Would You Pay $50 to Watch a Movie at Home 30 Days After Release? (Cinematical)

The proposal is this: For $50, you can watch a movie at home 30 days after it opened in theaters. Wait another 30 days and pay only $25. ...

Do you think 50 bucks is a good deal for this? I wonder if family films would be more successful with this model. A trip to the movies for Mom, Dad, and the kids can easily cost $50 anyway, and is often a harrowing ordeal involving babysitters, tantrums, and meltdowns. ... Single people and young couples, on the other hand, don't spend half a Benjamin at the movies, and they also tend to be the ones most eager to see something within its first couple weeks of release. I don't know if this plan will fly with them, unless they have a really sweet home-theater system and really, really hate cinema audiences..

I am in total agreement with the author regarding how this plan could be received by different segments of the audience, but overall, I kind of hate this idea. Movies are MOVIES, not to be confused with (two-hour long) TELEVISION shows. I could go on and on about the "magic," the memories, and the meaning of seeing films in theatres, but instead I'll just ask -- What do you guys think?
Read the full article here.

Is Marvel Losing Fan Goodwill? (Cinematical)

Marvel's strange and suicidal desire to mix and match their cast -- especially if they continue to be drawn to such difficult actors -- may prove their undoing with fans, box office, and industry pros alike. In 2012, we may point to this very public "There's the door, Norton, show yourself out!" spat as the moment when that seemingly well-knitted universe came apart ... or we'll laugh that we could ever be so easily lost to a game of public statements.

I didn't see either version of The Hulk films and don't follow comics enough to know what the deal is with The Avengers. So really, the only thing I can say is that perhaps part of the fanboy outcry is about exactly what's mentioned above - this rotating door attitude when it comes to casting these types of films. I'll take it one step further and say that it's also indicative of how tired we all are with Hollywood's continued lack of originality. And why should any fan bother to get invested when a "re-boot" is just around the corner? That's my two cents. What do you think?
Read the full article here.

'Saw VII' Now Called 'Saw 3D: The Traps Come Alive'. No, Seriously. (Cinematical)

...Let's be honest -- it's a pretty horrible title for a film. Traps Come Alive makes it sound like a sequel to Maximum Overdrive. If this is the best subtitle you can come up with for a 3D film, you might as well just stick with Saw VII 3D.

Oh good lord.
Read the full article here.

Will 'Inception' Be Too Smart for Audiences? (Cinematical)

Wait, are we too dumb for a high concept-movie like Inception? Aren't we waiting -- haven't we been begging -- to be treated like adults at the movies? Aren't the box office numbers of this summer any indication of how frustrated movie-goers are with sequels and the same old stuff? Doesn't anyone think that the very name of Nolan will bring in the crowds, even if we're too, you know, dumb to understand the final product?
The best kinds of movies make your gears turn for long after the credits roll, and the even better kind will bring viewers back for a second or third viewing in the theater and on DVD.

The question posed in the title of this post infuriates me, and my response is a big fat "ditto" of the quote above.
Read the full post here.