Amen!!

You know, there really hasn't been a lot of buzz for this movie, and films like it haven't done that well recently. Sci-fi just doesn't draw the huge crowds it used to, except for the Star Wars movies (which keep getting worse and worse, I might add). Without any big name actors, it doesn't look like it has much of a draw for the general public, and their taste in movies keeps getting worse and worse. It's obscene how much money Meet the Fockers is making. I think it will do so-so buisness at best when it first comes out, but the important thing is that some new people will be introduced to Bradbury and we the fans get to see it. In any case, I'm sure it will achieve cult hit status in the future.

When I saw the ads for Meet the Fockers I thought how incredibly stupid it looked. I was appalled at how well it did.

Let's hope A Sound of Thunder does well. Someone on a Twilight Zone forum where I post mentioned being excited about it after seeing the trailer. This person had the impression it was coming out in March.

dandelion:

Many of the movies out there are not only appalling in their great ticket sales, but in content as well. I've heard of people who walked out of ''SIDEWAYS'' because of its 'raunch' content, but awards are thrown at it along with ticket sales... It's younger generations, fresh with ideals and folly.

I went to see and hear Paul Krassner many years ago, with his Lenny Bruce mind-set, and I surmised, as well as every young face there in that audience, that here was really'''something!!''' Now as to what sort of something, I couldn't tell you..as neither could half of the rest of us there. It's called trying to belong to this whatever it is, so you think you're cool.

I just went to the Moviefone website to see the exact release date for this movie. It is now saying that it has been pushed back to December 31 of this year!! Does anyone know what is going on? Patrick? Sam? Anybody? I was so looking forward to seeing it this spring!!

Might there be some concern for too much SF in the spring /early summer with the release of War of the Worlds at this time? http://movies.channel.aol.com/movie/main.adp?_pgtyp=pdc...b=trailers&mid=20116

"Thunder" sure has taken a back seat a number of times, as is evident in the many changes witnessed here for nearly 2 years. Agreed! What's up??

[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 02-10-2005).]

so basically, it's coming out two years after the trailer.

You gotta love showbiz.

If the delays are making the film better before it comes out, great. I think some of the scifi's have done pretty well. I think "I, Robot" and "Minority Report" both did well, and I think "Butterfly Effect" did okay (the latter did much better in DVD sales and rentals). I enjoyed all three.

I like the idea of a parental permission slip. It may be that you could ask one of the parents to coordinate an after school event that would be completely voluntary. You could meet at a home of one of the students, have some light snacks and then all car pool there together.

While I haven't seen the trailer for awhile, I remember that I liked parts and was less impressed with other parts. As others have said, we'll have to see what unfolds.

It is usually NOT a good sign when release dates get jacked up like this one has. That constant changing and delay makes me a bit nervous about how good it will be -- but I am going to hold out hope for a better than expected movie experience.

They are just pushing back the release because they don't want to have it open on a competitive weekend because they think it will not have wide audience appeal. They did the same thing with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (an absolutely BRILLIANT masterwork)...and it, sadly, turned out it DIDN'T have very wide appeal

Just finished (literally) watching Sky Captain while I walked the treadmill. I loved it in the theatre and enjoyed it in DVD, also.

Mr. Dark:

Alerted to your above comment, I soon wisked myself to the local Hollywood Video store and plucked a '''Sky Captain'''' disk. Ah, but the viewing room requires shades pulled, 'fully dark' ...to ascertain the full cinematic flicker effect. But I must tell you, for the first few minutes I thought, ''Good Grief, this is pretty sad.'' But then it began to gel and actually became a very good movie. Ended far too quickly, I thought. It takes some getting used to, however, with all the complicated CGI incorporated. I liked it!!

Hi Nard:

I definitely agree that the movie is not to everyone's taste . . . it's kind of a retro to the 40s, and the entire thing (with some minor blues) is in sepia tones. The story is very 40-ish, also. But, I loved this movie. I kind of feel like -- if they had these technologies in the 40s -- this is the kind of movie they would have made.

Sky Captain is one of those movies that loses allmost all of its impact when you watch it on a TV. It belongs on the big screen.

scarywarhol: I figured that it really belong only on the Big Screen. I have one of those older 36'' tube TVs, so had a little larger screen than of yonder-yore, but need be to shut/closed all the lights and turn up the volume. Any light in the room would have been a distraction. So I figured, best seen on 'super screen' in a dark theater. The short feature of how they made the movie, nearly entirely with a blue screen, was fascinating. All these actors performing in an empty room....
________________________________

Come to think of it, one of those hard to portray Ray Bradbury stories would be a knockout done this way. Somebody, quickly, send those geeks out there in SkyCaptain-CG-Land a Bradbury short story gem.

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 02-12-2005).]

See? and 36" is a fairly good size TV. I'm afraid that there will never be another movie made that way for years, though, seeing how unseccessful (financially) Sky Captain was.