any format that you’ve seen before". 

 

"Obviously the [new] Avatar films will be [in Dolby Vision] as well, and in fact, we’re also going to do a conversion of Avatar to HDR. We’ll re-release that at some point down the line.”

He's really excited about this new technology and is going to use it with the Avatar sequels.

 

Jim has talked about shooting the action scenes in higher frame rate, but keeping other scenes 24fps.

 

Jim has innovated a new underwater motion capture technique which he is already using in production of the sequels.

http://collider.com/avatar-sequels-underwater-filming-explained-james-cameron/

" Well, we’re doing it. It’s never been done before and it’s very tricky because our motion capture system, like most motion capture systems, is what they call optical base, meaning that it uses markers that are photographed with hundreds of cameras.

[YSLDC]

-44% from Sunday
20% increase from last Monday.

Edited December 19, 2017 by YSLDC

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Cameron better have come up with something new on the tech side because theaters aren't jumping back in bed to retro-fit their screens and lenses and upcharge on already expensive tickets.  China and overseas may go for it, but the domestic market isn't going to do it again.  

Even now that it is Disney telling them to do so  ?

 

But yes, fully agree for Avatar 2 to be anything Avatar level close (that would be what doing 4 billion or more when it will get out to compare to Avatar 2.7b in 2009), I think something new has to be there, glassless and better 3D for example and I imagine 3D in a never seen in a mainstream affair level of underwater scenery.

[EmpireCity]

2 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Jim promised to “push” innovation in service of storytelling in his Avatar sequels as he accepted an honorary membership in the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/james-cameron-promises-innovation-avatar-sequels-as-hes-feted-by-engineers-942305

 

Jim had this to say about HDR technology.

"Seeing a film that everybody knows, but seeing it in HDR in 3-D with proper light levels on a Dolby Vision laser projector—it’s really a glimpse of the future. . . . We had the whole film remastered in HDR, and it’s stunning. It’s beyond 70 millimeter, it’s beyond any format that you’ve seen before". 

 

"Obviously the [new] Avatar films will be [in Dolby Vision] as well, and in fact, we’re also going to do a conversion of Avatar to HDR. We’ll re-release that at some point down the line.”

He's really excited about this new technology and is going to use it with the Avatar sequels.

 

Jim has talked about shooting the action scenes in higher frame rate, but keeping other scenes 24fps.

 

Jim has innovated a new underwater motion capture technique which he is already using in production of the sequels.

http://collider.com/avatar-sequels-underwater-filming-explained-james-cameron/

" Well, we’re doing it. It’s never been done before and it’s very tricky because our motion capture system, like most motion capture systems, is what they call optical base, meaning that it uses markers that are photographed with hundreds of cameras.

 

That is all great and everything, but unless he has come up with something you can use on existing projectors and screens that doesn't cost more money (or has a very small investment) theaters aren't going to do much for this.  

 

In 2009 theaters were happy to upgrade because it wasn't only for Avatar.  It was the prospect that 3D was going to be a revolution that Avatar would be the the worst quality and everything would get better from there.  Well, the reality is that Avatar is the best 3D ever got, studios used conversion as a gimmick, the light levels sucked, people hated paying more and wearing glasses and 9 years later you have 3D essentially dead.  If studios didn't require theaters to take it on some level it would already be dead. 

[redfirebird2008]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

Even now that it is Disney telling them to do so  ?

 

But yes, fully agree for Avatar 2 to be anything Avatar level close (that would be what doing 4 billion or more when it will get out to compare to Avatar 2.7b in 2009), I think something new has to be there, glassless and better 3D for example and I imagine 3D in a never seen in a mainstream affair level of underwater scenery.

 

I can't stand the current version of 3D, but I would be willing to give it a shot with a "no glasses" version. Not that I would want to watch movies this way all the time, but I'd probably give it a chance more often. Right now I am 2D all the time.

[Brainbug]

3 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

That is all great and everything, but unless he has come up with something you can use on existing projectors and screens that doesn't cost more money (or has a very small investment) theaters aren't going to do much for this.  

 

In 2009 theaters were happy to upgrade because it wasn't only for Avatar.  It was the prospect that 3D was going to be a revolution that Avatar would be the the worst quality and everything would get better from there.  Well, the reality is that Avatar is the best 3D ever got, studios used conversion as a gimmick, the light levels sucked, people hated paying more and wearing glasses and 9 years later you have 3D essentially dead.  If studios didn't require theaters to take it on some level it would already be dead. 

 

I wish 3D would be dead here in Germany. I despise it, it adds nothing to the experience except making it more expensive.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Brainbug

[IronJimbo]

6 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

That is all great and everything, but unless he has come up with something you can use on existing projectors and screens that doesn't cost more money (or has a very small investment) theaters aren't going to do much for this.  

 

In 2009 theaters were happy to upgrade because it wasn't only for Avatar.  It was the prospect that 3D was going to be a revolution that Avatar would be the the worst quality and everything would get better from there.  Well, the reality is that Avatar is the best 3D ever got, studios used conversion as a gimmick, the light levels sucked, people hated paying more and wearing glasses and 9 years later you have 3D essentially dead.  If studios didn't require theaters to take it on some level it would already be dead. 

Well he seems to believe HDR is the future, he's raised the technological bar before he can do it again.

 

Anyone here catch Titanic 20th anniversary re-release? It was in this new HDR format... didn't get the re-relase here in the UK

Edited December 19, 2017 by IronJimbo

[FlashMaster659]

1

(1)

Star Wars Ep. VIII: The Las…

Walt Disney

$21,556,373

-58%

4,232

$5,094

$241,565,957

4

[EmpireCity]

1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

Well he seems to believe HDR is the future, he's raised the technological bar before he can do it again.

