Pariah Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Ranxerox said: What about the MCU changed your opinion about that? VIPER is great. VIPER is great! Its just that until the MCU, I could never take Hydra seriously as a threat to the world. And Cobra's pretty good too, I suppose. But I still like VIPER best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 YO, JOE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Ranxerox said: the things they are calling plot-holes aren't in fact plot-holes The term "plot hole" is going the way of the word "literally", losing its original meaning in favor of a colloquial (mis-)usage that has gained immense cultural momentum thanks to the power of millions of people normalizing the solecism. But that's an entirely different bugaboo, perhaps for a different thread... My issue with Endgame's time travel isn't the so-called plot holes it creates, but rather the glossed-over questions of ethics vs. pragmatism. When your script establishes the notion of infinite timelines with infinite variations of the reality that the protagonists (and thus, the viewers) experience, I feel there is a narrative duty to do a better job of explaining the consequences of interacting (interfering?) with those timelines. It leaves those of us in the Nerd Tribe with too many nagging questions for which there are no satisfying answers because the writers chose not to place any importance on providing any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 I liked that Endgame took the relatively bold step of turning the usual time travel trope on its head in order to have the Avengers travel through time with the express purpose of changing the past (slightly). As for the nerdrage about plot holes--yes, time travel equals endless logical inconsistencies and moral dilemmas. It's why time travel isn't my favorite type of SF and why I especially dislike it in sloppily written Trek. But Feige & Co. did their best to set it up as almost plausible, the opposite of sloppy, and I'm not going to let it ruin Endgame for me. Endgame, the superhero film that literally* made me weep with joy. * Original meaning. RDU Neil, slikmar, Pariah and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDU Neil Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 4 hours ago, Old Man said: I liked that Endgame took the relatively bold step of turning the usual time travel trope on its head in order to have the Avengers travel through time with the express purpose of changing the past (slightly). As for the nerdrage about plot holes--yes, time travel equals endless logical inconsistencies and moral dilemmas. It's why time travel isn't my favorite type of SF and why I especially dislike it in sloppily written Trek. But Feige & Co. did their best to set it up as almost plausible, the opposite of sloppy, and I'm not going to let it ruin Endgame for me. Endgame, the superhero film that literally* made me weep with joy. * Original meaning. Seriously. I mean... watching that 16Bit video I posted actually makes me sniffly. Just say, "On your left..." and I start to choke up. I'm not just saying it... it happens, every time. slikmar and Pariah 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 The theater I was in broke out in cheers when Peter Parker showed up. I guess that's the amazing thing about Endgame and all the movies that led up to it: They made us really care about those characters--often in a way that the comics never did (at least in my own case). As for the whole time travel thing, well, the whole concept is FUMTU as far as I'm concerned. There's no way to really do it 'right', the best you can hope for is to tell a good story. Which Endgame did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishFox Posted July 11, 2019 Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 I'm still so bummed that Endgame didn't beat out Avatar. Technically the original release of Avengers:Endgame did beat the original release of Avatar, but Avatar made enough on re-release to keep the #1 spot to this day. Garbage. Avengers: Endgame is the superior movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted July 11, 2019 Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 Adjusted for inflation, that Avatar figure comes to about $3.3B. Which is still quite a bit less than Gone With the Wind (when similarly adjusted). Endgame never really had a chance. Christopher R Taylor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 11, 2019 Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 Honestly the Endgame rerelease was too soon and competed with SM:FFH. But Endgame was an infinitely better film than either GWtW or Avatar anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted July 11, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 Endgame (and maybe Infinity War too) should re-release again in 5-10 years for an anniversary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted July 11, 2019 Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 Frankly, James Cameron, we don't give a damn. Lord Liaden, Armory and Pariah 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted July 11, 2019 Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 At least Endgame took down Titanic. Most overrated movie I've ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted July 11, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 I still haven’t seen Titanic. The biggest spoiler-no-spoiler is that the ship sinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 11, 2019 Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 I liked Titanic, despite the idiocy of its lead characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted