Movie Theatre

NFL at AMC Theatres: Is It a Touchdown?

Posted on by Jack Drees

fb_1393_2019_pro_football_lp_promo_2

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! As an American, there is no denying that during this time of year, football is one of the priorities of most people around me. Personally speaking, I think it is a complete waste of time and nothing more than grown men hitting each other over a brown object. It does have its moments, but football is obnoxious to the point of insanity at times, and sports are not my thing in general. Granted, I live in New England, which would mean I would be somewhat pressured to celebrate my “culture of victory” from time to time, but it doesn’t mean I enjoy football as a sport. That being said, I come from a country that seems to put football over literally anything else, so I find it to be no surprise that AMC Theatres is planning to capitalize on the sport.

While we aren’t getting a thousand football-oriented movies right now, we are in the middle of the current NFL season. And during this season, AMC is planning on showing football games at select theaters on Sundays. Keep in mind, I said select theaters, there’s a chance that the closest AMC to your house might not be taking part in this.

What are the requirements?

First, you must be an AMC Stubs member. It doesn’t matter what level you’re subscribed to. If you don’t want to waste any money on a membership, you can snatch a Stubs Insider ID for free. The other membership levels, Premiere and A-List, come with more perks, but also with higher prices.

Second, you don’t have to buy a ticket to watch a football game in the theater, BUT if you want to sit down in the theater and watch the game, you need to spend at least $10 on food. I think this manages to make a lick of sense, because let’s say you are watching a game at your house. You might intend on ordering food sometimes like wings or pizza. Or you go outside of the house to a bar and buy food. This is AMC’s equivalent to that, because let’s face it, food and sports have gone together since the dawn of time. That, and food is how AMC usually makes its money as opposed to tickets.

Also, keep in mind that these are for SUNDAY GAMES ONLY. Typically, NFL games are played on Sunday, so this doesn’t seem to be much of an issue, but if you were say looking forward to this Monday’s game between the Bears and the Redskins and planned on catching it at an AMC, don’t get your hopes up.

One interesting thing about this concept is that on AMC’s website, users can vote for which teams or games they would like to see. This is sort of surprising, because I figured AMC would already have these games preplanned. Because when you go to a local bar, you’d most likely expect them to have at least one TV playing the “local” game. If you go to a bar in Boston, you’d expect to see a Patriots game. If you go to a bar in Philadelphia, you’d expect to see an Eagles game. If you go to a bar in Miami, you’d expect to see a Dolphins game. Keep these thoughts in mind by the way…

On the list of theaters testing this out, there are three in my area, specifically the Boston/Massachusetts markets, showing NFL programming: AMC DINE-IN Framingham 14, AMC Liberty Tree Mall 20, and AMC Methuen 20. One surprise about this to me however regards the state of New York. If you look on the website showing all of the participating theaters, not one happens to be in New York, which surprises me since it is such a highly populated state. Not one theater in even New York City, of all places, happens to be doing this? If you want, you can drive down to Edison, NJ which has the AMC DINE-IN Menlo Park 12 but I am not here to control your life.

Another thing I noticed that may get some people excited is that the games seem to all be in reclined theaters. Of the three recently mentioned theaters, they all have the leather reclining seats that go back to make you feel like you are in your living room. I feel like that was intended because one of the disadvantages of a bar for some viewers, from what I would imagine is that the environment could be lively, but they have no choice except to sit in a a less than comfortable chair (depending on the occasion) or to stand. This does suggest that the games will be shown in theaters that do not have the largest capacities in the AMC chain, but there is no doubt that the environment will be comfortable.

One slight inconvenience about this idea however is that if you want to get tickets, you can’t do it a week in advance or even a few days in advance if you really wanted to. Why? Because times for NFL games at AMC locations are listed every Friday evening. And since AMC only airs Sunday games, this gives you a maximum of perhaps two full days to snag tickets.

To be honest though, if you are a football fan and are picky about your teams or will only choose to support whatever team is close to you, you won’t always get what you want. Because let’s take the three theaters I brought up in the Boston area, they are airing multiple games at different times, and their schedules are not exactly the same. That’s fine, I actually like the variety factor, but not a single one of those theaters is airing a Patriots game! And you may be wondering, “Hey, Jackass! New England is a combination of several states, what about those other states? Do they get Patriots games?” From what I’m seeing on AMC’s website, it doesn’t look like they will be showing any NFL games in states like Connecticut or New Hampshire to begin with. In fact, as I scroll through the markets, it seems that just about nobody is going to get their local time. Want to go to an AMC in Dallas? Boom! No Cowboys games! Want to go check out a game at an AMC in Miami? Sorry, no Dolphins games! Oh, how about San Francisco? There’s a 49ers game this Sunday! AMC Manteca and AMC Metreon are airing some games! One of them has to be with the 49ers! NOPETY-NOPETY-NOOOOOO.

Now let me just point out one thing, there is a disclaimer on AMC’s website that says the following:

“Game selection varies by participating theatre location, local teams will not be shown.”

Before these games were even announced, I did manage to see said disclaimer. I thought that suggested maybe “local town teams” such as those commonly represented in local high-school football leagues or something. Turns out, they meant local NFL teams. According to NFL local TV station blackout rules, airing local games at certain theaters would interfere with the exclusivity of the local stations. I personally think this is going to hurt AMC a little. I say that because why wouldn’t a fan obsessed with their local sports team take a 10 to 30 minute drive to see them play on the big screen? Although at the same time, I wonder if this will provide an opportunity to several people who live far from where their local team play. If you live in the Atlanta area but happen to be a fan of say the Houston Texans, than you have the opportunity to check them out in a stadium-like vibe at the AMC Colonial 18 located in Lawrenceville. It would either take an extended road trip or a flight to Houston to go see them play in person, specifically with a seemingly common audience, which makes something like what AMC is doing a good deal for certain fans, especially for $10.

I gotta ask. What do you think about this? Even though there are no local teams playing at certain theaters. Is this enough to get you off the couch and see a game on the big screen? Are you in the middle with all of this? Or is this all a big fumble to you? Let me know your thoughts! Thanks for reading this post! This weekend is the release of “Ad Astra,” and to be honest, I’m not quite sure if I’m gonna be able to catch it by the end of Sunday. So if that’s the case, I do have a small amount of time I could waste before going into school for an evening class on Tuesday, so I’ll probably end up seeing it then. Also, “Joker” tickets just went on sale, so I officially have priorities regarding that movie as well. Be sure to follow Scene Before, and check out the Scene Before Facebook page so you can stay tuned for more great content! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Hollywood, We Need to Talk About Film “Rereleases” and “Alternate Cuts”

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bodk1ote3mtetnty0yi00mtm1ltg1zjatmde1zmu2zgrhzwvhxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynjczote0mzm40._v1_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Remember how “Avengers: Endgame” became the biggest film in history? Well, some may argue that it couldn’t have gotten to that point without one thing, putting a new version of the film in theaters! I remember back in June we were getting advertisements for the upcoming “Avengers: Endgame” rerelease, signifying there would be new content to witness. Granted, I already knew what audiences were in for. It’s the exact same movie, but with end credits content that audiences didn’t get to see originally. I still roll my eyes to this day that the marketing team decided to market this as a rerelease to begin with because THE FILM WAS STILL IN THEATERS BEFORE THIS HAPPENED! I figured this would be a one time thing. Granted, “Avatar” did a rerelease back in the day with extended content, but for one thing, that was a different version of the film, and it was already out on DVD.

I was able to personally let “Endgame” slide. After all, it ended up being the king of the box office as an effect. But then came August, and apparently “Spider-Man: Far From Home” was joining the party on this!

Now, I will give some credit to “Spider-Man: Far From Home” in regards to their actions during this rerelease game plan. Why? Because they at least called it the “extended cut.” This cut featured additional footage that wasn’t seen when this film originally came out, so ultimately, this wasn’t a “Spider-Man 2,” it was a “Spider-Man 2.1.”

Wait a minute…

Coincidentally, on the same weekend “Spider-Man: Far From Home” came out with its alternate cut, another movie which, believe it or not, came out at the same time as Spidey’s original cut, “Midsommar,” was doing the same thing. “Midsommar” came out with what was marketed as the “Director’s Cut.” This different cut included extended and new scenes.

I will point out, for those who are not in the know, these “rereleases” and “alternate editions” are not a new thing. “Blade Runner” has had multiple releases in various forms including “The Director’s Cut” and “The Final Cut.” The “Lord of the Rings” franchise, including installments of “The Hobbit,” would eventually release an “extended edition” on DVD of each film. And “Star Wars” has been putting out redos of the original trilogy in 1997, 2004, and 2011.

But here’s the difference, everyone behind these movies are not putting these out only a couple of months after they originally went into theaters! I don’t know how the average moviegoer feels about this, but if I had to judge from my perspective, it sort of is beginning to remind me of a path that the video game industry seems to follow. Back in the day, you would pay full price for a game, and you get the entire game. Nowadays if you typically want to buy a video game, you have to not only pay $60 if it is a big name title, but on top of that, you have all these additional downloads, in-game currencies, packs, those sorts of things! I remember I would play a lot of NBA 2K back in the day, everything I needed was included! Now, if you want the good stuff, you might as well sell your soul! This is why I refuse to buy what seems to be a pay to win-oriented NBA 2K20! If I wanted to gamble, I’d go to Vegas for crying out loud!

Movie tickets are not as expensive as video games (although if you are buying popcorn and bringing a family along, I might take that back), but it is still not cheap. The average price of a movie ticket in 2019 is $9.01, which as far as my area is concerned, is actually kind of a bargain. Where I live, specifically eastern Massachusetts, I’m usually paying somewhere in the double digits for one ticket each time I go see a movie. It could be worse, but it is certainly something that can warrant a slight complaint.

I don’t mind seeing the same movie twice in the theater. I’ve done that with a number of a titles throughout my life because a lot of them happened to be very good and perhaps worth a rewatch. But it never felt like in any of those scenarios that the studio was robbing me. I was seeing the exact same film, just at a different time.

I guess there is a curiosity factor that can come out of an extended cut or something like that. What if there’s a scene that makes the movie better? But at the same time, an extended cut of “Far From Home” feels cheap because I just saw the original.

I am not worried about this right now, but I honestly think this has the potential of becoming the next big trend in moviegoing. Audiences see a movie, and since Hollywood is running out of ideas, someone thinks, “Let’s show the same thing two months later!” Now if this is a way for the director to get out a version that they would have preferred releasing as opposed to the original, then I can approve. However, why couldn’t we have just seen that version in the first place? As a moviegoer, I want to see the next new thing as opposed to seeing studios perhaps making me obligated to see their product again because “it’s my duty.”

