Pacific Rim (2013) (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Even if I've seen a movie in IMAX that wasn't great (like the latest Die Hard), I've still been very happy with the presentation. However, there's only two examples that I have seen where I would highly recommend spending the extra money for IMAX and that was Titanic and Pacific Rim. Both movies were really enhanced by seeing it on the biggest screen possible.

That being said, it's not worth a 600 mile drive.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I didn't see Pacific Rim in IMAX, though if I see it again, I will probably try to. I normally don't bother with blown-up IMAX movies, and I certainly don't bother with post-converted 3D. In this case, though, the 3D is kind of a hybrid (the live action was post-converted, but I believe much of the CGI was rendered in native 3D). And since Pacific Rim is a 1.85:1 film (rather than 2.40:1), it would take more advantage of the height of the IMAX screen.

And Tino is correct; the DMR process by which regular films are blown-up to IMAX has come a long way in the last few years.

 

[Edwin-S]

Only 600 miles??? And you call yourself a movie fan. Harrumph!

I know this will be hard to believe, but I actually did it once for one movie. I took the bus to Edmonton to see Hayao Miyazaki's "Princess Mononoke" I wanted to see that film on the big screen so bad and they wouldn't bring it to our local mulitiplex. The only place where it was still playing at the time was a theatre near the Edmonton university. When I walked into that theatre, I stood there and looked for a bit. All I could think was, "damn, I'm in a real theatre like the ones I used to go to as a kid": a big auditorium with a single widescreen; old style theatre curtains and red curtains along the walls. It had a curved balustrade at the back that led to the aisles. It was great. I know.....crazy, right?......but it was worth every dime to me. The movie was good too. I wonder if the theatre is still there? I haven't been back to Edmonton in years. The last time was when a friend and I watched the Edmonton Oilers play in their last Stanley Cup appearance. We watched that game at a biker bar that looked like a dive. The people were all good though. Hell, the owner even brought in free pizza for everyone in the place. A good time was had by all....even though the Oilers lost.

Even if I've seen a movie in IMAX that wasn't great (like the latest Die Hard), I've still been very happy with the presentation. However, there's only two examples that I have seen where I would highly recommend spending the extra money for IMAX and that was Titanic and Pacific Rim. Both movies were really enhanced by seeing it on the biggest screen possible.

That being said, it's not worth a 600 mile drive.

Ha. You guys are making me want to see it in IMAX now.

 

[Edwin-S]

I didn't see Pacific Rim in IMAX, though if I see it again, I will probably try to. I normally don't bother with blown-up IMAX movies, and I certainly don't bother with post-converted 3D. In this case, though, the 3D is kind of a hybrid (the live action was post-converted, but I believe much of the CGI was rendered in native 3D). And since Pacific Rim is a 1.85:1 film (rather than 2.40:1), it would take more advantage of the height of the IMAX screen.

And Tino is correct; the DMR process by which regular films are blown-up to IMAX has come a long way in the last few years.

Oh. Maybe that would make all the difference. The film I saw was 2.35:1, so the top and bottom of the screen wasn't used. Would it be worth going to see Pac Rim in 3D? The Kamloops showing that I saw was an early one. It was the 2D version. I think it still might be playing in 3D at my local 'plex.

 

[Malcolm R]

PR used 100% of the IMAX screen at my showing. There were no "unused" parts of the screen.

 

[Edwin-S]

PR used 100% of the IMAX screen at my showing. There were no "unused" parts of the screen.

Yes. I have seen the movie, but for some reason I was thinking it was shot 2.35:1. Bryan Tuck pointed out that it is 1.85:1. At that ratio it would use up a lot more of the screen vertically, than the one film that I saw in IMAX which was shot at 2.35:1. Pacific Rim probably would look pretty good on an IMAX screen. It's too bad that I can't see it in an IMAX theatre and check it out for myself .

