How Much?

[Sionnach Glic]

Wow, we need that over here.

[Nickswitz]

For £11 a month, holy crap, how much is that in American $s?

[Tsukiyumi]

For £11 a month, holy crap, how much is that in American $s?

About $17, if the conversion rate is the same as a few months back.

[Nickswitz]

That's like dirt cheap, I would go to like every movie, all the time.

[Tsukiyumi]

May 10 (Bloomberg) -- "Star Trek" opened with $72.5 million in ticket sales, the best debut in the 11-movie franchise, as fans turned out to see a new, younger crew for the Paramount Pictures Film.

"Star Trek" topped the series' previous high, $30.7 million in first-weekend sales for 1996's "Star Trek: First Contact," researcher Hollywood.Com Box-Office said today in an e-mailed statement. "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," dropped to second place from first place with sales of $27 million.

The box-office leading debut for "Star Trek" may pave the way for still more films about Captain James T. Kirk, the Vulcan Mr. Spock and the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise. It also provides the studio, a unit of Viacom Inc., with prospects for additional revenue from video games, toys and other consumer products. The first 10 "Star Trek" films generated $755.6 million in ticket sales in the U.S. and Canada.

Studios are benefiting from a surge in attendance that has lifted ticket revenue 16 percent as of May 10. The increase puts Hollywood on course for record summer sales of $4.6 billion and a new annual high of $10.5 billion, according to Los Angeles- based Hollywood.com Box-Office. The summer season typically accounts for about 40 percent of the year's box office take.

The new "Star Trek" is a prequel to the original television series that first aired in 1966. The film opens with the birth of Kirk as his mother is evacuated from a starship under attack.

The movie follows Kirk, Spock, Dr. "Bones" McCoy and other characters from the television series as they join the crew of the Enterprise. Chris Pine plays Kirk and Zachary Quinto, co-star of the "Heroes" TV show, is Spock. Karl Urban plays McCoy.

The new "Star Trek" has received almost all upbeat reviews, with 195 of 204 rated positive on the Web site www.rottentomatoes.com.

Source


WOO HOO!!!!

[IanKennedy]

Gotta ask, did you guys pay for four tickets each, or just stay in the theater?

We pay a monthly subscription (£13/month) and we get to go to as many films as we want.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

For £11 a month, holy crap, how much is that in American $s?

About $17, if the conversion rate is the same as a few months back.

Holy crap, I'd see everything if I had that!

[Nickswitz]

As would I...

[Lazar]

Some corroboration for what Grundig wrote: apparently there are theaters that are charging people $5 extra for an "IMAX" screen that's only slightly larger than a regular screen.

[Graham Kennedy]

I was disappointed with the IMAX thing.

Screen size... well okay, it was a big screen. But it wasn't some gigantic colossus of a screen; it was maybe a third wider than the largest screen in the multiplex we go to. It was very tall as well, but the movie is in widescreen so it only used half the height of the screen.

Picture quality, indeed it was good, better than normal film, but again - the multiplex we go to has not long ago put digital projectors in a couple of its screens, and the picture quality on those was similar to the IMAX. Maybe not quite as good, but certainly in the ballpark.

Sound... well I didn't notice it being any better.

The other thing they advertised was that they have sloping seating so the people in front aren't in your way. Big whup, so does every cinema I've been in during the last 20 years or more.

Overall it was a nice way to see the film, maybe a little better than the best a normal cinema has to offer, but it was nothing remotely close to being a big awesome cinema revolution. Given we had to pay out £20 for tickets and spend an hour driving each way, we certainly won't be going again.

[Tyyr]

Sounds like an IMAX retrofit. I've been to real honest to goodness from the ground up IMAX theaters and it will blow your mind. Massive, massive screen. Sound that will shake your body. Just one hell of an experience.

[stitch626]

Those don't sound like real IMAXs. The one at a semi-nearby theatre has a 15ft high screen, and the an equally huge width. And the speakers are awesome. Too bad I couldn't see it there.

[Aaron]

Screw that IMAX crap, they need to show it in OmnIMAX!

[IanKennedy]

Sounds like an IMAX retrofit. I've been to real honest to goodness from the ground up IMAX theaters and it will blow your mind. Massive, massive screen. Sound that will shake your body. Just one hell of an experience.

No, it's a real purpose built IMAX theater with a full size almost square screen. The problem with that is that the film in widescreen and the physical screen is not. That, as Graham said, means that only part of the screen gets used to show the film, about 50-60% in our case. As Wiki says "A standard IMAX screen is 22 metres (72 ft) wide and 16.1 metres (53 ft) high." but all that height is wasted. Plus the largest screen on our cinema is probably 18 or more metres wide, has a digital projector and very good sound. I don't see much of a difference.

[Tsukiyumi]

Thanks for that article, Lazar. A buddy of mine pointed out to me Monday that the AMC "IMAX" isn't the right size. The article says "76 by 97 foot" screens are the real IMAX, which means the only one in Houston is the one at the museum. Which doesn't show Hollywood movies.