I just don’t want to see a future where all of our movies lose their individuality. It seems kind of pointless and just an excuse to make more money. Even if these extended editions do end up somehow being better than their original counterparts, it manages to give me this vibe that certain movies are overstaying their welcome. Who knows? Maybe this will simply be a 2019 fad that will wash away over time, but I am hoping for the sake of individuality, not to mention moviegoers’ wallets, that we don’t give into Hollywood studios putting out a bunch of changed products. And you know what? Let me just put it this way…

I make a bunch of movie reviews for Scene Before. One of them by the end of the year is inevitably going to be for “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.” Let’s say I see that movie, review it, and give my thoughts on it. How would you feel? After wasting about 5-10 minutes of reading that, that I announce, “Hold your horses! Stay tuned for this February where I release the EXTENDED EDITION of this review!” Granted, if I went ahead and made a spoiler talk that is one thing, because I’d intentionally make the review filled with spoilers, but what if I came out with the exact same wording, phrases, and paragraph structures as I did in that original review, but I sprinkle tiny new bits and pieces? Wouldn’t you feel like I snatched your dignity and thrown it out the window?

So please, Hollywood… Stop grinding my gears.

Thanks for reading this post! This weekend is the release of “IT: Chapter Two.” As for whether or not I’m seeing it, that will be up for debate. And I just want to let everyone know that next week I’ll be heading back to college for the fall semester, so if you see me posting a tad less than usual, that could be a reason why. However, this all depends on the workload, so we’ll see what happens. I am not planning on losing my commitment to Scene Before, so I will do my best to stick to doing at least one post a week. I will do my best to cover topics that stand out and focus on big or important movies coming out. After all, …Oscar season is upon us. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, what are your thoughts on these alternate editions of films? Or, have you seen the recently put out versions of “Spider-Man: Far From Home” or “Midsommar?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Regal Cinemas Releases REGAL UNLIMITED Plans (Is This a Good Deal?)

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! In today’s society, there are lots of things that are going towards the subscription-based model. We have tons of monthly plan streaming services to pick from, there are a lot of specific item boxes that get delivered to your house every month, and the cinema industry has recently popularized this in regards to products relating to themselves. MoviePass was something to buzz about towards the end of 2017 and beginning of 2018, despite its shady business practices and eventual downfall. By the way, it’s somehow still in business! Speaking of downfalls, Sinemia introduced their unlimited model in 2018 despite mocking MoviePass for their similarly laid out model. Unfortunately for them, they shut down in April of this year. Then, sort of taken from an idea done by Europe’s Cineworld, AMC Theatres, which is popular throughout the United States, developed their top-tier plan to their Stubs program called A-List. This also spawned separate programs in chains including Cinemark, Showcase Cinemas, and even though the website still says it is currently in beta, Alamo Drafthouse.

But the question I had for awhile was this. When was Regal Cinemas going to join the party?

Regal Entertainment Group is the second largest cinema chain in terms of the number of theaters they have in the United States. Aside from having the Regal Cinemas name, they also possess the names United Artists Cinemas and Edwards Theatres, and their parent company is one of the early entrants to the subscription-based cinema trend, Cineworld! Guess what? After a number of rumors and bits of supporting evidence, Regal has joined the cinema subscription party! And unlike A-List, which I talked about on here before. Regal has three different tiers for their upcoming plan.

LOW TIER:
REGAL UNLIMITED ($18 per month + tax)

  • Unlimited free 2D movies
  • Usable at over 200 select theaters
  • Surcharges apply to premium formats
  • Surcharge of $1.50 to use at Unlimited Plus theater and $3.00 to use at Unlimited All Access theater

MIDDLE TIER:
REGAL UNLIMITED PLUS ($21 per month + tax)

  • Unlimited free 2D movies
  • Usable at over 400 theaters
  • Surcharges apply to premium formats
  • Surcharge of $1.50 to use at Unlimited All Access theater

HIGH TIER:
REGAL UNLIMITED ALL ACCESS ($23.50 per month + tax)

  • Unlimited free 2D movies
  • Usable at all theaters
  • Surcharges apply to premium formats

As for other benefits, they consist of the following (as suggested on Regal’s website):

  • 10% off all food and non-alcoholic drink purchases
  • No blackout dates
  • Free large popcorn and soft drink on your birthday
  • Earn Regal Crown Club® credits with every dollar spent using your Regal Unlimited™ subscription

Now let’s talk about these tiers in depth.

I mentioned earlier that this service is specifically usable on all regular 2D screenings. You can go to the theater and watch a standard 2D movie for free. That means you cannot get any of Regal’s premium offerings such as IMAX, 3D, ScreenX, or even the company’s own large format experience, RPX. That is unless you are okay with paying a surcharge. Speaking of surcharges, there are a number of theaters that will accept only one or two versions of the program without making you pay extra to get into your desired screening. For example, I live in Massachusetts. The closest Regal Cinemas to where I live is in the city of Boston, specifically the Regal Fenway & RPX. That means if I have Regal Unlimited All Access, I can use it there, pay $23.50 a month, and not be charged any extra money to go see whatever movie I want in 2D. That’s partially due to how such a theater specifically is only going to avoid surcharging people for said screenings if they have the All Access plan. If you have either the cheaper Unlimited Plus or even less expensive Unlimited plan, you will be forced to pay a surcharge for using your plan at a theater like the one I just mentioned. But there are also theaters in the state that will be a bit more friendly to those who have cheaper plans. There are several venues that allow you to use two plans without surcharge consequences in the state and others that permit all three and give no surcharges at all. To view what each theater is doing regarding these plans, click this link!

20190322_145537_HDR

Even though this may have already been effectively suggested, I must point out that there is a requirement to pay additional charges when going into premium screenings like IMAX or RPX. So in a way, this is almost like MoviePass where users can only get a free movie if they go see it in 2D. But I’m not holding my horses yet, because if you reserve tickets through the app, guess what? You get charged a $0.50 convenience fee!

But I’m not gonna deny that any of these deals have perks behind them, especially if you live in a state or city where individual movie tickets are expensive! Take New York City for example. Let’s base this on an actual showtime that I found online. This Wednesday, July 31st, I’ll be in New York City and have nothing else to do. I have done a lot of walking this morning and I just need to relax for a bit. I’m in the Times Square area, which has a couple cinemas. I choose to go see “Spider-Man: Far From Home” in the Regal E-Walk at 1:10. Keep in mind, this is in 2D with no premium perks. They still have chairs available, I pick my seat, boom. Then the guy at the register goes “$17.15, please.” So I choose to support corporate America because it gives me the awesome things that I want. But let’s face it, I’m paying a little bit more than $17 to rent a chair for a couple of hours. Then I am instantly reminded of how kick-ass “Spider-Man: Far From Home” was because this happened to be my second time watching it! And because it is so kick-ass, I’m like, “AGAIN!” So I trot downstairs to the register, ask for a ticket for the 4:20 show, pick my seat, get charged yet another $17.15, pay up, go back upstairs, watch the movie again, have a good time, and decide to leave. Simple math indicates that when you multiply 17.15 by 2 you get 34.30. Therefore, if I had ANY of Regal’s new plans, I would have been able to see the same movie twice and pay nothing at the counter both times. I’d just be paying for a monthly subscription, which ends up being cheaper than paying to see the same film twice at similarly priced times in a theater like this one.

And I will say, this does suggest one major benefit of Regal’s plans that I have yet to see anywhere else, because even though you do get additional charges at select theaters depending on what plan you have and which theater you go to, you don’t have a daily limit, you don’t have a weekly limit, nor do you have a monthly limit. You can see one movie a month, four or five a week, you can do a few showtimes in a single day, you have the power. MoviePass had a great idea of letting consumers see one movie a day, but what if that movie sucked? What if you wanted to see another movie that could have been better? Plus, you can’t see the same film twice! I mentioned Showcase Cinemas, which is pretty popular where I live. They have a plan for individuals and groups, which I think is creative. However, once I looked at the individual portion, it looked terrible! Because it gives you a choice between 2 or 3 tickets per month. I imagine it would be good for certain casual moviegoers, but if you review a ton of films like me, that would not be the case. AMC A-List lets people see three movies a week in any format. While the lack of surcharge on the premium formats is pretty cool, having an unlimited option would probably make the consumer feel like they’re the king of the world.

But this isn’t all rainbows and butterflies. Because in order to use this subscription, you must have a digital app. There is no physical card you can obtain, and if you are still in the dark ages and have a flip phone, chances are you can’t get this subscription. Plus, while I don’t imagine a case that involves this problem for every user, you cannot reserve tickets for more than three screenings at a time. Another issue that I think a lot of people can put up with to be honest is that this is not applicable to things like certain double features and Fathom Events screenings. One issue that I would probably think is more concerning, although still somewhat fine, is that if I wanted to use this service and buy a ticket at the box office, it has to be done on the same day that a certain show starts. That means if I wanted to see “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” tomorrow, I’d be required to buy a ticket online and pay a $0.50 convenience fee.

Plus, I will admit, I do not like the idea of having three different plans that can be either be applied at a few theaters, many theaters, or all theaters. This is why I like the simplicity of AMC’s A-List. Granted, they have different prices based on the area where you live, but I still like it better because that price does not restrict you from visiting outside of said area. There are slight restrictions, but it still lets you go from a state that is charging $19.95/month (Ex: Texas) to a state that is charging $21.95/month (Ex: Florida). If you live in either one of those states and for some reason you end up somewhere like California, which charges $23.95/month, you can still go see a movie there, but you have two more chances to see a movie in a state that does not cater to your price zone. Not only that, but if I lived in a certain area of my state that maybe would have been close to a lower tier theater if it were owned by Regal, I wouldn’t have to worry about that if it were owned by AMC. As long as it has the AMC name on it and it is in my state, I can go to it.

I was admittedly worried about this at first, because on paper, it sounded like Regal was going to outright rob consumers who got cheaper plans simply because they don’t work at all locations. And I will admit, the surcharges could be an inconvenience, and if I lived in a certain area, it would keep me away from more expensive Regal locations. But just the fact that surcharges exist as opposed to the concept where a higher tier theater makes you pay full price for a ticket puts a bit of a bigger smile on my face.