He thought 3D was the future and he was absolutely wrong.  Hilariously wrong actually.  

[Porthos]

Just now, EmpireCity said:

He thought 3D was the future and he was absolutely wrong.  Hilariously wrong actually.  

Well, not so wrong that it hasn't gone away completely.  Distributors are still flogging that nearly dead horse.

 

Probably have Alice in Wonderland to blame for that more than Avatar, though.

[JonathanLB]

People certainly have the right to an opinion but I find it laughable - to me - that you could say 3D adds nothing. For IMAX 3D it adds everything. I refuse to watch TFA in 2D, to me it looks like shit because I know what it should look like and that ain’t it. Same with Avatar, it’s unwatchable in 2D. It just loses all of the luster for me. In 3D it’s gorgeous and beautiful. If you can’t appreciate the difference that’s fine but proper 3D, which is IMAX or active home 3D, are amazing. It’s only RealD that sucks and makes movies actually worse by darkening the image and making it impossible to see contrast sometimes. THAT is what should die. Not beautiful home 3D or IMAX 3D  It’s fine if you hate it, whatever, but to want there to be fewer options in the marketplace and to say it’s not better seeing in 3D versus 2D is a bit odd.

[Poseidon]

9 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

He thought 3D was the future and he was absolutely wrong.  Hilariously wrong actually.  

It could have been a part of the future, but even Cameron is helpless when it comes to greedy studiobosses. 

 

Still, with decent Quality, 3D Percentages grew even in the not so recent past. The Martian had some pretty decent 3D share if I remeber correctly.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Poseidon

[That One Girl]

I watched The Last Jedi in 2D and don't feel like I missed anything

[Lancelot Gold]

2 hours ago, Lor San Tele said:

 

Bonapa keesa. Tolpa da bunky na booty cha naga o wanna meete chobodda.

[EmpireCity]

2 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

People certainly have the right to an opinion but I find it laughable - to me - that you could say 3D adds nothing. For IMAX 3D it adds everything. I refuse to watch TFA in 2D, to me it looks like shit because I know what it should look like and that ain’t it. Same with Avatar, it’s unwatchable in 2D. It just loses all of the luster for me. In 3D it’s gorgeous and beautiful. If you can’t appreciate the difference that’s fine but proper 3D, which is IMAX or active home 3D, are amazing. It’s only RealD that sucks and makes movies actually worse by darkening the image and making it impossible to see contrast sometimes. THAT is what should die. Not beautiful home 3D or IMAX 3D  It’s fine if you hate it, whatever, but to want there to be fewer options in the marketplace and to say it’s not better seeing in 3D versus 2D is a bit odd.

 

Right, but that is sort of the whole philosophical argument or question here.  3D is a niche product going forward.  It holds about the same weight as 70mm at best, something only a very few number of theaters can do financially correctly.  

 

It is fine and great if it can stick around, but in the context of Avatar 2 it either better have some new and cheap mindblowing glassless 3D or it better make sure it works as a 2D movie because theater owners are not going back to the well for 3D again.  

 

Same thing with HFR, they tried it multiple times now and nobody gave a shit.  It can also exist as a niche market, but overall whatever Avatar is going to be needs to fit with current equipment or require a very small upgrade.  

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

If you can’t appreciate the difference that’s fine but proper 3D

Proper 3D has yet to come, there is a inherent issue with the human brain that all system (that I know) have,  focusing distance and eye converging distance are not the same, something that does not exist in the real world and that many brain do not like.

 

There is better and worst 3D out here, but proper 3D has yet to come and by quite a lot, if it stay popular and upgrade, people watching 2120's 3D will find ours ridiculous and unwatchable.

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, EmpireCity said:

It is fine and great if it can stick around, but in the context of Avatar 2 it either better have some new and cheap mindblowing glassless 3D or it better make sure it works as a 2D movie because theater owners are not going back to the well for 3D again.  

 

And it was what, at least the third 3D hollywood crazy, 50s, early 80s, and 2008 to 2013 or so, was it the biggest ? I can see the next one to stick and stay someone relevant if it is glassless, does not reduce brightness, no speed issues..... otherwise could go as it went the previous time 3d movie had some peak popularity.

[Agafin]

40 minutes ago, hw64 said:

I'm using actual admission data - a lot of overseas markets track admissions. Again, using the example of the UK, Avatar's ticket prices were 4.6% above the yearly average for 2009, but ticket prices as a whole have increased so much that the average ticket price in 2017 is over 20% greater than Avatar's average anyway. The same is true (but not to such a great extent) of a lot of other overseas markets.

 

Average ticket price in 2009: £5.44

Average ticket price for Avatar: £5.69

Average ticket price in 2015: £7.21

Average ticket price for TFA: £7.25

To the best of my knowledge, the UK doesn't track admissions. Those numbers are definitely incorrect though as there's no way that a movie like Avatar whose business was largely driven by 3D would have a ticket price which is under 5% of the average. In pretty much every country where grosses and admissions are available (Japan, Germany, France etc), Avatar's ticket prices were 20 to 50% higher than the average.

[Biggestgeekever]

Coco dropped 20% more than Moana did back in 2016, showing just how much of an impact the schools still in session had yesterday. It's kind of wild how much of a difference there with just a single day shift. Guessing the number of schools out will match 2016 by Wednesday.

[a2k]

13 minutes ago, FlashMaster659 said:

1

(1)

Star Wars Ep. VIII: The Las…

Walt Disney

$21,556,373

-58%

4,232

$5,094

$241,565,957

4

we truly are fortunate for having asgards. asgard1 gave us 21.5 well before deadline's 21.8.