Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 07:39:57 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Odeon's Adventures in Wonderland

Started by boxofslice, February 23, 2010, 09:56:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

boxofslice

BBC News - Alice in Wonderland will not be shown in Odeon cinemas

Bit of a shame as my local is an Odeon.

On the one hand Disney, so they say, want to combat piracy, on the other, Odeon want to protect their revenues - who's right? 

Jemble Fred

Quote from: boxofslice on February 23, 2010, 09:56:28 AM
who's right?

The first one to admit that this 3D revolution thing is a load of bollocks.

SavageHedgehog

I reckon next to no one would have known that it was going to have a sooner than usual DVD release without this. And will anyone really think "well I wouldn't have been prepared to wait 17/16/15 weeks to see this on a smaller screen in 2D, but 12/11/10 weeks? Fuck it!"? I'm on no one's side here but I think what Odeon are doing is a bit of an over-reaction. Surely a reduction down to about 12 weeks between cinema and DVD etc. is fairly inevitable sooner or later anyway?

I think the problem is not so much Disney's plan as the way they went about it- basically putting the offer on the table and saying "take it or leave it" without any kind of prior discussion or negotiation. And doing that after the cinema chains had spent a lot of money converting their screens to be able to show digital and 3D films. I can see why Odeon have stuck to their guns on this one, they're losing money if they show Alice. Besides which it looks like a crap film anyway, but that's another story...

George Oscar Bluth II

I'll save you the trouble of seeing it by saying "imagine if Tim Burton directed an adaptation of Alice in Wonderland".

Jemble Fred

Quote from: George Oscar Bluth II on February 23, 2010, 11:03:03 AM
I'll save you the trouble of seeing it by saying "imagine if Tim Burton directed an adaptation of Alice in Wonderland".

If only that were the case, rather than this being a sequel in which Alice fucks Hatter, or whatever.

Uncle TechTip

Quote from: Ghost of Troubled Joe on February 23, 2010, 10:36:27 AM
they're losing money if they show Alice. Besides which it looks like a crap film anyway, but that's another story...

How is this the case? Surely an extra four weeks of cinema release doesn't make the difference between loss and profit.

Quote from: Uncle TechTip on February 23, 2010, 11:50:25 AM
How is this the case? Surely an extra four weeks of cinema release doesn't make the difference between loss and profit.

I'm no expert, but I think it's something to do with the fact that Odeon has had to spend a load of cash getting their screens up to scratch in order to play 3D movies. So not only are they missing out out on four weeks of ticket revenue (which they would be getting if Disney had followed the standard release patterns), they're also not seeing a return on their investment. Plus there's also an argument that if people know that the film is coming out on DVD soon anyway, they won't bother going to see it in the cinemas- not sure if I agree with that, but it's bound to put some people off. And Disney's argument that they're trying to beat piracy doesn't really work in this case, coz Alice is in 3D and no-one's going to want to watch a bad, blurry pirate of a 3D flick.

torz77

To be honest, I don't see how it makes a huge difference. By 12 weeks into a release most screens only have a handful of people still going to view them in the cinema.

I'd imagine the cinema industry is bricking it though, it has to be a dying medium as home cinema systems get better and better, so from a movie industry perspective it makes sense to get films released on as many formats as possible as early as possible to help counteract piracy.

There are films you want to see at the cinema, and films which you're really not bothered about seeing on the big screen. People are less likely to pirate stuff if they can get legitimate copies immediately on release (I say less likely, but of course a lot of people just don't want to pay for stuff fullstop, so changing release dates for different formats will make no difference to this growing group).

That said, there are some films which you just have to/want to see at the cinema, and no amount of shortening of release windows will change that. A case in point was the 25th anniversary re-issue of the Star Wars trilogy. Everyone who wanted to see those films had seen them by that time. Regardless of new effects/scenes, they could have released them in their original format and cinema's would have been packed out. I still take the opportunity to see films I love, or even older films I haven't got round to seeing when my local indy cinema decides to screen them. I guess we're just moving to a place where people will no longer want to shell out full whack to see any old shite. Cinema's will just have to change their business model (just like the rest of the film/music industry in that respect), and in some cases are with the likes of the 'Gold Class' type experience, with on-call waiter services and massive armchairs and the like.

