Bullets 'n' Babes

Thats the same for me Brad. You can reuse the glasses but its still more expensive (extra £1/£1.50 or something) even if you dont actually buy glasses.
It cost me £9 (even with a special discount) to see a film in the cinema our group went to, due to the 3D.

Nah at ours you just buy the glasses once and when you re-use them you just pay the standard £6.50 ticket price.

That's how it should be at ALL cinemas. I take it it's a local one and not a chain? As far as I can tell, that's super rare. Apparently the cost is due to the extra cost of 3D, which obviously makes no sense: 1. So the glasses are free then? 2. I'm sure they've made their money back by now.

Yup the whole 3D/digital screen extra price this is a joke now. I read a detailed article on this a while back and takings for 3D films are far more than normal films, and box office for this year is about 8% up because of 3D, 3D is making them a lot of cash. So yes that extra 8% has already paid for the 3D tech in most cinemas, so the fact they are still asking for extra fees from us is a total joke.

Will we always be charged extra for a 3D film? is so we should all stop going to see them as they are taking the piss.

gasteropod wrote:Nah at ours you just buy the glasses once and when you re-use them you just pay the standard £6.50 ticket price.

As Brad says, I think it should be that way at all cinemas

bradavon wrote:I take it it's a local one and not a chain?

They just have 3 cinemas: Cleethorpes, Louth, and Barnsley.

Cheaper than a 3D IMAX film in our local in the best seats £20+ classy. I would want some sexy extras for that price

£20! OMG! You can get sex for less than that in some parts of the world.

And yes like our TV license, as we keep paying it, they'll keep charging it.

Avatar 2 and 3 in 2014/2015:

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/10/ ... -and-2015/

Which of the three cuts is James Cameron's preferred version?

I bet it's the original theatrical cut. Like Aliens and T2. The others he considers Special Editions, for the fans.

bradavon wrote:I bet it's the original theatrical cut. Like Aliens and T2. The others he considers Special Editions, for the fans.

Eh? The special edition of Aliens is his preferred cut.

Really? I didn't know. I know T2 isn't. He's vague on the subject.

bradavon wrote:He's vague on the subject.

Not particularly, I'll quote his introduction to Aliens from my Blu-ray:

This is Jim Cameron, and what you're about to watch is the special edition of Aliens. I actually prefer this version to the release version because I think, as it's been best described by one of my friends, it's 40 miles of bad road. I think it's a longer, more intense, and more suspenseful version of the film. The conventional wisdom at the time was 'don't make the film too long', but at 2 hours and 37 minutes this is the ride that we intended you to take. So, enjoy it.

Hope that clears things up for you

So yeah, curious to know which version of Avatar is his preferred version, I fancy watching it again now. Will wait for it to come down in price, though.

bradavon wrote:I know T2 isn't. He's vague on the subject.

I hope that clears things up for you

The stories woeful on Avatar, good imagery though.

I already know T2 isn't...

The story isn't Woeful in Avatar. The story is fine, it is just done in a more flash than substance way. If the story is woeful, then pretty much so must the story be in Dancing With Wolves. They are more or less the same just differing in era and setting!

Only an idiot would call it woeful

degeneration wrote:If the story is woeful, then pretty much so must the story be in Dancing With Wolves. They are more or less the same just differing in era and setting!

The same basic story but to compare them is ridiculous. It is woeful. Cameron clearly really didn't care about anything but the graphics.

bradavon wrote:

degeneration wrote:If the story is woeful, then pretty much so must the story be in Dancing With Wolves. They are more or less the same just differing in era and setting!

The same basic story but to compare them is ridiculous. It is woeful. Cameron clearly really didn't care about anything but the graphics.

- Hence my "more flash than substance comment".

Avatar - more flash than substance, set in a future era.
DwW - more substance than flash, set in a past era.
but both have the same story. DwW is obviously the better film.

However, I was not comparing the films, I'm comparing the stories. They are basically the same.

Star of film is on the perceived good guys side. He ventures into the and starts to experience the "bad guys" side of things. He learns to appreciate and understand their ways. Turns out the good guys are actually the bad guys and the bad guys are actually the good guys. He ends up joining their side and fighting for them. Then after it is over, he chooses to live with the "bad guys".

Which film am I describing DwW or Avatar?