• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

TENET Bombs in the US (Only Made $12 Million) Hollywood in Panic

Aug 28, 2019
4,742
6,351
770
How dare you.
:messenger_loudly_crying::messenger_loudly_crying::messenger_loudly_crying::messenger_loudly_crying::messenger_loudly_crying::messenger_loudly_crying:



I couldn't hear all the dialogue properly but I still completely understood the concept with no issues.
Depending on what cinema you go to will give various experiences. The 2nd time I saw it the voices were clearer but everything else about the audio had less pop and the bass was not as refined. Some people may think that the 2nd viewing had the better audio mix because the voices were clearer but to me the 2nd viewing had the worse audio mix because you lose everything else, the intense scenes weren't as intense.

Like at the start of the film, it's quiet and then as the heist (whatever it is) at the orchestra kicks in to gear the music kicks in to gear and it felt like a real gut punch in my first viewing. The music comes on so strong and loud that it's absolutely intensity at 11 from the get go. Then the beat of the music just keeps you in that adrenaline mode as the scene plays out.
The second viewing, the music wasn't as loud and bass not as present so it didn't have the same kick or intensity. The scene felt softer by comparison.
Finally someone gets it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MiyazakiHatesKojima

deafmedal

Member
Feb 28, 2012
1,981
516
795
Deep in the heart of Texas
Theater was pretty much empty, there was 1 or 2 other people who came in late. The staff didn't even scan our code, I think they sold us our concessions cheap too- we grabbed a large popcorn, 3 candies, a water and an Icee for $22.50. Whatever. They had to know how many tickets had been sold not to mention I don't reckon Monday nights are historically big movie nights.

I was curious how it would sound, I remember being a bit miffed at TDKR but chalked that up to the theater. This shit was loud. The bass was tremendous, the gunshots sounded great and the dialogue was... decent? I didn't have any extra* issues understanding anything being said in the talky bits (* I ALWAYS miss lines in movies). The plot was not difficult to follow per se but I do have questions involving a few points that repeat viewings should help with. It was definitely a Chris Nolan movie, for better or worse. It looked absolutely fantastic and the leads were great. Inception was a bit muddled and slightly contrived with it's premise, this was no where near as convoluted plot wise IMO.

I actually really enjoy the empty theater aesthetic, shame that most likely won't continue *if* things return to some level of normalcy. Kinda like flying, planes are filling up and soon enough we'll be packed like sardines again. Hell, I might go look at that disaster movie with King Leonidas... pretty sure that'll bomb too. But damn, sometimes explosions are just fun to watch on the big screen, regardless of silly plots (hello SW ep. IX:RotEGWSBEBRWtbaS). At least this one wasn't completely mindless ;)
 

Bolivar687

Gold Member
Jun 13, 2014
6,564
6,283
800
USA
I didn't mind the sound mixing. There are a few scenes where I couldn't hear what the actors were saying but it didn't detract from the plot. These movies are definitely supposed to be big and loud so I'm willing to give a pass for the few times when it drowned something out.

There is one notable exception and that's during a mission briefing where something really insane happens but it's not really clear what's going on and not hearing what they said during the briefing just makes it totally nonsensical. That's my real issue with the movie. Explosive Zombie did a good job summarizing the story beats but that's not really why people are confused. It's very clear what the characters are doing and why. But the action sequences themselves begin to make progressively less and less sense as the story goes on, to the point where you have to question how hard they tried to make it sensical. There's a scene early on where they explain the inversion and reverse entropy and the character flat out says "try not to think too hard on it." I saw a physicist say that's because the whole reverse entropy idea doesn't work.

I still want to watch this a thousand times, though :messenger_grinning_smiling:
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2019
4,742
6,351
770
I didn't mind the sound mixing. There are a few scenes where I couldn't hear what the actors were saying but it didn't detract from the plot. These movies are definitely supposed to be big and loud so I'm willing to give a pass for the few times when it drowned something out.