Alice in Wonderland though? 12 weeks, 17 weeks, hell they could never release it on any other format. I still won't be going to see it at the cinema.

idunnosomename

I think it's bizarre because I thought the 3D meant that the cinema's position is more secure - you can't get the 3D experience at home (certainly not with Disney who never include anaglyph versions on DVD). At least not for a long time.

From the trailer the 3D in this looked rather good and I will probably see it unless the reviews are rotten. And stop going to my local Odeon. They have a ridiculously high speed bump in their car park which makes it feel like you've run over a child however slow you go anyway.

torz77

3D will just be a passing fad though. It's been occurring every 20 years or so since the 50s.

Even if it's not though, home cinema systems will catch up with the technology in the not too distant future. Sony are bringing out a 3D system this year (http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/154749,sony-3d-tv-to-launch-in-2010.aspx) and I believe that they are working on a system which won't require glasses.

To be honest, until we get some kind of 'Princess Leah in Star Wars' type of 3D system, it's all a load of bollocks anyway.

SavageHedgehog

I'm not sure about the 50s wave, but the current 3D wave cannot be compared to the 80s 3D wave commercially. The only 3D films that came anywhere near any kind of blockbuster status in the 80s were Jaws 3D and Friday the 13th 3D and even then Jaws 3D made less than half of Jaws 2 and Friday 3D didn't really break out of the core horror audience or even make more than the first movie. Last year there were a large number of commercially very successful films in 3D. I'm not saying this 3D wave wont still be a passing fad but it's definitely not just the same as last time.

Uncle TechTip

The ability to re-render older films in 3D is also important. Witness upcoming Toy Story I. And the modern 3D tech is a world away from anaglyph. Today's 3D films are in colour, for a start. 3D is here to stay, maybe not in its current form but it won't just disappear. Too much investment in screens.

turnstyle

Yeah, 3D is not a phase this time around. For one thing, the technology actually works properly now, no more of this red/green blurred nonsense.

All the major TV manufacturers have 3D TV's and Blu Ray players coming out this year. I work in the industry, so I've spoken to quite a few of them and had demo's of the tech. Oooh, get me. They are pinning a LOT on this.

It's not for everyone, given the price (starting at about 2k for a 50" set) and that really it's event driven (nobody will sit down to watch Dots tits wobble in 3D Eastenders). However, it'll slowly get intergrated into all TV sets over time, just like colour did, just like HD is being.

The raft of 3D films over the last few years have been sowing the seeds for 3D at home, that's why the studio's have been ploughing so much money into it.


Jemble Fred

Quote from: turnstyle on February 24, 2010, 03:54:11 PM
Yeah, 3D is not a phase this time around.

Well perhaps you're right, but I wouldn't want to be quoted on that.

Surely the main thing is that it's only a tiny percentage of movies and TV shows that it can possibly pertain to? Kid's films and action. It's irrelevant to pretty much everything else, and would clearly cheapen most films. All a film needs is good characters and plot, after all.

If it does stick around, it will only ever be an optional extra, for people who aren't sure whether they want to go to the cinema or go to a theme park.

boxofslice


Shoulders?-Stomach!

I don't want to see one of these new 3d films in the position of 'ah let's see what all these people have been talking about'. I want to see a film that happens to be 3d that I didn't know was 3d, and I want it to take me by surprise, and knock my socks off.

I've seen the blue planet/dinosaur one 'night at the museum' slightly ripped off at IMAX in Brandford ten bloody years ago and they were quite impressive.

sirhenry

The best part of the story is that Alice's World Premier is in an Odeon.