And you know what? Part of me even wonders how good this deal is from a business standpoint. I don’t see Regal going bankrupt anytime soon. But one of the things that killed MoviePass is how many movies a consumer can see per month. Because the idea was that MoviePass would start out by giving consumers an opportunity to watch a movie a day. Then more and more limits set in as time passed to the point where you couldn’t see certain movies, the site would crash, and you might not get the time you want either. Depending on how much free time someone has, someone can possibly go check out one movie a day, and that could end up being a lifestyle for many consumers. Granted, Regal has a slight advantage compared to MoviePass because MoviePass worked at several theater chains and operations, whereas Unlimited, Unlimited Plus, and Unlimited All Access are all exclusive to Regal Entertainment Group. I don’t think Regal should have anything to worry about, but depending on how much it affects their ticket sales, it is a thought to keep in the back of their mind. Although at the same time, movie theaters traditionally have a split of money that goes in their pockets and the studios’ pockets, so what they should really be paying attention to is how often people buy food. If this plan causes an uptick in concession purchases at Regal locations, then it’s possible that this new Unlimited concept is a win.

So… Is this a good deal? For me, if I had to compare it to perhaps its top competitor, AMC Stubs A-List, I could do better. But I do think this could work for a lot of people. I know that in a state such as New Hampshire, which has more Regal locations as opposed to Cinemark or AMC locations, it can definitely help. Upon a quick Google Maps search, there is only one AMC in the entire state located in the town of Londonderry. Regal however has a few locations in Concord, Newington, and Hooksett. And if you live in a state like Maine, good luck finding an AMC because there are none in the entire state. There are Regal locations however! This can definitely save you a ton of money and if you go to Regal more than AMC, this might be for you. But as someone who has more AMC locations nearby and overall prefers some of the details behind the AMC A-List deal, I would stick with A-List. You don’t get extra charges for premium formats, it is much more open-minded as to what theater you go to on a locality perspective, and your convenience fees are waived when buying tickets online! But if you go to Regal often, I do recommend giving this a shot and you could potentially save yourself a ton of money.

Image result for terrificon

Thanks for reading this post! I just want to remind everyone that in a week and a half I am going to be heading down to Connecticut once again to visit Mohegan Sun for Terrificon. I have gone two years in a row, this is going to be my third, and per usual, I’ll be doing a review and haul post. I’m thinking of implementing more video elements this time around because I want to avoid doing the same thing over and over again. Only time will tell, but I cannot wait. I’ll be there all three days (August 9-11) so I’ll have plenty to report. And I’ll soon make a post about what’s in store at this con coming up in a week and a half. I would have done it earlier, but I wanted to make sure I had enough details to share with everybody. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Speaking of being subscribed to things, be sure to like my Facebook page! I want to know, are you going to be taking advantage of Regal’s new Unlimited concept? Which plan are you going to choose? If you want to know more about this, click the link below to find out more information! Also, I am curious. Have you ever had a cinema subscription service? Like, do you have AMC A-List? Do you have Cinemark Movie Club? Or… MoviePass, maybe? And if you have a MoviePass card at this point, can you tell me whether or not you have a MySpace? Just curious. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Click here to find out more about the new REGAL UNLIMITED Plans!

Christopher Nolan’s TENET (2020) Has A $225 Million Budget?! Should Warner Bros. Be Worried?

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmdbjntyymzetndzkny00njg2ltgwogetyzi4mtezzgi1ote5xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyodu5oti5oty40._v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Over a month ago I discussed what has previously been established about Christopher Nolan’s upcoming flick, “Tenet.” And as of recently, something else has been brought up that needs to be talked about. Specifically, the budget. Why? Because it is one of the biggest in history, not to mention, Christopher Nolan’s second highest budget ever, regardless of whether or not you adjust the others for inflation. It has been announced by several sources that this film has a budget of $225 million. How big is that? Well, let’s just put it this way. Christopher Nolan also directed 2012’s “The Dark Knight Rises,” which had a budget of $230 million. According to Wikipedia, that film ties “Spectre,” “Captain America: Civil War,” “The Fate of the Furious,” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales” for the 18th highest budget for a movie. If what is being said about “Tenet” actually happens to be true, turns out it would tie the budgets of films like “Man of Steel,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest,” “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian,” and “The Lone Ranger.” All of these budgets are in the top 30!

My question is this. Is it worth it? Because one simple fact about this movie and my relationship to it is that I am perhaps one of the most likely individuals to end up going to see it. I love Christopher Nolan, I am well aware of his track record, which is much more than solid, and he made some of my favorite films of all time. He is practically a movie god in my book. And if this movie were coming out some time after say “The Dark Knight” or the “The Dark Knight Rises” I think this would be a guaranteed success. However, it is coming out in 2020.

I want to bring up some numbers here regarding Christopher Nolan’s previous films, and I want to set a point straight. People love the man as a filmmaker, but I wonder if his name is going to be enough to carry this next film.

INCEPTION (2010) (released between TDK and TDKR)
Budget: $160 million
Box office: $828.3 million

INTERSTELLAR (2014) (released after TDKR)
Budget: $165 million
Box office: $677.5 million

DUNKIRK (2017)
Budget: $100-150 million
Box office: $526.9 million

By the way, for those who really want to know, the last two films in “The Dark Knight” grossed over $1 billion.

If you ask me, part of why films like “Inception” and “Interstellar” have been mega-successes is because they were released when Christopher Nolan and “The Dark Knight” were fresh in people’s minds. But I am wondering if Christopher Nolan’s clock is ticking. Because we live in a time where CGI superhero movies, Disney flicks, nostalgia bombs, and pretty much anything having to do with spectacle is what “the people” happen to be checking out.

Although at the same time, the description for “Tenet” makes it fall along the lines of a spectacle-type movie. Some have referred to “Tenet” as a “massive, innovative, action blockbuster” and “an action epic evolving from the world of international espionage.”

I will say, this film has a chance, but partially because it is not based on any preexisting material, it almost seems impossible for it to become a box office success. Besides, the summer it comes out, it will be competing against films like “Bob’s Burgers: The Movie,” “Ghostbusters 2020,” and because Disney is still running out of original ideas, “Jungle Cruise.” Granted, “Tenet” is probably not going after the family demographic, but let’s face it, it’s probably gonna lose those kinds of people to “Jungle Cruise.” If you ask me, I’d prefer seeing “Tenet” over all these movies, but I’m me, not everyone else. And basing purely on statistics and predictions, “Tenet” is probably going to have some trouble. Especially when you consider how “Tenet” is from Warner Bros., unlike these films. In fact, the only other July release announced for Warner Bros. is “Green Lantern Corps,” which I honestly wonder if it actually will happen to see the light of day. And if I must add something else to the table, one of Nolan’s recent films, “Interstellar,” didn’t win the box office on its opening weekend, instead that honor went to Disney’s “Big Hero 6,” an animated family film about the formation of a superhero team.

I have no idea what was going on when this movie was originally pitched. I would not be surprised, because I sometimes have this particular image in my head, if Christopher Nolan simply went to Warner Brothers, walked in the door, exchanged greetings with someone, said “I’d like to pitch a movie,” to which Warner Brothers responded, “We don’t care what it is, we want it!” Because Warner Brothers has helped distribute many of Nolan’s flicks, usually to be met with extremely positive feedback. Therefore, their bond is amazingly strong.

Christopher Nolan’s last few non-Batman films have been box office successes, making more than thrice their original budget. But I am wondering if based on their ultimate totals, it is perhaps a downward spiral. “Inception” came out after “The Dark Knight,” which is the #4 movie on IMDb right now. “The Dark Knight Rises” came out in 2012, which was positively received, but not to the same levels as “The Dark Knight,” which may have caused some audience members to lack the same level of faith in Nolan. Although based on the successes of “Interstellar” and “Dunkirk,” that did not seem to stop him. It’s still a question to keep in mind though because “Batman,” despite its nerdy association, is popular. Then again, a lot of nerdy things have officially become “cool” so what do I know? You’re not as likely to go to a bar and see everyone having a conversation about “Dunkirk.”

I do think “Tenet” has a chance at being a success, but it also has significant odds of failing as well. It’s an original film with an abnormally huge budget, and if the box office has taught us anything recently, most audiences are flocking to what they know. They know Christopher Nolan. But do they know him enough?

So if “Tenet” is to succeed, I do have some ideas as to how it could potentially win people over through its marketing campaign. It should insert the following:

“FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY”
The name “Christopher Nolan” in a significant manner
“GOLDEN GLOBE NOMINEE John David Washington”
Michael Caine (either the name, the actor in the film, or both)
Visually stunning moments
Enough to hide the movie’s overall structure
SHOT WITH IMAX CAMERAS

In fact on that last one, what I recommend is doing something that Nolan did for “Dunkirk.” When a big movie comes out this year or next year, perhaps maybe “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker,” “Black Widow,” “Birds of Prey,” “Godzilla vs. Kong,” or “Wonder Woman 1984,” perhaps attach a 5 minute preview of “Tenet” to one of these films to emphasize the scope of the film. In fact, “Wonder Woman 1984” is also being shot with IMAX cameras, this would be like an appetizer for that film.

Granted, there is a sign of hope when it comes to Nolan’s time of release, which is the fact that he is putting his film out during the third weekend of July. A lot of people have free time since it is summer, but most importantly, mainly for Nolan, is that said weekend is “a lucky date,” as once stated by Deadline Hollywood. He released four of his most recent projects at that time, to have them all be met with eventual success.

Although another thing that could help Nolan is that none of his competing films (as of now) are listed to be in IMAX. On Wikipedia’s List of films released in IMAX, “Tenet” is the only film confirmed to be released in that format during the month of July. I am willing to bet this list will change to include films like “Jungle Cruise,” but based on the specs of “Tenet,” I have a feeling that the IMAX brand is going to put more emphasis on that film during the summer more than any other. Kind of like how “Dunkirk” got an unusually long run in many of IMAX’s theaters.

At the very end though, “Tenet’s” success, at least from my point of view, is going to come down to a number of things. Positive reactions, originality, solid marketing, and giving audiences enough reasons to avoid checking out other similar films to be released in summer 2020. From what I have heard so far, the film has me onboard. I am looking for more original material to gloss over that will hopefully be remembered as time marches on. While I didn’t go see it in the theater, “Inception” won a number of people over for being innovative and something that some viewers have yet to see. I am willing to bet that “Tenet” is able to have the same effect that “Inception” did with its viewers. The film involves action and espionage, which makes the middle of summer a good time to release it. But the film should be thankful it is not going up against a “Mission: Impossible” movie.