There is one notable exception and that's during a mission briefing where something really insane happens but it's not really clear what's going on and not hearing what they said during the briefing just makes it totally nonsensical. That's my real issue with the movie. Explosive Zombie did a good job summarizing the story beats but that's not really the issue. It's very clear what the characters are doing and why. But the action sequences themselves begin to make progressively less and less sense as the story goes on, to the point where you have to question how hard they tried to make it sensical. There's a scene early on where they explain the inversion and reverse entropy and the character flat out says "try not to think too hard on it." I saw a physicist say that's because the whole reverse entropy idea is completely made up.

I still want to watch this a thousand times, though :messenger_grinning_smiling:
No, it has real basis in science, he had Kip Thorne review the script, too...

“I did have Kip Thorne read the script and he helped me out with some of the concepts, though we’re not going to make any case for this being scientifically accurate,” Nolan famous in the movie’s press notes. “But it is based roughly on actual science.”

What's annoying is the guy being skeptical of the film is skeptical because things happen in the film that have never happened and we can't say they'd happen that way... like... duh

 
Last edited:

hariseldon

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
7,387
15,278
805
I dislike modern action scenes very much in general. Too many cuts, too much things blowing up and too loud noises just make me drop off the film and look at it like a zombie until the spectacle is over. So I think that to appreciate this movie one has to have a general appreciation for loud experience, both visually and audibly.
I’m another who doesn’t like modern action movies. The problem frankly is that there’s such a desire to cater to those with ADHD that you end up with a mess. With the camera moving around so much (these days because it’s 90% CGI so the camera can do what it likes) that I can’t get a proper feel for location, and those locations aren’t places, they’re just backdrops for shit to happen. I also think the CGI takes away the grounding in some kind of reality which makes action believable and meaningful.

Oh and to the wannabe mods trying to thread police - conversations meander. If you’re too autistic to deal with that then forums might not be for you.
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2019
4,742
6,351
770
I’m another who doesn’t like modern action movies. The problem frankly is that there’s such a desire to cater to those with ADHD that you end up with a mess. With the camera moving around so much (these days because it’s 90% CGI so the camera can do what it likes) that I can’t get a proper feel for location, and those locations aren’t places, they’re just backdrops for shit to happen. I also think the CGI takes away the grounding in some kind of reality which makes action believable and meaningful.

Oh and to the wannabe mods trying to thread police - conversations meander. If you’re too autistic to deal with that then forums might not be for you.
Sounds like TENET is for you, it was shot using less VFX shots than the average romantic comedy.

 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
5,027
4,485
660
Finland
I’m another who doesn’t like modern action movies. The problem frankly is that there’s such a desire to cater to those with ADHD that you end up with a mess. With the camera moving around so much (these days because it’s 90% CGI so the camera can do what it likes) that I can’t get a proper feel for location, and those locations aren’t places, they’re just backdrops for shit to happen. I also think the CGI takes away the grounding in some kind of reality which makes action believable and meaningful.
Yeah that's exactly how I see it too. The lack of a proper feel for location is perhaps the worst thing. If there aren't that many cuts, then the camera moves around like a hurricane and I can't get any sense of place. Then all the CGI and the colors often overdone to death makes all feel too otherworldly and often way too floaty, plus then there might be super loud sounds and/or music that mimics every single move that happens in the screen. I always zone out from the movie during those scenes. I wouldn't want that to happen but it happens.

Sounds like TENET is for you, it was shot using less VFX shots than the average romantic comedy.
It's true that Tenet wasn't too CGI heavy. I don't remember if I said it here or somewhere else but the action scenes of Tenet were better than in any of the Batman movies. The Batman scenes were often cut to unrecognizable mess. Especially the fight scenes. That's not really saying too much though. If the story is stupid or not interesting, the action scenes don't really help that much. This didn't have as many cuts because they had to show the backwards stuff well enough. I think the backwards thing was underused anyway but with too many cuts it would've been completely ruined.

Even though for example the car scenes didn't seem to have most of the usual modern action problems it still managed to get me somewhat zoned out from it. Not sure, but I think it might've been because of all the loud noise.

