New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Brandon Scott: I would echo whatJoel said, and to answer the question, absolutely - yes. The 58% total is a staggering figure. If IMAX ever gets to that point, I will be stoked. Theaters definitely need to get on the ball and add 3-D. We talked about the battle of traditional theaters offering something new vs. our ability to have a nice viewing experience at our exceedingly accessible home theaters, and 3-D is a viable alternative I couldn't get from my LCD at home. I think for me, we are gonna need some 3-D T&A though...just calling it out. Angie Jolie or Megan Fox in a revealing movie in 3-D? Who isn't interested?

Kim Hollis: I think we can perhaps liken this to the early days of CGI animation. All of a sudden, people realized that big boatloads of cash could be made utilizing the technique, and we got oversaturation of the product. I think the same thing is going to happen with Real-D. Yes, the novelty makes the gimmick interesting to audiences right now, but if ten 3-D movies are released in a fairly quick period of time, people will start to be a little bit more discriminating about the ones they choose to see. The tickets are more expensive, it can be hard on the eyes, and sometimes the extra price doesn't really feel worth what you get in terms of the 3-D animation. When used really, really well, like in Coraline, it can make the movie a more immersive experience. But I'm not so sure that the 3-D has added all that much to things like Bolt or even Nightmare Before Christmas.

Ben Farrow: Part of Star Wars' appeal was the huge breakthrough in effects filming. It is old hat now but when that star battleship came over your head in the opening shot, you knew it was going to be something completely different. That was in the days when a movie could be "held over for 16th week!," and to a lesser extent The Matrix Effect.

Stephen King's scary things are migrating, apparently

Kim Hollis: The Haunting in Connecticut earned a surprising $23 million for Lionsgate. How did the masters of horror pull off another big win?

David Mumpower: It had a terrible title and no hook. This is the most surprised I've been by a horror film since The Strangers, but that one at least had a great trailer and premise. The success of this one mystifies me. If I were in the market to release a horror film, I would stand outside the gates of Lionsgate until they let me in and agreed to release my movie. In fact, I think that's my horror movie idea. It's about a guy who stalks the masters of horror marketing. Greenlight or risk making it become a "based on real events" premise, Lionsgate!

Josh Spiegel: On the one hand, I am completely surprised at how well this movie did, what with Virginia Madsen being (I think?) the biggest star in it. On the other hand, as David says, Lionsgate and horror go together very well. They know how to spin straw into gold, as it were. Also, with Friday the 13th having disappeared by from most theatres, plenty of teenagers wanted a good (well...maybe not good) horror movie to satisfy them, and the PG-13 rating meant they wouldn't have to sneak in.

Continued:       1       2       3