I feel like this is a very neck and neck situation. On one hand you have a director with name power, a great track record, multiple successes. But not only is this a property nobody has ever witnessed, but the actors are not box office draws, there’s some competition for the time being, including some films that’ll probably be more likely to get kids in the theater. What’ll happen? I literally have no idea. After all, it’s more than a year until “Tenet” releases, so only time will tell.

I want to know, what are your thoughts on the budget for “Tenet?” Personally, it makes me excited for how the film will turn out, and I imagine some other people will feel the same way. Even without the budget, this is already my most anticipated film of 2020 based on everything I have heard so far. However, do you think this is financially responsible enough to allow a future box office success? If so, I’m curious, how much do you think “Tenet” will make? If you think it is going to fail, how much money do you think it’ll earn? Let me know down below! Thanks for reading this post! I just want to let everyone know that this week I am likely going to be seeing the movie “Yesterday,” directed by Danny Boyle. I’m not sure what day I am going yet, but that is on my radar at some point. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Captain Marvel (2019): Not That Marvelous

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmte0ywfmotmtytu2zs00ztixlwe3otetytniyzbkzjvizthixkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyodmzmzq4oti40._v1_sy1000_cr006751000_al_

“Captain Marvel” is directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (Sugar, Half Nelson) and stars Brie Larson (Room, The Glass Castle), Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, Snakes On a Plane), Ben Mendelsohn (Ready Player One, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story), Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator, Blood Diamond), Lee Pace (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Lincoln), Lashana Lynch (Fast Girls, Brotherhood), Gemma Chan (Mary Queen of Scots, Crazy Rich Asians), Annette Bening (American Beauty, 20th Century Women), Clark Gregg (The New Adventures of Old Christine, 500 Days of Summer), and Jude Law (Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, Closer). This film is the 21st installment in the cinematic universe. Good luck with your marathons, newcomers! “Captain Marvel” is about a soldier from another world who has memories of her past on Earth. As she is sent down to Earth, or as her planet’s kind calls it, “C-53,” she must combat a foreign force who can disguise themselves into other people and save the universe from further destruction.

OK… Here we go. I went into this movie rather excited. I must point out though, it is not because I am seeing the movie, but because I got to see it in the historic Chinese Theatre. This was kind of a dream of mine and I was waiting to go away to see this movie instead of seeing it on its first two nights just to make the experience special. And it was! When it comes to my familiarity with Captain Marvel, it is admittedly lower compared to other superheroes. But regardless of how familiar audiences and I are with this character, Disney and Marvel had an excellent marketing opportunity on their hands. They have never done a movie with a woman in the lead role before, so after almost eleven years of making MCU films, this is the first time this was being done. Unfortunately, it was not good.

Let me just get some things out of the way. I’m straight, I’m white, and I am a male. I am well aware that my physical and internal qualities that I can’t change, unless I go through surgery, puts me in the position of associating with the most hated type of person on the planet. So… reviewing this movie is hard. But I will say some things that I actually found to be good about the movie. This movie is kind of a crowd-pleaser. Much like a bunch of other MCU films, it had many attempts at humor, some of which totally worked. Some of the action is flashy and the visuals are very colorful. Speaking of that, the deaging done on Samuel L. Jackson is top-notch. And there are tons of callbacks to the 1990s that take up a portion of screentime.

Blockbuster Video, as seen in the trailer, plays a big role in the film. There’s a couple moments where people were laughing because of how 1990s technology worked. There was the use of Dial-up, CD-ROM had its share of screentime, and as I imagine some people expected, pagers were used in the movie.

But as a story, the movie is cliche, which would be fine because “Wonder Woman” was actually cliche and that film was actually pretty kick-ass, but the thing about “Wonder Woman” which made me not care for “Captain Marvel” is the difference in pacing. “Captain Marvel,” in reality, was a somewhat boring movie. Granted, there were parts that were exciting and entertaining, but there was a part of me that didn’t care about what was going on, I didn’t give a crap about the Kree, and after watching the movie, there are perhaps some parts that I feel like I am going to forget about in less than a month.

Let’s talk about Brie Larson in this film. I like Brie Larson as an actress. She’s very talented, she’s won awards, and she is in one of my favorite movies of 2015, “Room.” Also, I just watched “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” a movie featuring said actress, and that was one of the best films I’ve seen in recent memory. Brie Larson has a tendency to sign on to play good roles. Granted, this doesn’t always happen (watch “The Glass Castle”), but she usually has a keen eye for her roles. In fact she joined a movie that I am rather excited for the more I hear about it, “Just Mercy.” Knowing how the world of Hollywood tends to work, or at least having an illusion as to thinking I know how it works, Brie Larson definitely saw potential in a role as her particular character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Based on the legacy of said universe, I could definitely see potential. However, the execution of her performance was… I don’t know how to say this… Very off and on. The elements are all there for a decent Captain Marvel performance at the very least. A lot of the mannerisms done in the movie are all right for said character, and there is some range presented in terms of personality. But I feel like Brie Larson was at times directed to act a certain way that just didn’t work. It felt like watching multiple characters in one to the point where it is almost easy to assume Captain Marvel had multiple personality disorder. The performance just kind of didn’t work for me, which is absolutely disappointing because Brie Larson is practically an A-list actress. She won an Oscar for crying out loud! There are some moments where I found Captain Marvel to have some charisma behind her, some emotions to display, and others where she is just stoic. While there are times where such emotions (or lack thereof) can work for the movie, it is hard to tell exactly if everything flows as properly as I would hope. Speaking of proper flow…

One of the best movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Not only did it make a rather unknown comic book IP become known and loved by millions, but when the first movie came out, it was actually pretty unique as far as comic book movies go. And one way that statement can be supported is through the movie’s soundtrack. Not only is it fun to listen to, but it has practically had an association with the movie in a way that many other soundtracks don’t. While “Captain Marvel,” unlike “Guardians,” doesn’t rely on a soundtrack for music all that much (maybe except for 90s’ references), there is this one moment where a pop song can be heard. I won’t go into much detail, but it is during a fight. If the crew behind this film was trying to capitalize on the success of “Guardians of the Galaxy,” then I can totally see that. But it didn’t f*cking work. In fact, that “Guardians”-esque moment, might just be the most cringeworthy part of the entire movie. And for those of you who know what I am talking about, I don’t know if you will agree with me, but this is just how I feel. In fact, it totally wouldn’t surprise me if some of these songs were put in because of “Guardians of the Galaxy’s” popularity because Nicole Perlman worked on this movie, earning herself a story credit. For the record, she was a writer behind “Guardians of the Galaxy.”

I will give some credit to Samuel L. Jackson however because like usual, he did a fine job as Nick Fury. And I will give even more credit to whoever deaged him. Sticking with the “Guardians of the Galaxy” theme, one of the highlights of the truly disappointing “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” was the deaging CGI done on Kurt Russell. It was nice to see Nick Fury not only have hair, but believable looking hair. Jackson’s performance as Fury was definitely worth buying for how such a character would behave in the 1990s. However, without going into spoilers, there is something that happens in this film that references something in the future, and it takes place during the end of the film (no, not during the credits, around the climax). It is absolutely crucial to Fury’s character. The way that this film manages to go about it, managed to get a big laugh from the audience, but I thought this GIF would sum up my thoughts on this whole situation.

Image result for jeopardy gif stupid

Now imagine a part of my brain saying that for an eternity, and you have my thoughts on this moment towards the end of the climax.

And I gotta say, I feel like I am in a weird place as I review this movie. I am a straight white male. I have nothing against women having their own superhero. What I am against however is when people think take the idea of gender equality and twist it to make one gender look better than the other, and I will say, despite “Captain Marvel’s” numerous flaws, not to mention its overall lack of memorability, one of its strengths is that it made a woman look good as a role model, while not exactly putting guys down. If you have ever seen me talk about the 2016 “Ghostbusters,” chances are you know my thoughts on that movie, and none of them are good. One thing I absolutely hated about the 2016 “Ghostbusters” movie is that it went out of its way to display moments that practically make just about every man in the movie look like idiots. There’s a secretary played by Chris Hemsworth who literally makes Patrick Star look like a genius. They ruin the reputation of Bill Murray. And there’s a scene where the ladies shoot a giant ghost in the nuts. There are no moments where I feel like if I had a place in the “Captain Marvel” movie’s universe where I’d have an IQ below 40. Thanks, “Captain Marvel!”

I don’t really have too much more to say in terms of my own originally gathered thoughts, but I will point out that when it comes to “Captain Marvel,” I feel like this movie manages to disappoint me in more ways than I would imagine. While the villain in this film could definitely be worse, I feel like we are going back to phase 1 and even phase 2 MCU, because the villain here was just not memorable. And speaking of villains I don’t really find to be all that great, Ronan the Accuser apparently had a few moments in this film! Like… OK… More “Guardians of the Galaxy” stuff, whoppity do! I have no idea why you even needed much of Ronan’s presence in the movie, but somehow he’s here! Then again, his appearance, much like the film’s main antagonist, could definitely be worse.

Also, another thing to consider about “Captain Marvel” is that this is the 21st film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Now that we have gotten to this point, it is getting harder to impress me because a viewer, it almost feels like I’ve seen everything. Granted, there are some unseen things in “Captain Marvel.” This is the first female-led film in the franchise, this is the first film to take place mainly in the 1990s, and it is also the first film where we get to see a cat play a significant role.

By the way, if anyone wants to know my thoughts on Goose the Cat, I thought he was funny, but I don’t think I liked him as much as other people. Although I imagine this character is going to inspire some people to create some funky, psychedelic t-shirts, which if that is the case, I can’t wait.

However, going back to my main point, I have been a follower of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for years. And with following, comes knowledge, and having a competent knowledge of the MCU, to MAYBE hold my own in a related trivia competition, makes me realize that a lot has happened over the years. There are times when material might just seem like something we’ve seen in the past, but with a different name attached. “Captain Marvel,” the more I think about it, just seems like a newer, inferior version of “Thor” with elements of “Captain America: The First Avenger” intact. You have this god-like being who is trying to find their identity or place in the universe, and part of it takes place in space, while another portion is set on Earth. Plus, it is another fish out of water story.

Also, before we get into the verdict section, I will point out a statement from MCU executive Kevin Feige.

“Captain Marvel, she is as powerful a character as we’ve ever put in a movie. Her powers are off the charts, and when she’s introduced, she will be by far the strongest character we’ve ever had.”