All that said, Tenet using "probably less VFX shots than the average romantic comedy" doesn't necessarily mean that much if the used VFX shots are in the wrong place. Basic movies have a lot of green screen stuff in just regular talking scenes so if a movie doesn't have that but instead uses all in action scenes then that's not good either. And obviously this should have less VFX shots than a movie like Inception or Interstellar where the other is dream based scifi and the other is space based scifi. It's kinda obvious this would have less VFX shots than those.
Besides, the actual quote is "The visual side of the film is huge in scale, but our VFX shot count is probably lower than most romantic comedies." There's the word probably there. I think he used a hyperbole when he said it to get the point across. Anyway, it's still true that this wasn't as CGI heavy as it could've been and that's definitely a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon
Aug 28, 2019
4,742
6,351
770
It's true that Tenet wasn't too CGI heavy. I don't remember if I said it here or somewhere else but the action scenes of Tenet were better than in any of the Batman movies. The Batman scenes were often cut to unrecognizable mess. Especially the fight scenes.
Only true in Begins, and there it had a thematic purpose, Batman was meant to be like a horror villain.

That's not really saying too much though. If the story is stupid or not interesting, the action scenes don't really help that much. This didn't have as many cuts because they had to show the backwards stuff well enough. I think the backwards thing was underused anyway but with too many cuts it would've been completely ruined.
Sewer fight with Bane is top fights of the decade if you ask me. Good thing the story was very interesting. I think it worked how they did it, there's a build to that stuff.

Even though for example the car scenes didn't seem to have most of the usual modern action problems it still managed to get me somewhat zoned out from it. Not sure, but I think it might've been because of all the loud noise.
"old man yells at cloud" lol

All that said, Tenet using "probably less VFX shots than the average romantic comedy" doesn't necessarily mean that much if the used VFX shots are in the wrong place. Basic movies have a lot of green screen stuff in just regular talking scenes so if a movie doesn't have that but instead uses all in action scenes then that's not good either. And obviously this should have less VFX shots than a movie like Inception or Interstellar where the other is dream based scifi and the other is space based scifi. It's kinda obvious this would have less VFX shots than those.
Besides, the actual quote is "The visual side of the film is huge in scale, but our VFX shot count is probably lower than most romantic comedies." There's the word probably there. I think he used a hyperbole when he said it to get the point across. Anyway, it's still true that this wasn't as CGI heavy as it could've been and that's definitely a good thing.
They tell you the number of VFX shots is under 300, that's incredibly low for action films these days. Avengers Endgame had 2,500 and is a demonstrably uglier and less exciting film than TENET.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
5,027
4,485
660
Finland
Only true in Begins, and there it had a thematic purpose, Batman was meant to be like a horror villain.
So not only the fast cuts didn't work as making action scenes better, it also failed in making Batman "like a horror villain".

"old man yells at cloud" lol
The old people yelling at cloud are still sharing the same space with you, and their opinion about things is just as valid as yours as long as they live in this world.

To me overusing loudness in action films is just as effective as is overusing jump scares in horror films. It gets annoying and distracting very soon.

They tell you the number of VFX shots is under 300, that's incredibly low for action films these days. Avengers Endgame had 2,500 and is a demonstrably uglier and less exciting film than TENET.
You are right in Endgame being much uglier, but it certainly was more exciting than Tenet. Not that I loved that movie either. I hate the action scenes in the Marvel movies too but at the very least Endgame had more interesting scenes going for it. I have zero interest in watching that movie ever again either.
 
Aug 28, 2019
4,742
6,351
770
So not only the fast cuts didn't work as making action scenes better, it also failed in making Batman "like a horror villain".
As Bane would say... for you.


The old people yelling at cloud are still sharing the same space with you, and their opinion about things is just as valid as yours as long as they live in this world.

To me overusing loudness in action films is just as effective as is overusing jump scares in horror films. It gets annoying and distracting very soon.
Then wait for video? You can adjust the volume to your liking. Jump scares are not the same, they're used to shock you, an action scene being loud the entire time isn't constantly shocking you again lol.


