Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by mattCR, May 23, 2012.
Battleship isn't in 3D.
It's funny, though, because a lot of shots looked like they had been composed for 3D. It almost looked like they were planning to shoot it in 3D and then someone decided, "forget it, there's no more room in the budget".
I thought it was okay. But story-wise, it was a little messy with character allegiances changing ("the enemy of my enemy is my not my enemy in this movie" logic going on). Showcasing 3 Joe's after the entire group was targetted for elimination by Zartan/President made for a smaller group of characters to follow, while they re-grouped to plan their "retaliation" for the attack on their lives. The remaining plotline had a cartoon feel to the story points. The ninja fight on the mountain side was pretty cool, though. For some reason, no matter if Walton Goggins is a good guy or bad guy, I don't really mind it if his characters get hammered.
I did see it in 3D, which wasn't too bad of an up-conversion.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
How do I add spoiler tags to hide spoilers? I don't want to piss off everyone who hasn't seen the film yet.
UBB coding seems to still work:
[ spoiler]spoiler text[ /spoiler]
(Just remove the space after the "[" open bracket.)
In a sign of everything wrong with math in this country:
Can someone do math? Roughly 80% of the theaters were in 3D. Add in IMAX and that number rises. But, only 45% of the grosses came from those 3D showings...
(Edit: BTW, I can't find the 2013 box office thread.. hmmm)
Yeah, it hardly seems worth it when only 45% of your gross comes from 80% of your screens. Seems to be pretty clear evidence that most of the audience prefers a traditional 2D presentation.
The fact is that 45% of the audience gave Paramount $3 or $4 more per ticket* than they would have if there was no 3-D version. That's still got to be a fairly substantial amount of money. Plus, I think 3-D is still a big deal internationally. Personally, I could care less if 3-D dissapeared tomorrow but you'll know it's dead when movies stopped getting released that way.
* Yes, I realize that the theater gets a cut of that, there's marketing, etc. but it doesn't change my main point.
But that makes this worse. If 80% of the theaters were in 3D, where more money came in (let's say for simple sake, $10 per ticket VS $7 a ticket for 2D)
If the gross was 45% from 3D screens when 3D screens had the advantage of charging more, than they really did terrible.
Let's look at it this way:
Screen A is 3D Screen B is 2D. Each seat 1,000 people. The 3D theater is $10, the 2D is $7.
In a sellout, the 3D screen is $10,000; the 2D is 7000.
If I have 100 screens (just keeping it simple) and 80% are 3D, that would mean: $800k from the 3D showings and $140k from the 2D showings..
But the 3D screens only made up 45% of the total.. so, how would that work?
So, if it was 1 to 1, it would mean 3D screens earned slightly less.. 45% to 55%. But in an 80% in favor of 3D, it means that the figures are horrible..
Total gross was $40M. 45% came from 3D showings.. or $18M. 55% came from 2D showings, or $22M. There were 3,000 screens that were 3D or IMAX 3D. So, per average: $6k per screen. There were ~900 screens that were 2D. That's $24k per screen.
There is no way these numbers can really be right, because if they are then 3D is a horrific money loser.
I don't care enough about this goofy movie to even attempt the math.
I'd go more "C-" or "D+". The story was nonsensical and the action was usually dull. I was ready for it to end about 1/2 an hour before it DID end. I didn't like the first "Joe" and this one didn't change my mind about the franchise...
Watched today. Horrible plot. Colin, for as much as you disliked Olympus, I may have disliked this more.
Two huge problems stuck with me at the end (along with a lot of smaller ones) but they would be:
(1) Ok, so the Zeus thing has a super heavy metal "spike" that just falls to earth like a meteor under it's own gravity based propulsion and because of it's super heavy mass the destruction is incredible. Great. So, if it's this super heavy... how did you rocket 90 of them into space (9 satelites each with 10 shots each he said). Wouldn't that take a ton of rocket launches of super powerful rockets?
(2) So turning them off causes them to auto-destruct? Now, outside of the explosions in space of something that doesn't have an atmosphere.. if the entire weapon works by just falling to earth because of it's super heavy mass, then isn't blowing them up the same as 'launching' them? Won't they just come dropping down to earth randomly now?
Outside of the super secret underground prison that is so far underground that it becomes international ground? (which how does that even make sense?) And if it's so hard to keep cool, what is up with the giant furnace to explode?
The action was pretty boring and the 3D effect was headache inducing with almost no benefit.
You do remember the sinking icebergs in the first movie, right?
The plot certainly was stupid but I thought the cast was ok or they at least kept me into the movie. The only action scene that I'd call great was the one on the mountain but I'm not certain I'd tell people to watch the movie for just this scene. I wasn't a fan of the original.
Hey, it was $5 day at the theater and I've seen everything else. ** (out of 4)
Took my kid to see this today. Dreadful. I expected they had some sort of story planned after the way the first one ended, but I was wrong. The action sequences were dull and poorly shot and edited. The mountain scene was the best part of the movie, but even then I kept hoping the girl's ropes would get tangled and there'd be some peril involved, but no.
I was just looking up other work by this director - He has 7 other projects under his belt - a short, two Step Up films, a dance tv series and related film, and Justin Bieber Never Say Never. Why the heck was he given a cartoon action film when he has a dance and music background??