Having now seen “Captain Marvel,” I am definitely not going to deny that Captain Marvel is powerful as hell. However, as far as her character being the most powerful of all, that is still up for debate. At least from my point of view. And speaking of which, there is a climactic moment towards the movie that was probably played for comic relief, but it also made a certain moment feel rushed and kind of cheap. More powerful does not always mean more exciting. And I say this whole “power” thing is up for debate for one reason and one reason only.

Can Captain Marvel do this? I’ll wait… I’ve got years of my life left, which give tons of time to provide an answer.

In the end, I hate to say it, but “Captain Marvel is one of the worst movies of the MCU. Granted, that statement might not say all too much as very few have actually gotten a low score from me. I go to the movies for memorable experiences, and many of the MCU’s installments have provided said experiences. I basically put my money on the table for “Captain Marvel,” because again, I went to the Chinese Theatre, which is MILES from where I live, and I literally mean MILES, because I am from Massachusetts. The Chinese Theatre is states away! I had a good time, and I would love to come back. After all… There is a “Star Wars” movie coming out soon… But the whole experience would have been perfect if I went to see a better movie, and “Captain Marvel” was just not that great. I am happy for women who are getting a hero they want to look up to, but I am not judging “Captain Marvel” completely as a feminist piece, I am judging it as a film. As a film, “Captain Marvel” is visually appealing, which is not surprising at this point for a comic book movie. It is pacing-wise, perhaps the worst of the twenty-one films presented in this series. And I felt that I wouldn’t pop this in my Blu-ray player right away if I had the chance. There is a mid-credits scene worth staying for, and there is another scene that happens towards the end. It is honestly unneeded, but if you like your end credits scenes, there’s your update. I’m going to give “Captain Marvel” a 4/10. I honestly don’t know if this grade is going to stay where it is. Because I honestly didn’t like this movie, but part of me had glimmers of enjoyment. And part of me also wonders if I am being generous because this movie stars a woman. I didn’t find myself to be angry throughout the film, so maybe this is technically a 4/10 for me. Only time will tell if this grade manages to stay where it is. And I gotta point out something regarding this “Captain Marvel,” DC did this type of film better! How often do I get to say that? Maybe they screwed up on “Suicide Squad,” the effects on “Justice League,” and keeping a singular vision alive, but they managed to do a female-led film better than Marvel, and that is an accomplishment for DC if I have ever seen one. “Wonder Woman” over “Captain Marvel” for sure, if you ask me! Thanks for reading this review! I actually wanted to make an announcement regarding April, while most of the month is uncertain in terms of content (although an “Avengers: Endgame” review is a undoubted guarantee), I do have a confirmation for you all. For those you who follow the director Terry Gilliam, you may be familiar that he worked on films such as “Brazil” and “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” Recently however talk has been going around regarding his new film, “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote.” For those who have ever heard of this film, you may be aware that production for it actually took decades to complete. Why? Total and utter disaster, that’s why! Anyway, here in the US, it is playing in several theaters for one night. Courtesy of Fathom Events, I have scored a ticket to one of these shows on April 10th! Next month, expect a review from “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote,” and if it takes forever to complete… Who knows? It could be just like the movie and go through several failures regarding production! Be sure to follow Scene Before with your WordPress account or email to catch that review and more great content! I want to know, did you see “Captain Marvel?” What did you think about it? Or, have you been to the Chinese Theatre? What did you see? What was your experience like? I personally enjoyed it, minus the movie. But I want to hear about your experience! Let me know about it in the comments section! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Netflix FINALLY Wins Me Over! *By Theatrically Releasing Roma in 70mm*

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtkxmzu0odmzml5bml5banbnxkftztgwotqyntq3njm@._v1_sx1500_cr001500999_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! If you have seen my recent post on the Scene Before Facebook page or if you have seen my recently posted “Green Book” review (check it out if you haven’t already), you may have noticed I have announced a “surprise post” coming your way. Well, surprise! Today we are going to talk about a company I am kind of opposed against, Netflix.

Image result for netflix

My history with Netflix is pretty simple. I don’t use them. If you are the prime killer of one of my all time most prominent childhood memories (Blockbuster Video), chances are I’m gonna have to resist you. Plus, I still collect physical media to this day and that also seems to be a market Netflix is sort of killing, much like how iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, and Pandora seem to be killing physical media for music. Although if I am correct, I could be wrong because vinyl seems to be making a comeback in some ways. I have watched things on Netflix, but I never technically had a Netflix account. For a film studies class in high school, I watched “Moana” and “Altered Carbon” on Netflix with my class. My sister, who uses Netflix, was watching “Family Guy” and I happened to be in the room with her while it was playing on the service. Netflix also produces their own original content, none of which I have watched religiously, no matter how many good things I’ve heard about “Stranger Things,” “The Crown,” or even “House of Cards.” It’s not just TV shows, they even produce and distribute movies. A couple notable Netflix movie titles include “Death Note,” “The Cloverfield Paradox,” “Mowgli,” “Bright,” “The Ridiculous 6,” and motherf*cking “Bird Box.” When is everybody gonna stop talking about “Bird Box?!” These movies have gone straight to Netflix’s service for anyone to stream if they have an account. Some of these movies, kind of to my surprise, have done pretty well. Seemingly well enough to keep a number of people out of the movie theater, yet another industry I don’t want to see taken away because of these hooligans. This not to say that they haven’t done theatrical releases through these years. Orson Welles had a lost film in the vault which has been recently distributed by Netflix, which did play in theaters for a limited run. “Mudbound” is another film that comes to mind, which actually received four Oscar nominations in the 90th Academy Awards. But if I were to watch one of these movies, part of me would hate myself, because I feel like I partially killed the movie theater industry.

However, there has been a single exception to this list that I’m aware of (well, sort of). Last year, I watched “Annihilation” on its second weekend. Part of me was excited for that film because I saw it was directed by Alex Garland, who directed “Ex Machina,” an artsy, well put together sci-fi flick that shows what happens when we try to get robots to be as realistic and lifelike as possible, and perhaps contain emotional thoughts, including ones related to sexuality. I saw “Annihilation” because where I live, specifically the United States, they released the film in theaters. But I also took into consideration that the film is also a straight to Netflix flick in other countries. I even know someone who attended my high school film studies class I mentioned earlier who said they went to Brazil and they had “Annihilation” running on their Netflix service so that person watched the movie. I will also say, for the record, Netflix didn’t technically release the film in the United States, Paramount did. So from my point of view, I am supporting Paramount, not Netflix. If I saw Netflix was doing a complete worldwide distribution, chances are I would have skipped seeing “Annihilation.”

This leads me to my next point, which is actually going to be the main topic of this post, one of the most recent releases from Netflix, “Roma” has been getting a lot of buzz lately. It has a 96% on both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Popular and notable sources like Time, Variety, Rolling Stone, Vulture, and Vanity Fair have all considered it to be the Best Picture of the year. Not to mention, it won Best Foreign Film at the Golden Globes, and happened to be nominated for two other awards, including Best Director, which the movie took home. At the Critics Choice Awards, the movie was nominated for eight awards and ended up taking home four, including Best Picture. I heard a lot regarding this film, and even some people in the industry have noted this film’s excellence. Once I saw the Netflix brand name though, I took a step back and ignored all possible opportunities of trying to watch “Roma.” By the way, for those who have a Netflix account, the movie is free to watch at the moment. Hey, I said I’m against Netflix! Not their customer base!

I would love to be able and sit back, turn on Netflix, watch “Roma,” but based on personal values, I can’t. But something happened recently that caught my attention.

If you know me in real life, chances are I try to catch as many movie screenings on film as I can. Most of the movie theater industry has now settled for digital projection, which may be easier to operate, but the reality is that film projection is kind of an art form, and some would even point out differences in detail between film and digital with film being better. I’m on the side that says film is typically more detailed. “Roma” is taking advantage of film stock to my surprise. Now, the film was shot digitally on an Arri Alexa, so in terms of filmmaking, the advantage wasn’t present there, although the film is presented in black and white so that could add an old-timey touch. But the thing that stood out to me is that Netflix is surprisingly trying to put this in more theaters than I’d expect, INCLUDING ones with 70mm equipment.

Article from Last December on Roma’s 70mm Locations (Published by IndieWire)

When I first heard about this, I thought this was very cool. There is actually a list of theaters to be doing this online, but none of them were closeby. For the record, I live in eastern Massachusetts, and the closest theater to me was in Hartford, Connecticut. While I would have LOVED to go all the way to Hartford, I don’t have my own car, nor do I have a license. Plus, if I were to make the trek there with anyone else, they’d probably be bored driving out of their minds. But who knows? Maybe the trip would have been worth it. We could have grabbed some food on the way, watched the movie, maybe even stay in Hartford overnight and see some notable sights the following day. That is… if it already happened, but it didn’t. So I still have the opportunity to go to Hartford.

But I am not taking it. I just got back to college and I want to make sure I stay as close to home as possible on various occasions. I’ll still go out and see movies, I mean, why wouldn’t I? But just not in Hartford. Maybe in Providence if something is playing there in IMAX 70mm.

I am not suggesting or implying that there are no 70mm equipped theaters less than an hour or so away from me, even 35mm equipped theaters for that matter. In fact, there are a couple. In the Boston area, they have the Somerville Theatre and the Coolidge Corner Theatre. I went to both theaters last year and they are nothing short of fantastic. This brings me to another main point. I have a Twitter account.

*SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION ALERT*

Follow me on Twitter! If you want to see more of my moronic thoughts, go to Twitter, type JackDrees in the search bar, find my account, which as mentioned, has the handle “@JackDrees” and let the magic happen! Over there you’ll find crazy statements, livetweets (beware of spoilers), my quick two cents on things that I decided not to post on here, and occasional appearances in hashtag games. DO IT NOW!

MY TWITTER

Anyway, on Twitter, I was typing away, trying to look over more grammatical mistakes than my current president tends to look over. One of my final posts of 2018 was this:

I tweeted this back on December 21st, and I don’t know whether or not Netflix, Alfonso Caurón, or someone else behind this movie happened to be stalking my account, but several days later, this could be found on Coolidge Corner Theatre’s Twitter feed.

Once I saw this, I knew there was a treat, and I was likely just about to be in for it.

AND I AM!