You are right in Endgame being much uglier, but it certainly was more exciting than Tenet. Not that I loved that movie either. I hate the action scenes in the Marvel movies too but at the very least Endgame had more interesting scenes going for it. I have zero interest in watching that movie ever again either.
I'll just disagree with you on this one, then.
 

hariseldon

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
7,387
15,278
805
Jump scares are not the same, they're used to shock you, an action scene being loud the entire time isn't constantly shocking you again lol.
I think it's not necessarily saying they're exactly the same but that they're both cliches, cheap ways of getting a particular reaction or conveying a particular emotion. Sure they work but they're not the best way.
 
Aug 28, 2019
4,742
6,351
770
I think it's not necessarily saying they're exactly the same but that they're both cliches, cheap ways of getting a particular reaction or conveying a particular emotion. Sure they work but they're not the best way.
What? I mean I literally pick IMAX BECAUSE IT'S LOUD, I mean why go to the theaters besides to have a big screen and have the movie loud, an action movie being loud is as much "cliche" to me as an action movie having things explode, I honestly don't get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sol_bad

johntown

Member
Dec 27, 2010
2,960
1,538
845
East Coast
They just need to release it digitally to Vudu and other streaming service. I will rent it whenever they do for the typical $20.
 

Camaway2

Member
Sep 14, 2016
156
34
295
Berlin
I watched it in IMAX Laser and it was GLORIOUS!!!

I have a 65 4K OLED TV at home but you just can't beat a monster screen the size of a building.

The day when we lose that, the social experience of meeting a friend outside the cinema, looking forward to the showing starting, getting into a giant space designed purely for enjoying movies the way they are meant to be seen, it will be a very sad day.
 
Last edited:

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,847
3,156
1,565
They just need to release it digitally to Vudu and other streaming service. I will rent it whenever they do for the typical $20.
LMAO
What is it with these comments?
They wouldn't make their 200 million back if they went digital.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Airola

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
5,027
4,485
660
Finland
Then wait for video? You can adjust the volume to your liking. Jump scares are not the same, they're used to shock you, an action scene being loud the entire time isn't constantly shocking you again lol.
I want to support theatres. Often bad movies feel a bit less dull in movie theatres as the step to stop watching is much higher to take and I like the experience of getting tickets and going to the seats and all with my lady, even when the movie is bad. I think I would've disliked Tenet even more at home and even might've stopped watching it halfway through. Sometimes that happens, like with Ocean's Twelve. Stopped watching after about an hour, but I would've watched it to the end if I was watching it in a theatre.

What comes to the jump scare thing, I didn't say they are the same. I said the overuse of them is just as effective. Both are meant to excite you in one way or another. Both makes me lose interest in the movie. I think The Revenant had amazing sounds. You heard loud gunshots and arrows and whatever but it was more like -----SOUND--------SOUND-SOUND-----------SOUND-----SOUND---- instead of SSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDD. I still wonder why The Revenant didn't win the Oscar for The Best Sound Mixing and The Best Sound Editing. It was much more pleasant to listen than Mad Max was (which I think was a very good movie - terrible colors though).

Anyway, I'm not interested in sounds that you can feel in your body. It does nothing for me. And I don't go to watch Nolan films for their sounds. I look for something else from them. I can deal with loud soundtrack if the story and the characters are good. If they are not good, then the loudness just distracts me even more.

I expected a good and interesting scifi movie. It didn't end up being that.
 

carlosrox

Member
May 19, 2020
1,214
1,906
465
My lord COVID claims another victim!

Look forward to the all digital, stay inside, use online subscription future!
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,847
3,156
1,565
They will make more than leaving it sit at movie theaters.
No they won't.
If VOD is meant to be so successful for these theatrical films that were changed and released as VOD, why aren't the studios singing from the roof tops saying how much money they are making?

The only VOD release that had any positive news was Trolls World Tour, but when the negative news surfaced about it's VOD performance it was glossed over.


""The (premium video on demand) stuff hasn’t really been a success for anyone," the rep admitted. "'Trolls’ spent roughly $50 million on marketing and then made, what, $100 million." That certainly doesn't leave much of a profit behind and also doesn't take into account how much the movie itself cost to make. "

No one needed to see a news article like this to know that VOD is not a viable option for theatrically made films.
It's simple maths and logically it's never going to work. No idea what the cost of movies is in America but in Australia for example, for my family to go and watch Mulan at the cinemas, it would cost $105aud at a minimum. But watching it on Disney+ it costs $35 for everyone to see, that's a 70% percent loss. It will be the same across the board for everyone that rents theatrical films on VOD, a 25% to 70% loss in revenue. A movie that could make 500 million at the cinemas will make substantially less on VOD due to multiple people being able to watch it for a single cost.
 