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

The chances of a sequel just got a boost with the huge opening in China (assuming Warners can actually get the money from them):

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/28009/big-chinese-opening-for-pacific-rim

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Xie xie!

 

[Lord Dalek]

(assuming Warners can actually get the money from them):

Yeah that ain't happening (mind you, they still suffer at least a 25% hit trying to get that money out of the country).

 

[Edwin-S]

What am i missing here? A 38 million dollar opening day domestically is disappointing, but a 9 million dollar opening day in China, suddenly warrants a sequel to be made? 9 million in NA would be considered a disaster.

 

[Tino]

From that deadline article:

momentum is building for a Pacific Rim sequel based on the international box office for the Legendary Pictures/Warner Bros summer tentpole. The latest development is the 3D sci-fi actioner’s Wednesday opening in China to a record-breaking $9M from an estimated 5,700 digital 3D screens, 117 digital 3D IMAX screens, and 22 China Giant Screen sites. That’s a new high for any Warner Bros release and 23% bigger than for any Harry Potter film including 3D Harry Potter 7B. Pacific Rim grossed a huge 70% of the Top Five market share there. This is after the pic broke through to become the #1 film internationally on July 19-21 as it rolled out into less than half the global territories. Pacific Rim releases in Spain, Brazil and Japan on August 9th. The result is that screenwriter Travis Beacham (who had the original idea which also resulted in Legendary’s homegrown graphic novel) and co-scribe/director Guillermo del Toro’s film will likely have a sequel. No one is yet saying this movie is going to turn a profit due to the high cost of its Industrial Light & Magic CGI which sent the budget to $180M-$220M. Unfortunately, U.S. theatrical sales are not expected to exceed $100M all in so overseas coin was crucial. But international was always a big part of Pacific Rim‘s strategy in a crowded summer marketplace. Through Tuesday, the pic’s foreign cume is $144.7M from 52 territories and its worldwide total is $229M

 

[Tino]

What am i missing here? A 38 million dollar opening day domestically is disappointing, but a 9 million dollar opening day in China, suddenly warrants a sequel to be made? 9 million in NA would be considered a disaster.

It opened to $37 million over three days domestically, not one. It's first day gross was $14.5 million.

 

[DaveF]

I really enjoyed Pacific Rim, but this is not a movie I need a sequel from.

 

[Edwin-S]

It opened to $37 million over three days domestically, not one. It's first day gross was $14.5 million.

That info makes it even more perplexing why a 9 mil China opening would warrant greenlighting a sequel. It was 9 mil from 5700 screens. That doesn't seem like much on a per screen basis.

 

[Freddie Z]

It's now Warner Bros. biggest opening in China.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/08/05/pacific-rim-is-bigger-than-the-dark-knight-rises-in-china

It's foreign cume is now $200M. With 3 more countries left to open (including Japan), it should reach if not surpass $400M globally.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Caught an IMAX 3D showing on Saturday. Good, not great. (The two 8-year-olds with us loved it.) I did like how the extra gag was halfway through the credits instead of at the very end.

My opinion on the viability of a sequel is entirely dependent on whether the sequel is any good.

 

[Freddie Z]

Having seen Pacific Rim in IMAX 3D and regular 2D, I prefer the 2D version. The action scenes benefitted from regular 2D as they didn't look as blurry and darker. I think this is a movie that would have done better at the box office if the studio allowed Del Toro final say in what dimension it was to be presented (which was 2D). However, I also think that if this film was decided from the start to be in 3D, I think this is a case where 48fps would be better suited for the type of action that was in this film.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

IMO 48fps is better suited for *any* 3D production.

 

[Tino]

IMO 48fps is better suited for *any* 3D production.

Yup

 

[Quentin]

Has there ever been a major blockbuster type of movie where one country out-grossed U.S. boxoffice?

China receipts now surpass the U.S. and will continue to grow. $400m worldwide is not a HUGE hit, but enough to get us a sequel.