This Saturday, I’m actually going to see this movie at the Coolidge Corner in 70mm. I never thought that Netflix would actually consider being at least a minor force in the movie theater business, but now, they seem to be teaming up with theaters more often. Granted, they still have ways to go before they can become a true force, they need to do more releases in multiplexes as opposed to just doing limited releases. In fact, maybe what they could do is operate like Amazon. While Amazon is yet another one of those companies I can’t stand, I can tolerate them compared to Netflix because their business model is to come out with a movie in theaters, and after awhile, it becomes free on their service, while still managing to release physical media. The point is, Netflix won me over for once. I’m actually going to see “Roma.” I said some time ago that perhaps the only way that Netflix will get me to subscribe to their service is if they revive “King of the Nerds” for a fourth season. This will not get me to subscribe to their service, but it’s getting me to see Netflix content, which to me, is a true feat.

Again, I am seeing “Roma” on Saturday, and my review for it will be up maybe a day or two after. I am admittedly busy on Saturday and Sunday, but Monday is Martin Luther King Day so I may have some free time to do things like blogging. Only time will tell. Nevertheless, I want to thank Netflix for keeping moviegoers in mind in an age where digital streaming, not to mention digital projection, is seeming to trump other ways which we consume media. Thanks for reading this post! I don’t know how “surprised” you guys are, but to me, this felt like a surprise, so this is why I marketed the post as such a thing. But still, hope you enjoyed the post and look forward to my review for “Roma!” Speaking of movies, I might be going to see “On the Basis of Sex” pretty soon, so if I do, my review for that will be up as soon as possible. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with a WordPress account or email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, have you checked out, or are you going to check out “Roma” in 70mm? I’m actually quite curious about it because the movie was actually shot digitally from start to finish so I don’t know what it will be like on the screen. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Will First Man Be Shown on IMAX 70mm Film? If So, Where?

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone! Jack Drees here! If you know me personally, you’d probably be well aware of my fanaticism for IMAX. I freaking love IMAX. At times, they’re brutal liars (if you don’t trust me, ask Aziz Ansari), but at the same time I can’t help but love them. They’ve partially contributed towards my love of film. I would love to make several movies and release them in the IMAX format, and even on IMAX film. Speaking of that, I got to ask something today in this post.

mv5bywfhzgvjmtatzdcwmc00yty3ltljywutnzriodzlowfknjezxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymjmxote0oda-_v1_sy1000_cr006311000_al_

One movie I’m really looking forward to this year is “First Man.” This movie is being directed by Damien Chazelle (Whiplash, La La Land), stars Ryan Gosling (Blade Runner 2049, Crazy Stupid Love) and Claire Foy (The Crown, Vampire Academy) and is based on the true story (depending on your knowledge or thoughts on various conspiracy theories) of the famous Apollo moon landing from 1969.

A new trailer just released for this movie and I’ll just say to you all right now that I have no intentions to do a review on it. However, there is one thing I caught at the very end of the trailer. One of the last pieces of text the trailer states is “Select Scenes Filmed with IMAX Cameras.” It doesn’t exactly specify what type of IMAX camera is specifically used to shoot the movie, but according to IMDb, the movie is partially being shot on what is referred to as an IMAX MSM 9802. This camera was used to shoot select scenes of various films including “The Dark Knight,” “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol,” and “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” This is an IMAX camera that is capable of shooting in 2D and 70mm. Therefore, “First Man” is being shot in IMAX 70mm, which makes me ask, “Will you be able to watch this in the IMAX 70mm format?”

According to IMDb, if you look in the technical specifications page for “First Man,” it’ll say that some scenes will be shown in a 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is the proper ratio for an IMAX theater with 70mm equipment that covers the entire screen. For those of you who are unfamiliar with IMAX technology, let me just inform you, if the year this movie happened to be coming out is a year such as 2014 and I found this info on IMDb, chances are I’d at most GUARANTEE you that this movie will be shown in the IMAX 70mm format. However, it’s not 2014, it’s 2018, so I can’t make any guarantees at this point. I say that because IMAX has a technology which has been steadily growing, which is their 4K laser projection system (picture up above). They’ve installed it on several screens around the world. Some of these screens include the TCL Chinese Theatre (Los Angeles, CA), Cineworld Leicester Square (London, UK), CGV Yongsan (Seoul, SK), Event Cinemas Queen Street (Auckland, NZ), Scotiabank Toronto (Toronto, Canada), Miramar IMAX (Taipei, Taiwan), and I even have one that’s about a ten minute drive from my house, the Sunbrella IMAX 3D Theater, located inside Jordan’s Furniture, in Reading, MA. I can pretty much guarantee that given today’s technological preferences that at least one laser theater will be showing the movie. I say that because IMAX, like most movie theater owners and operators, typically show their movies in some format related to digital projection. It’s simpler to operate, simpler to handle, and you don’t have to worry about any degradation of picture quality for one reason or another.

The IMAX laser system works on multiple types of IMAX screens, but one of its main purposes is to be a digital equal/replacement for IMAX’s 70mm film projectors. If you ask me, IMAX 70mm projectors are capable of showing clearer images than the company’s laser projectors, but that’s for another time. With that sort of idea in mind, that means if you put an IMAX laser projector in an older IMAX theater that contained a film projector prior to it, there’s a good chance that the laser projector was installed to play media and said media will be displayed in an aspect ratio that would have been shown the same way had IMAX kept their film projector. For those of you who do not know much about IMAX, the laser projection system IS NOT IMAX’s only digital projection system. They’ve had another one which they introduced in 2008, which is pretty much the reason why some people refer to the company as LIEMAX. IMAX has installed many of these all over the world, which started an enormous growth in IMAX theaters in multiplexes. However, the projector couldn’t show any images in the tradtional IMAX aspect ratio and when people watch something say, shot with IMAX cameras, it would be shown in a 1.90:1 aspect ratio. The IMAX laser system by the way, first began rolling six years after the first IMAX digital system was introduced, in December 2014.

In the year of 2018, we have yet to see one major Hollywood release be shown on IMAX film. Yes, “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” was shown in IMAX film this year, but that technically released in 2017. We have yet to get one big film release, I’m not talking about any of those IMAX documentaries, I’m talking about films that most of the public would see advertised on TV, shown in the IMAX 70mm format this year, and I believe there is no other film this year that is more qualified than “First Man.” This movie involves a rocket launch, takes place in space, looks very compelling, and was shot entirely on film, part of it with IMAX cameras.

One big question I have though is this. If this were to be shown on IMAX film, what would our options be for going somewhere to view the movie in that format? Because two major releases in IMAX theaters were shown in IMAX film last year, but one release was much wider than the other. The first release was “Dunkirk,” which was shown in 37 IMAX theaters with 70mm equipment. This included a variety of theaters from giant IMAXes in multiplexes, to museums, to standalone locations. The second release was “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” which as I state in one of my posts I did in October of last year, the number of theaters this movie happened to be shown in which was playing it in the IMAX 70mm format is less than the number of seasons in “Criminal Minds,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Supernatural,” and “NCIS.” If you want to get more specific, the movie was said to be shown in 11 theaters in the IMAX 70mm format. Also, not many of the places which the movie was to be shown appeared to be what one would call a traditional movie theater. Most of these were in museums.

With the upcoming release of “First Man,” I honestly don’t know what will happen when it comes to releasing it. This movie doesn’t come out until October 12, so there is plenty of time for something to be announced when it comes to where this film will be shown. Although with a film like this, I would certainly like to see it shown in more than just a select few IMAX 70mm theaters. If it can’t be as wide as “Dunkirk,” I would at least like it to be close to as wide of a release as “Dunkirk.” Because just like “Dunkirk,” I feel like this is one of those films that is literally made for movie theaters, and in a case like this, IMAX. As an audience member, it is the responsibility of the filmmakers and in a case like this, IMAX, to immerse me into the movie. I’ve experienced a rocket launch in the IMAX format, and I’ll even state, the IMAX 70mm format! A rocket launch is by far one of the most powerful things a man could ever witness. Just a two minute video of a rocket launching would be a great test video for the IMAX experience. Now if that is accompanied by a great story and interesting characters, you have something more nifty on your hands. So IMAX, please give this a wide release in your 15/70mm format, and if you want my preference on where to see it, I want to see it at the Providence Place Cinemas IMAX in Providence, RI. Just… Get crackin’.

If this does not get a wide release in IMAX 70mm, the least I ask is that this gets an IMAX 70mm release in some notable areas having to do with NASA or space exploration. But seriously, if you ask me, the wider the release, the better! So why be good when you can be better? Chop chop, our lives only last so long!

“First Man” is in theaters and IMAX everywhere on October 12th, and it is by far one of my most anticipated movies of the year. If you guys ever think about seeing it, I imagine this would be one hell of a ride in IMAX. Thanks for reading this post! This week I’ll be releasing at least couple of new reviews. I’ve got my review for “Tag” which I pretty much already finished, it just needs to be released once I’m allowed to share it to the public. I will also soon have my review for “Incredibles 2” which comes out later during the week, and if I can manage my time well enough, I might be able to insert my review for “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.” I just need to watch it from start to finish, gather my thoughts, and then unleash those thoughts to you all. If I don’t have it this week, I’ll probably have it next week because the week after I’ll be on vacation, and I’ll probably still be posting while I’m away if my creative juices are flowing, but there’s a good chance I’ll be watching the movie at home as opposed to a hotel. Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, if you had to guess how many theaters happened to be releasing “First Man” in IMAX 70mm, what would your guess be? Or, what are your thoughts on the trailer we just got for “First Man?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

 

IMAX Showing a Double Feature For Incredibles 1 & 2 on June 13th

Posted on by Jack Drees

inc2_double_1500x580

Hey everyone! Jack Drees here! A couple weeks ago, tickets went on sale for “Incredibles 2,” one of my most anticipated movies of the year. I grew up watching the original “Incredibles” movie as much as possible, and now that a sequel is coming out, a part of me feels that my life has an enormous meaning. I got my tickets last Thursday at the theater when I went out to see “Solo: A Star Wars Story.” Why? Simply because it’s cheaper than getting them online. I ain’t payin’ for those stinkin’ fees! I went up to the register, and after I ordered my popcorn for the movie, I got myself some tickets for Wednesday, June 13th. But here’s the thing, like most movies, “Incredibles 2” has an opening Thursday night. There will be no opening showings on Wednesday, June 13th for “Incredibles 2.” But guess what? I hacked the system. Because IMAX is exclusively offering the opportunity for you to go see BOTH “The Incredibles” and “Incredibles 2” as part of a double feature for one day only.