Aug 28, 2019
4,742
6,351
770
I want to support theatres. Often bad movies feel a bit less dull in movie theatres as the step to stop watching is much higher to take and I like the experience of getting tickets and going to the seats and all with my lady, even when the movie is bad. I think I would've disliked Tenet even more at home and even might've stopped watching it halfway through. Sometimes that happens, like with Ocean's Twelve. Stopped watching after about an hour, but I would've watched it to the end if I was watching it in a theatre.

What comes to the jump scare thing, I didn't say they are the same. I said the overuse of them is just as effective. Both are meant to excite you in one way or another. Both makes me lose interest in the movie. I think The Revenant had amazing sounds. You heard loud gunshots and arrows and whatever but it was more like -----SOUND--------SOUND-SOUND-----------SOUND-----SOUND---- instead of SSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDD. I still wonder why The Revenant didn't win the Oscar for The Best Sound Mixing and The Best Sound Editing. It was much more pleasant to listen than Mad Max was (which I think was a very good movie - terrible colors though).

Anyway, I'm not interested in sounds that you can feel in your body. It does nothing for me. And I don't go to watch Nolan films for their sounds. I look for something else from them. I can deal with loud soundtrack if the story and the characters are good. If they are not good, then the loudness just distracts me even more.

I expected a good and interesting scifi movie. It didn't end up being that.
Fury Road had terrible colors and had worse sound mixing than Revenant?? ... yeah man we just aren't going to be seeing eye to eye on movies it seems.
 
Last edited:

SoftFromware

Neo Member
Aug 6, 2020
2
0
70
I loved it and have seen it multiple times.
It’s definitely the most interesting and unique movie I’ve seen in a long time.
That uniqueness + it’s great execution of of style + it’s perfectly suited soundtrack have elevated it to one of my favorite movies.
(Second favorite Nolan film)
 

Alcibiades

Member
Jun 6, 2004
5,844
157
1,615
texas
No they won't.
If VOD is meant to be so successful for these theatrical films that were changed and released as VOD, why aren't the studios singing from the roof tops saying how much money they are making?

The only VOD release that had any positive news was Trolls World Tour, but when the negative news surfaced about it's VOD performance it was glossed over.
I remember seeing that Scoob! went straight to VOD and I thought about buying it to watch with my niece/nephew at some point. I was even happy they offered the option of $25 to buy and not only $20 to rent like with Trolls (which I had rented back in March). But like within weeks I saw Scoob! on HBO Max and I was like "hmmm.... those HBO Max subscriptions must be really bad that they needed to put a new-release movie on it so quickly".

In retrospect though, I'm guessing that it probably bombed on VOD or at least didn't get the numbers they hoped. Apparently it had more downloads then Trolls, but maybe that wasn't enough? Studios going straight to VOD basically burn an entire revenue stream. Instead of Theaters -> VOD/Blu-Ray -> Streaming, now it's VOD -> Streaming. WB seems pretty intent on keeping Wonder Woman 1984 as a theatrical release, and of course did the same with Tenet. Another theory I have is that they realize that over the long-term, pushing audiences straight into VOD will hurt their long-term revenues if theater grosses get cut for all future films. Even non-blockbuster films I imagine are helped by having that extra revenue stream initially. Just from common sense, if you encourage people to watch your stuff on a phone, monitor, or TV, then your audience has a lot of other options (games, cable, Netflix, etc...). But if you have an audience that likes the theater experience and keeps going, WB is one of only a handful of conglomerates providing content there.

So while Tenet may hurt financially in the short-term, they know the importance of theaters for long-term financials.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
5,027
4,485
660
Finland
Fury Road had terrible colors and had worse sound mixing than Revenant... yeah man we just aren't going to be seeing eye to eye on movies it seems.
It pains me to see the making of clips of Fury Road. I would've loved to see it closer to the more natural colors of sky and desert, and the vehicles too. Instead it was saturated to the max. Everything looks so much more pleasing and REAL in the making of clips. What they did to the colors makes it look more fake than it is.