July 11, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 Gone With The Wind has them all beat and it ONLY was show in the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 15 hours ago, Old Man said: I liked Titanic, despite the idiocy of its lead characters. The Best Scene IMO had nothing to do with leads " Gentlemen... it has been a privilege playing with you tonight " RDU Neil, Pariah, Scott Ruggels and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishFox Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 24 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said: Gone With The Wind has them all beat and it ONLY was show in the USA. I find the Gone with the Wind numbers pretty well cooked since it took in only $21-$32 million depending on sources and tickets back then were $0.23. If you adjust by inflation you get the ridiculous number. If you adjust by ticket prices then to ticket prices now it clocks in closer to $1,000,000,000. Great movie, but it was certainly not the global blockbuster that Avenger's was or the MCU has been (Franchise total: 22 Billion). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 Great movie, but it was certainly not the global blockbuster that Avenger's was or the MCU has been (Franchise total: 22 Billion). But you can't compare like that. GWTW was only shown in the USA, so you are comparing apples to oranges when you look at domestic vs worldwide. None of the Avengers movies even show up in the list when you adjust for inflation in domestic sales. Nor does Avatar, or the newest Star Wars movies. 1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,822,598,200 $200,852,579 1939^ 2 Star Wars Fox $1,604,857,600 $460,998,007 1977^ 3 The Sound of Music Fox $1,283,791,300 $159,287,539 1965^ 4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $1,278,107,600 $435,110,554 1982^ 5 Titanic Par. $1,221,303,800 $659,363,944 1997^ Lord Liaden 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 I wonder what the numbers would be for modern movies if the only time and place you could ever see them was during their run in a theater. ScottishFox, slikmar, Lord Liaden and 2 others 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slikmar Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Starlord said: I wonder what the numbers would be for modern movies if the only time and place you could ever see them was during their run in a theater. I was thinking something like this. Since most movies are on home big screen HD tvs within 3-6 months now, if you had that when GWTW was released, how many people would have waited. RDU Neil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 GWTW was also four hours long. Just throwing that out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 As much as people complain about long movies, many of the top grossing or most viewed movies are around 3 hours or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 Movies over three hours long had intermissions in the middle, when audiences would leave their seats for a bathroom/refreshment break. That was in more civilized times, when you went to A theater to watch A movie. Theaters were a destination, not a hangout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 13 hours ago, ScottishFox said: I find the Gone with the Wind numbers pretty well cooked since it took in only $21-$32 million depending on sources and tickets back then were $0.23. If you adjust by inflation you get the ridiculous number. If you adjust by ticket prices then to ticket prices now it clocks in closer to $1,000,000,000. Great movie, but it was certainly not the global blockbuster that Avenger's was or the MCU has been (Franchise total: 22 Billion). The numbers are probably accurate. GwtW ran as a road show presentation from December 1939 to July 1940, with premium advanced-ticket seating selling for "upwards of $1 per ticket", after which it then reduced ticket prices in half for the remainder of the road show presentation period until its general release with "normal" ticket prices in 1941. In 1942, MGM bought the outstanding shares of the production and became the full owner, and promptly re-released it. 1947 saw another re-release, and again in 1954--this time cropped to widescreen. It was re-released in 1961, 1967, 1971, 1989 (with audio and video restoration for the 50th anniversary), and 1998. There have been a few more special event screenings since then, but no more wide releases. Exclusive road show presentations in major cities used to be fairly common for big-budget productions, and would usually have advance-ticket, reserved seat sales at a much higher ticket price than general admission theaters. Most road show releases had a limited number of showings per day (usually one or two). Many films getting the road show treatment were 3 hours or more, and almost always had a 15-minute intermission between the first and second acts. Much like a Broadway play, there were frequently souvenir programs available in the lobby. A typical road show engagement lasted anywhere from a few months to a year or more, before the film moved to a general admission theater. The films were frequently cut down to a shorter running time when moving to a general admission theater to allow more showings per day. As an example, here's an article for the Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor version of Cleopatra, which ran in a road show format for 72 weeks in LA and 64 weeks in New York. https://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/history-legacy--showmanship/cleopatra-roadshow-engagements Scott Ruggels 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.