I will admit, this is kind of old news, but I do feel it is worth sharing. I feel that not many people actually know about this. Not to mention, I think it’s a great opportunity. “The Incredibles” is without a doubt, my favorite animation ever made. Over recent years of watching the movie, I can pick out certain scenes and moments from the movie and think to myself “Imagine that in a theater, no, IMAGINE THAT IN IMAX.” I’m not even kidding with you. There’s this one scene in the movie for those of you who haven’t seen it. Basically, the mother, Helen Parr, AKA Elastigirl, is flying a jet, and a warning comes in alerting her of incoming missiles. We get to a point where Michael Giacchino’s epic and brilliant score just builds like a self-expansive mountain, it just keeps on going, Elastigirl gets serious, we notice her kids, Dash and Violet and they are told to fasten their seatbelts. S*it is getting real. As the scene plays out, Elastigirl is just controlling the plane and it’s basically like she’s controlling it on a twisty-turny aircraft version of the Autobahn. It’s one of the most thrilling and immersive scenes I’ve watched in an animation. That scene is just one reason why I’m really looking forward to this.

Excitement aside, I think this marks a really grand opportunity to all who happen to be fans of “The Incredibles.” On Fandango, if you look at what’s available regarding “The Incredibles,” “Incredibles 2,” and anything involving a double feature of both films, this IMAX double feature thingy is the only upcoming release popping up. So unless an opportunity comes up that allows Disney to distribute a double feature in Real-D 3D or something, this is the only “Incredibles” double feature you can watch in a theater. And if for some reason I’m wrong, let me just remind you, IT’S OUT A DAY BEFORE THE OPENING THURSDAY NIGHT! So even if there is a double feature in some other fashion, I doubt it’s going to show BEFORE the actual opening of “Incredibles 2.”

Also, let me just remind everyone reading this if you don’t know already, this double feature will be once again, on June 13th, the second Wednesday of that month. That is the one day that this event is going on. It’s not happening any day before, nor is it happening any day after. THIS IS ONE SHOW.

One other thing I should bring up, is that this event, while it is IMAX exclusive, it’s not playing in every single theater which is equipped with IMAX technology. Yeah, you can also remind me that a lot of theaters under the IMAX name, especially those in aquariums, museums, space centers, those sorts of places, don’t usually play any of the big feature films. If you want to go see the “Incredibles” double feature at your local IMAX theater, it would turn out that would depend on where exactly we’re talking here. I live in eastern Massachusetts and one of my local theaters is the AMC Assembly Row 12 in Somerville, and it’s a great theater. I’ve never been in their IMAX, but I know a couple people who have, they say it’s really good. Unfortunately, if they ever had the desire to go see this double feature at that theater, turns out they can’t. As of now, if you look at the page listing showtimes for AMC Assembly Row 12, the only thing that’s listed for June 13th is what’s being called “One Last Thing – A Chicken Soup for the Soul Event.” By the way, that too is a one night event, so you might wanna hurry up if you wanna catch that! This somewhat surprises me since AMC is a major chain, they own a ton of IMAX theaters, and AMC is one those places given the information that I just revealed to you, that you’d expect to see something like this. Although I will say if you like AMC, or if you want an excuse to either use or store points on your Stubs rewards card, you’re in luck, because a large number of those theaters will be playing this. So since I stated one AMC in particular that I live near has no record of saying they will be showing this at their theater, don’t get scared. I will say though, I’m not seeing this in an AMC, I’m seeing this in a furniture store (only those in New England will probably get what I’m talking about).

With all of this being said, there will also be NO IMAX 70mm screenings for this double feature. If that were the case, then there would also likely be screenings in that format for “Incredibles 2” by itself. Besides, that information doesn’t really matter too much to me, I’m just glad we’re getting the IMAX treatment for this film, and that is essentially what I wanted. If I wanted to see something in IMAX 70mm, I’d rave about it, because it’s essentially the most detailed form of projection out there, but to have an opportunity such as this one to just go see one of my favorite movies on one of the biggest screens imaginable, is enough for me to give money to my local theater (and unfortunately, Disney).

And if you think I’m the movie blog version of “fake news” and I’m just spitting words out about all of this and think I’m just some crazy guy who lives in their mother’s basement who has no life, let me just inform you, I live on my mother’s property, but the basement is just where I get some of my drinks. I shall also inform you that I am not lying to you. And if you don’t trust me, let me just remind you of one thing. FORBES SPOILED “AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR” BEFORE IT CAME OUT AND I DIDN’T! I’ll also remind you, that there’s official information about all of this located on IMAX’s website. If you go to the link below, it will take you from this post over to the news feed for IMAX, and you’ll specifically be taken to information regarding the “Incredibles” double feature.

https://www.imax.com/news/The-Incredibles-Double-Feature-In-IMAX

Not that much else to say here, but I wanted to get this out to update you on what’s going on at Scene Before regarding some of my future content. Plus, I wanted to remind you of what I consider to be an amazing opportunity for not just you, but possibly your family, maybe your kids if you have any, and anyone else who enjoys movies, “The Incredibles,” Disney, Pixar, or animations. So I guess I can say I did my job. Thanks for reading this post! Be sure to stay tuned for my “Incredibles 2” review on June 14th, and as far as closer content goes, I’m not so sure what will be coming next, but one movie that might just be on my radar is the recently released “Revenge.” Based on what I’m seeing online, it’s pretty much an impossibility for me to check it out in theaters based on where I live, even though for what I know, it had a release not too long ago, but it is also available for streaming. We’ll have to see what happens.

Although one thing I can guarantee you is something that is bound to happen in the month of June. Continuing my series of Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” reviews, I’ll be reviewing the fourth movie in this big blockbuster film franchise, “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.” This will be my fourth review in this series, and is being done in preparation for the release of “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” which comes out in July. I will say though, I do find it to be rather funny that I’m talking about “The Incredibles” right now, because the director of “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol,” Brad Bird, was also credited as the writer, the director, and an actor for “The Incredibles” and “Incredibles 2!” Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, are you planning on taking advantage of the IMAX double feature for “The Incredibles” and “Incredibles 2?” Another question I’ll ask is, are you going to see “Incredibles 2?” If so, when? Leave all of your incredible information down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Secret To 3D Movies You May Have Never Known (Post-Conversion)

Posted on by Jack Drees

375px-Glasses_for_RealD_Cinema-fs_PNr°0272

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! I have a serious question. Is 3D still relevant? Don’t get me wrong, at times it can add a bit to several movie experiences. I remember going to see all three “Hobbit” films in IMAX 3D, all of them were epic and thrilling. Although nowadays 3D has become at times this thing you have to accept when going to see a film at the theater.

3D in a way is like prescription pills. There are a number of cases where you never really asked to take them for your personal amusement, but since you want to get on with your life, you just move along. When I go to the movies, I don’t traditionally care what show I get, but if I were making every executive decision, I’d probably choose to see a film in 2D. If the movie’s in IMAX and 3D’s the only option, chances are I’d go for that. Although when it comes to 3D, it’s something I never wanted, but it has always been around. It was very popular at the at the end of the 2000s leading into 2010. That’s because James Cameron’s “Avatar” was released all over and praised for the theatrical experience when watched in 3D. However since then, audiences have been thinking to themselves that 3D movies are becoming more and more bland. While there are those people who think 3D is awesome and think it’s one of the greatest things in cinematic history, 3D has increasingly resembled a fad as opposed to a game-changer.

One question some of you may have until looking at this post is this: How does the 3D come to be? It varies from movie to movie, but in most circumstances nowadays it’s fake. How is this? Unlike a number of films shot on cameras and rigs meant for 3D, most movies are currently shot on 2D cameras. It doesn’t even matter if the movie’s shot on film or digital, it’s just shot in 2D. Nowadays it is very rare to find a film coming out which is shot in actual 3D. This current year is 2018, let’s take a look at the list of movies that have been revealed to have been shot in actual 3D.

  • Mission: Impossible: Fallout
  • 2.0

There you go! That’s the whole list! Note that there are no animated films since those are made on computers.  Now let’s take a look at the rest of the 3D films labeled to have 2018 releases. Note once again that there are no animated movies.

  • Maze Runner: The Death Cure
  • Black Panther
  • A Wrinkle in Time
  • Pacific Rim: Uprising
  • Tomb Raider
  • Ready Player One
  • Rampage
  • Avengers: Infinity War
  • Solo: A Star Wars Story
  • Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
  • Ant-Man and the Wasp
  • Alita: Battle Angel
  • Alpha

There are more films coming out in 2018 to be released in 3D. However, I can’t confirm or deny whether they’re real or fake. These results just goes to show when you look at the movies playing and you notice that there’s something playing in 3D, chances are that movie isn’t actually 3D.

Post-converted 3D is something that’s not really talked about when it comes to older movies nowadays such as those that were in 3D during the fifties, but it got some severe attention in 2010. In 1981, a movie known as “Clash of the Titans” was released to the public. The movie provided a fun family adventure for an hour and fifty-eight minutes and received a number of positive verdicts. Since studios love remaking everything, it’s no surprise that “Clash of the Titans” was one of those movies that got the remake treatment. And according to many people, it’s a f*ck-up on S*itshow Valley. Release the Kraken? More like Release the Crapen! Aside from the eye-covering CGI, the one-dimensional characters, and how people see it in comparison to the original film and mythology, this film was despised by critics and audiences for its use of 3D. Perhaps even more hilarious is a marketing tagline used by this movie. The tagline being, “Titans Will Clash.” No. F*cking. S*it. It’s like if “The Emoji Movie” had a tagline that said “This movie will suck, and you’ll hate your life while watching it.” THANKS, CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!

As for the movie’s use of 3D, the film was originally shot on 2D film cameras, and the director of the film, Louis Leterrier, went to the studio early on asking about a 3D conversion. However, this process was new and expensive. When “Avatar” was released, Leterrier was pressured to do a 3D post-conversion. He gave into it after seeing what he thought was a rather convincing View-D conversion process. The man even stated that it was essential for audiences to view the movie in 3D as an enhancement as opposed to a gimmick regarding the overall experience. Let me just tell you right now, the audience didn’t view it as an enhancement, they didn’t even view it as a gimmick, they viewed it… as crap. Three years after the film’s release to the public, Leterrier came out and said this about the 3D:

“It was famously rushed and famously horrible. It was absolutely horrible, the 3D. Nothing was working, it was just a gimmick to steal money from the audience. I’m a good boy and I rolled with the punches and everything, but it’s not my movie.”