Here's a couple of comparisons of Fury Road's color grading:





On the upper picture the right side feels so much more like The Road Warrior. It feels more real.
On the lower example the upper picture is the same.

I would've LOVED to see the movie feel that realistic! It had lots of exciting situations but it bugged me how not "grounded" it felt.
It's odd since I love the aesthetics of the old Technicolor movies and the colors are very bright there, but maybe it's because in those Technicolor films ALL the colors were bright whereas in Fury Road the brightness mostly comes from blue and orange (which obviously is understandable since the movie happens mostly in a desert).

Anyway, I couldn't imagine The Road Warrior with colors like on Fury Road.

Oh well, to each their own :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

Alcibiades

Member
Jun 6, 2004
5,844
157
1,615
texas
I must have misread, I thought they spent 200 million and were no where near close to that yet
I think I heard they need $400 million to break even, and $450 million to turn a profit. While they probably will have trouble making those numbers, with eventual VOD and Blu-ray, I think they'll at least break even. Sure, not the success they were hoping for initially, but for a movie with such a perplexing plot in the middle of a pandemic, I'm actually impressed it is doing as well as it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sol_bad

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
5,027
4,485
660
Finland
So while Tenet may hurt financially in the short-term, they know the importance of theaters for long-term financials.
Not only that but a movie like Tenet is also important for theaters too.
Even though it might've bombed, it still has been a movie that people have gone to watch. I really dislike this movie but I also really feel that it was a noble thing for Nolan to do to have a big movie like this to be released now instead of moving it a year ahead. Movie theaters are really struggling so whatever can bring more people to watch movies to theaters is only a good thing. I kinda feel that he might've thought that too. That he'll allow the movie make less money in order to support the existence of movie theaters.
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2019
4,742
6,351
770
Not only that but a movie like Tenet is also important for theaters too.
Even though it might've bombed, it still has been a movie that people have gone to watch. I really dislike this movie but I also really feel that it was a noble thing for Nolan to do to have a big movie like this to be released now instead of moving it a year ahead. Movie theaters are really struggling so whatever can bring more people to watch movies to theaters is only a good thing. I kinda feel that he might've thought that too. That he'll allow the movie make less money in order to support the existence of movie theaters.
The cinema experience and film are very important to Nolan, agreed.
 

mclaren777

Member
Jan 15, 2009
7,431
0
940
Washington State
www.maximum-attack.com
I saw Tenet in theaters on opening weekend and I really enjoyed it.

True, the dialogue mixing was poor, but this is a movie that should definitely be watched at least twice, so I'm sure most people will pick up the missing details on subsequent viewings.
 

sinnergy

Member
Jun 16, 2007
3,860
1,746
1,285
That’s wha you get for not releasing on streaming , old ass money hungry execs ...

It would have made you more with the new gen streaming model!

With a pandemic going around and people visiting less crowded places (theatre)
 
Last edited:

ruvikx

Member
Jan 12, 2018
1,588
3,124
420
It pains me to see the making of clips of Fury Road. I would've loved to see it closer to the more natural colors of sky and desert, and the vehicles too. Instead it was saturated to the max. Everything looks so much more pleasing and REAL in the making of clips. What they did to the colors makes it look more fake than it is.

Here's a couple of comparisons of Fury Road's color grading:





On the upper picture the right side feels so much more like The Road Warrior. It feels more real.
On the lower example the upper picture is the same.

I would've LOVED to see the movie feel that realistic! It had lots of exciting situations but it bugged me how not "grounded" it felt.
It's odd since I love the aesthetics of the old Technicolor movies and the colors are very bright there, but maybe it's because in those Technicolor films ALL the colors were bright whereas in Fury Road the brightness mostly comes from blue and orange (which obviously is understandable since the movie happens mostly in a desert).

Anyway, I couldn't imagine The Road Warrior with colors like on Fury Road.