Reversing their decision, apparently:

BBC News - Odeon reverses Alice in Wonderland boycott

I wonder why? The DVD's still being released after 13 weeks.

George Oscar Bluth II

Initially, Disney wanted 12 weeks. Odeon bravely negotiated an extra week. Well done them.

biggytitbo

It looks like a load of CGI heavy guff anyway, from one of the worlds most tedious and overrated directors.

George Oscar Bluth II

I'm waiting for the gritty Christopher Nolan reboot in a few years time.

sirhenry

Having just seen this in glorious Imax 3d, all I can say is don't waste your money - it could only be better in 2d. Spending half your time trying to get it in focus means you miss much of what little story there is and almost all the little Burton touches are missed.

Yep, this new-fangled 3d magic wears off amazingly quickly.

ThickAndCreamy

Is it worth going to see the actual film though? How good is it?

sirhenry

I am a bit biased in that I really like Burton's images, and for that it's wonderful. I'm planning on watching it again (in 2d) because with the 3d focus problems it all went too fast. Lady Henry loved it, especially Depp, but his performance really grated for me. More exposition of the character would probably have helped but as it was he just seemed to flip between twee and Braveheart for no reason or purpose.

Unusually, I suspect that if you like the look of the trailer you'll like the film, but if the idea of Charlie and the Acid Factory mix of twee and weird isn't tempting you'll probably hate it.

bill hicks

Quote from: torz77 on February 23, 2010, 12:42:42 PM
To be honest, I don't see how it makes a huge difference. By 12 weeks into a release most screens only have a handful of people still going to view them in the cinema.


The major problem is that with pretty much every distribution deal the studio takes all box office for the first few weeks of release, when films generally do their best business. In this instance Disney were basically saying for the first 4 weeks you show our film and earn nothing from it, then you get 8 weeks to show it and try and earn some cash, then we release on DVD and make more money for ourselves. It isn't a case of people not seeing the film in week 1 or 2 because of the early DVD release, it's people in week 8 or 9 seeing adverts for the DVD and deciding that they can wait.

Similiar things have happened before with films but weren't as publicised, The Da Vinci Code was one case, and in each of those the studios backed down eventually. In this case however the American chains didn't fight at all, and faced with the tiny amount UK box office contributes to the overall figures the UK chains haven't had a chance of getting them to shift so everyone but Odeon climbed immediately.


kittens

I went to see this yesterday, and I bloody hated it. The look of the whole thing is good, but that's really the only good thing about it. The dialogue's awful, the girl playing Alice acts at about the level of someone in a school play, throughout the whole thing's just so self-consciously 'wacky' (but maybe that's Tim Burton's style, I've never watched anything else by him. And I probably won't now.). The nadir of the whole thing was probably Jonny Depp's comedy dance at the end. It was just, urgh.

The strangest aspect of the film is when it tries to emotionally invovle the audience. Emotional scenes like
Spoiler alert
the mad hatter reminiscing about when the red queen destroyed that village
[close]
really jar, as at every other point in the film these characters are just really one-note and zany and don't really have anything else to them. In the final battle, I found I just didn't really care about who won. Although obviously you know Alice will, but you just don't really care.

Another poor bit was all the shameless exposition at the start. OH FUCK I REALLY DID NOT LIKE THIS FILM.

Crabwalk

Just wanted to chip in to ask Kittens to please, please not let this film prevent you from watching Ed Wood whenever you get the chance in the future. Even Burton haters soften for that film don't they?

Jemble Fred

I'd place it well below Beetlejuice, Sleepy Hollow, Mars Attacks and the Batman films, personally. But yes, it's still a great movie.

kittens

Quote from: Crabwalk on March 09, 2010, 03:05:45 PM
Just wanted to chip in to ask Kittens to please, please not let this film prevent you from watching Ed Wood whenever you get the chance in the future. Even Burton haters soften for that film don't they?

I'll download it now, and see if it changes my opinion on him. Thanks for the suggestion.