And this just goes to show that studios can sometimes get in the way of movies. This isn’t the first time this has happened. Just look at films such as “Spider-Man 3,” “Risky Business,” and “Blade Runner.” Studios might force directors to do something concerning their movie that they ultimately don’t want to do. In this case, the studio wanted a 3D conversion. Had the movie just been in 2D, everyone would have probably been a little more happy. They’d still get a bad movie, but they’d have one less terrible aspect related to it. In fact, part of me thinks that Warner Brothers would end up making just a tad more money. After all, so many people were complaining about the 3D, so some folks would avoid 3D showings like the plague.

This isn’t to say that all post-converted 3D sucks. Some of the most highly appreciated 3D experiences are post-converted. After all, it is the norm now, so there has to be a gem somewhere. I went to see “Jurassic World” and the 3D was probably one of the best parts of the IMAX experience I was given. It was dinosaur-sized fun! “Mad Max: Fury Road” was also an experience worth the extra number of bucks, seeing all of the practicality and CGI come together at times really made you feel like your face was on fire or cars were running you over. One of the best experiences of all, is “Gravity.” I saw “Gravity” the weekend it came out in IMAX 3D, and it was f*cking worth it. The movie itself doesn’t have much replay value, but between the sound editing, sound mixing, score, cinematography, CGI, everything came together, and there were certain scenes where I truly felt like I was in space. Even better, trying my absolute hardest to survive in space. Just goes to show, even fake stuff can be real!

If anything, the improvement of post-production 3D is most likely due to commitment, and advances in technology. When it comes to “Gravity,” CG Effects Supervisor Alexis Wajsbrot has this to say:

“It was rendered in stereo, then we post-converted the faces with a very accurate track. It was a very precise rendition. That’s why the stereo works so well because it was thought about a long time before the movie was made.”

As suggested, the way “Gravity” was rendered gave it a 3D effect. The rest was work. Stereoscopic 3D is a very useful process if you’re shooting in 2D instead of 3D, if you’re maybe trying to save some cash and back pain, or if you are just looking for a way to cash in on a film even though you’re doing it in an effective manner. It won’t be real 3D, but it may give your brain the thought that you’re actually looking at 3D. While I do prefer authenticity, technology and commitment can help in making a proper product.

…Although in reality I prefer seeing movies in 2D.

Thanks for reading this post! I actually believe it or not had trouble doing this post, because I was working on another post I thought of last week, it was stuck in my head like how much I love pizza, the brand of the TV in my room, and the fact that with TurboTax, at least your taxes are free. Seriously though, thanks for reading! Tomorrow a new trailer for “Solo: A Star Wars Story” is arriving and we also got some trailers coming out tonight during the Super Bowl, trailers like “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” “Skyscraper,” and “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.” I might review one of those trailers, and as far as newer movies go, I can confirm that at some point soon I’m going to see “The 15:17 To Paris.” That movie’s coming out February 9th, so I’ll be seeing that not long from now. Also, if you want more exciting content to take a gander at, I’ll have links down below to my “Maze Runner” reviews. Please check those out, I enjoyed a couple of those movies, and I have my thoughts summed up, whether they are positive or negative. Stay tuned for more great content! In 2D. I want to know, what is the best experience you had watching a movie in 3D? Yes, I’ll even count IMAX documentaries or something along those lines. Doesn’t even matter if the 3D’s real or not. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

“THE MAZE RUNNER” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/the-maze-runner-2014-the-continuation-of-teen-angst-starring-dylan-obrien/

“MAZE RUNNER: THE SCORCH TRIALS” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/maze-runner-the-scorch-trials-the-continuation-of-teen-angst-starring-dylan-obrien-part-2-to-be-concluded-in-almost-2-5-years-also-this-is-wckd-boring/

“MAZE RUNNER: THE DEATH CURE” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/maze-runner-the-death-cure-2018-the-continuation-of-teen-angst-starring-dylan-obrien-part-3-to-be-rebooted-once-hollywood-runs-out-of-young-adult-dystopian-books-to-base-movies-on-still-bett/

Man Arrested For Pleasuring Himself at a Showing of The Emoji Movie *CHILDREN MAY READ AT THEIR OWN RISK*

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtkzmzm3otm2ml5bml5banbnxkftztgwmdm0ndu3mji-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! In case you didn’t glance over the entire title of this post, this post is a bit unsuitable for younger viewers. This involves masturbation, so if you let your children read this blog, let them read at their own risk, otherwise, enjoy reading this! So, where was I? Oh yeah, right. Based on my recent reviews, my brain is scarred! I’m still alive, but I feel appalled. I recently reviewed “The Emoji Movie” and “Sharknado 5: Global Swarming,” I want something good to review! Speaking of terrible films such as “The Emoji Movie,” we’re actually going to talk about it. Not about the movie, not about its poor reception, not about how it’s an abomination against humanity and how it literally is a disgrace for solely existing, we’re gonna talk about one specific moviegoer who, let’s just say, “had some fun” at “The Emoji Movie.” I can’t freaking believe I’m saying that!

Alright ladies and gentlemen, let’s dive into New Jersey, a US state with towns that have fascinating names including: Mahwah, Paramus, and Hackensack. There’s a theater called Xscape located in the town of Howell, a less interesting name, where the event of focus here occurred. During a showing of “The Emoji Movie,” “a white, heavyset man in his 20s or 30s” was one of the members of the audience during a showing on Thursday, August 3rd, and hopefully one of the ONLY members of the audience. There was also a woman there with her children, she noticed the man with his pants unzipped, stroking himself.

According to the woman there at the scene, she said the man “was seated alone in the back row of the theater.” If you ask me, you shouldn’t masturbate in a movie theater, especially if it’s a family film we’re talking about here, but I’ll give credit to the man for sitting in the back so nobody had to be distracted by him from behind. Nevertheless, despite what was said about this man being in his 20s or 30s, it turns out the man was actually 43 years old. His name is Abraham Parnes and he was charged with lewdness and left on a summons. You know what he didn’t leave with? A refund for his ticket for “The Emoji Movie.”

In all seriousness though, before the arrest occurred, the manager was aware of all this. The woman actually reported the incident to the manager, the manager came into the theater and told the guy to leave. Once the woman got home, she called the police, and the police eventually arrested the man.

There are multiple things that happen that very rarely take place, or might even occur only once, and remain that way. There’s only one time the Arizona Diamondbacks won the World Series, not to mention there’s only one time they even made it to the World Series at all. Jimmy Carter served as the US president for only one term. The TV show “Firefly,” which is now beyond revered among the nerd community, only lasted for one season on FOX. Multiple things seem to happen only once, and never again. Masturbating in movie theaters IS NOT ONE OF THOSE THINGS.

While cell phone use in movie theaters is a lot more common than masturbation in movie theaters, this is not a one-time thing. Another fellow who was once caught masturbating in a movie theater goes by the name of Paul Reubens, to some of you, this name might sound familiar. If it does, chances are you may know him as Pee-Wee Herman in “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure” and as Lock in “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” Between the releases of both pieces of work, Paul Reubens went to an adult theater in 1991, where he too was caught masturbating. He defended himself overtime in an interview to Playboy, but people still recall his arrest. So yeah, Paul had a hell of time with his pee-wee. My biggest question is this, what did Paul see in the theater? He went to an adult theater after all, so if it wasn’t related to porn then what excuse did he have to play with himself? Part of me wonders if what he was watching happened to be so boring that he had nothing better to do than jack off. He could have walked out of the auditorium and whipped it out at home, perhaps he could have purchased a Playboy Magazine beforehand! But apparently that wasn’t the best idea for him. So instead of buying a magazine from Playboy that could have made him avoid this incident, he attended an interview by Playboy which partially involved this incident. Now that I say all of this boredom stuff, I wonder if that was the reason for Abraham masturbating during “The Emoji Movie.” Was the movie too boring and he wanted to make the experience more interesting? In fact when I ask if the movie is boring, I know I’m asking a rhetorical question. Just look at the reviews for the movie! Here’s some quotes from a few:

JOHNNY OLEKSINSKI (New York Post): “Hear that? It’s the end of the world.”

MICHAEL ARBEITER (Nerdist): “perhaps the most convoluted high-concept science fiction film you’ll see all year.”

MARA REINSTEIN: (MaraMovies.com): “Excuse me while I scan my phone for the vomit emoji.”

This is a case of either getting bored or the moviegoer started getting horny after looking at Jailbreak or Flamenca. Anything could have happened to make the guy start stroking his “eggplant” but who knows what?

I will say, I never masturbated in a movie theater, I mean, why would I do that?! I’m there to watch a movie, not jerk off! If I went to a theater with the intention to jerk off, that would probably be a porn theater! Although chances are I can’t really go in one of those because I’m not eighteen yet. Plus I don’t even think any places like those even exist in the first place! I can imagine some theaters thought it was fine for some people to jerk off during films like “Showgirls” or “Fifty Shades of Grey” or “Secretary” or “Magic Mike.” OK, maybe I’m going too far with that, maybe they didn’t think it’s “fine,” it would likely get the seats wet but maybe they thought it was somewhat, well, let’s say, “understandable.”

I could ask if you have ever done anything dirty in a movie theater but that just seems extremely eccentric, so instead I’ll ask this. What is the weirdest thing you’ve witnessed in a movie theater? It could be anything, it could be a movie, it could be anything in the bathroom, it could involve a person, anything. Let me know in the comments! Also, be sure to check out my review for “The Emoji Movie!” I have the link for it below if you want to check it out, it’s a good read! Another thing I’ll state is that I don’t know what I’ll see next, I do have intentions to see “The Glass Castle,” hopefully I could see something before next weekend because I’ll be at Terrificon in Uncasville, CT! If you’re at the Mohegan Sun casino and happen to recognize my face from August 18-August 20, be sure to say hi if you want to! Also if you want more info on the convention itself, I have a post dedicated to it that’s essentially a preview. Tickets are still available for the event although if you want tickets for it, get them quick because Saturday and Sunday tickets are selling fast, not to mention, the convention is less than a week away! Stay tuned for more posts and reviews, and I hope I can see something soon, even if it’s worse than “The Emoji Movie!” Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

“THE EMOJI MOVIE” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/08/02/the-emoji-movie-2017-a-literal-pile-of-sir-patrick-stewart-warning-strong-language/

MY TERRIFICON PREVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/announcement-im-going-to-terrificon-at-mohegan-sun-in-uncasville-ct/

TERRIFICON WEBSITE: http://www.terrificon.com/home.html