Oh well, to each their own :D
Fury Road had a strange framerate problem as well during action scenes. I saw it on my home theater setup first & thought I had a problem (some sort of framerate manipulation to make the action seem faster).

With regards to Tenet & the discussion about cinema versus streaming, I don't think Hollywood have thought this thing through, i.e. streaming is technically straight to video & no different than cable/satellite (hello? it's just more TV). So many movies are going to suffer if they're sent to the small screen instead of cinemas. They need to be careful what they wish for.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,847
3,156
1,565
That’s wha you get for not releasing on streaming , old ass money hungry execs ...

It would have made you more with the new gen streaming model!

With a pandemic going around and people visiting less crowded places (theatre)
Explain how it would make more?
 

johntown

Member
Dec 27, 2010
2,960
1,538
845
East Coast
No they won't.
If VOD is meant to be so successful for these theatrical films that were changed and released as VOD, why aren't the studios singing from the roof tops saying how much money they are making?

The only VOD release that had any positive news was Trolls World Tour, but when the negative news surfaced about it's VOD performance it was glossed over.


""The (premium video on demand) stuff hasn’t really been a success for anyone," the rep admitted. "'Trolls’ spent roughly $50 million on marketing and then made, what, $100 million." That certainly doesn't leave much of a profit behind and also doesn't take into account how much the movie itself cost to make. "

No one needed to see a news article like this to know that VOD is not a viable option for theatrically made films.
It's simple maths and logically it's never going to work. No idea what the cost of movies is in America but in Australia for example, for my family to go and watch Mulan at the cinemas, it would cost $105aud at a minimum. But watching it on Disney+ it costs $35 for everyone to see, that's a 70% percent loss. It will be the same across the board for everyone that rents theatrical films on VOD, a 25% to 70% loss in revenue. A movie that could make 500 million at the cinemas will make substantially less on VOD due to multiple people being able to watch it for a single cost.
Young wrong and your references are inaccurate. Disney+ is totally different than what I mentioned. Your are talking about a MONTHLY subscription service. I am talking about a ONE TIME view for $20 on Vudu. Here in the USA a 1 ticket is about $8-$10 to see the movie one time. On Vudu I can watch it over 24 hours for $20. Of course it is not going to get them all their money. I am not arguing that all all.

My point is I think it will make them more in that SPECIFIC scenario then in a cinema where most people don't want to risk getting COVID.

I know it is not going to get them their money and is not ideal. All I am saying is given the current situation I think it will make them more money than leaving it in a cinema. If you don't that is fine and your opinion just like mine is my opinion.
 

SafeOrAlone

Member
Apr 26, 2020
181
164
220
Generally speaking, Nolan films bore the crap out of me. And this is coming from someone who's favorite movie is 2001: A Space Odyssey, which moves at the speed of molasses.
That said, The Dark Knight is one of my all-time favorites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

sinnergy

Member
Jun 16, 2007
3,860
1,746
1,285
Explain how it would make more?
It reaches more people . Make it 6 / 10 bucks and see what happens.

But the old people won’t , they can’t, they calculate with old figures , theater visites times movie price .

But won’t look at the streaming audience ...
 
Last edited:

VincentMatts

Member
Aug 21, 2014
6,369
1,204
640
Thats what happens when you force out a movie at a place no one feels safe going to.

They should have put this on streaming services for 30$ rental. Like they did Bill and Ted. Im not going close to movie theaters.
 

sinnergy

Member
Jun 16, 2007
3,860
1,746
1,285
Generally speaking, Nolan films bore the crap out of me. And this is coming from someone who's favorite movie is 2001: A Space Odyssey, which moves at the speed of molasses.
That said, The Dark Knight is one of my all-time favorites.
Inception and Inter steller I also liked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SafeOrAlone

IDKFA

Member
Jan 15, 2017
305
401
390
Hollywood is in denial. We're in the age of entertainment being at your fingertips, and the pandemic isn't over.

People will pay $20-$30 to watch at home. It's the model that fits the moment. Sorry that we can't just will everything back to the way it was a year ago.
Agreed. Including popcorn and drinks, it would cost me and my family around £50 to see a film at the cinema.

I'd happily pay £20 to see a film from home on release.