No Time to Die, am I missing something

[Bungle73]

I want to see NTTD with my brother, but I've just been away and he's already booked to go away from today for the next week. I want to go the IMAX,but according to the Odeon website the last screening is on the 14th. That means it's only on for 2 weeks! Surely that can't be right?? How can it only be on for a fortnight?? I thought this was supposed to be the big release to get people back to the cinema? It makes no sense.

 

[PeterC]

That seems to be standard, I have looked at several cinemas in different chains at random around the country and they all seem to be running until the 14th.

Presumably down to the distributor or the studio rather than the individual cinemas.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps they should have called it "No Time to View".

 

[gg1]

Is this timescale purely for the IMAX screening or across the board?

Pretty common for IMAX screenings to end far sooner than regular screenings.

 

[Ediswan]

That seems to be standard, I have looked at several cinemas in different chains at random around the country and they all seem to be running until the 14th.

Presumably down to the distributor or the studio rather than the individual cinemas.

Luxury! For many years the system was "Sunday for 7 days". Being held over for a second week was rare.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Reckon cinematic run will be extended if it's well patronised.

 

[Bungle73]

Is this timescale purely for the IMAX screening or across the board?

Pretty common for IMAX screenings to end far sooner than regular screenings.

Not two weeks though I'm pretty sure. In fact last year Tenet was on for quite a while.

Seems to be across the board, based on what I've seen and what's been posted here. I looked at the IMAX and the cinema at Bluewater, which is another option for me (although I'd prefer the IMAX).

Luxury! For many years the system was "Sunday for 7 days". Being held over for a second week was rare.

Which century was this then? I remember when I was a kid in the '80s films were on for quite a while (maybe a month?). Obviously this was before they had the option to push out the DVD....on in that case the VHS.

Reckon the cinematic run will be extended if it's well patronised.

I hope so. Looking at the seating plans for the IMAX for a few days it looks well booked.

 

[Ediswan]

Which century was this then?

When cinemas were still single screen. There would be another film booked in the following week. Also, the physical print of the current film would be booked to be shown somewhere else. Multi-screen added a lot of flexibility. Digital distribution has added even more.

I see the cheeky ******* have 'shot (some sequences) with IMAX film cameras', but are only showing as Digital IMAX, which has seriously inferior resolution compared to the original 70mm (sideways) IMAX film. You still get the huge screen, but image quality suffers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX

 

[PeterY]

I'll wait until it comes out on Blu-ray

 

[PeterC]

Luxury! For many years the system was "Sunday for 7 days". Being held over for a second week was rare.

My first thought as well. Tune in to Moving Pictures and you realise just how much rubbish was churned out when Odeon and ABC each needed a new main feature and a new support each week. No question then of running the same blockbuster across both chains.

 

[tbtc]

It's probably just a case of only allowing bookings for seven/fourteen days, encouraging people to book in a limited period - even if the cinema have agreed to three/four/more weeks - you want to encourage people to feel like it's a limited time offer, maximise bums on seats during a short period, rather than have the spread over months

If it does well I'm sure they'll extend it, but I think it's standard practice to give the impression that you need to "book now to avoid disappointment"

 

[Ediswan]

My first thought as well. Tune in to Moving Pictures and you realise just how much rubbish was churned out when Odeon and ABC each needed a new main feature and a new support each week. No question then of running the same blockbuster across both chains.

Enfield had three to be kept fed with different material. The first closure was not until 1971 (date c/o Google).

 

[Bungle73]

I'm beginning to think that may be it for the IMAX. If you look are the subsequent dates they appear to be showing Dune instead.

 

[XAM2175]

Remember too that with everything being pushed back and back and back over the last 18-odd months there are quite a few films all coming out pretty much on top of each other for the next little while.

 

[Ediswan]

I'm beginning to think that may be it for the IMAX. If you look are the subsequent dates they appear to be showing Dune instead.

You may be right twice over. Dune is reported to have used 'IMAX certified digital cameras'. It may be that IMAX has been reduced from a truly superior technology to not much more than a brand.

 

[Darandio]

And Dune is going to be huge, a much bigger moneyspinner than Bond.

 

[Ediswan]

And Dune is going to be huge, a much bigger moneyspinner than Bond.

If it does live up to the promise, I might pay a now rare visit to the South Bank. If there is anything that deserves a huge screen, it is a sandworm.

 

[Bungle73]

You may be right twice over. Dune is reported to have used 'IMAX certified digital cameras'. It may be that IMAX has been reduced from a truly superior technology to not much more than a brand.

The BFI still has a 70 mm projector. Most other so-called "IMAX"s are LIEMAX.

I'm in a quandary now. Do I want for when my brother can go, or do I just book it up for myself. I'm always going alone, so having company would have been nice. I've also been looking at the Odeon Leicester Square. I've not been since they did it up and I've been keen to give it a go.

 

[Ediswan]

The BFI still has a 70 mm projector.

Understood*. It just suspect there will be little or no new content to run through it.

* For anybody who finds this later via a search engine, this is about the IMAX projectors at the Odeon BFI IMAX, not the projectors in the nearby National Film Theatre.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I worked for another major cinema chain. Screening schedules are planned weekly. Depends how popular films are but they all peter out eventually, and other new films are released every week. Often enough there are surprises, films are much less or more popular than expected.

The film mentioned shall probably run for months.

 

[Western Lord]

My first thought as well. Tune in to Moving Pictures and you realise just how much rubbish was churned out when Odeon and ABC each needed a new main feature and a new support each week. No question then of running the same blockbuster across both chains.

In those days there was a thing called "barring", which meant that no other cinema within a specified area could show the film. The two chains, ABC and Rank (mainly Odeons but also still some Gaumonts and other odds and sods), had "alignments" with distributors which meant that if you wanted to see, e.g., a Warner Bros. film you had to go to the ABC and if you wanted to see a 20th Century Fox film you had to go to the Odeon. By the 1980's closures had reduced the number of cinemas so that some places only had one left, which still had to give preference to its aligned distributor. Most of the survivors had been tripled, which often meant that the old circle became screen one with 600 to 800 seats, while the rear stalls were divided into two "minis" with around 120 to 150 seats. Very often a cinema had to play its aligned distributor's film in the big screen while a more popular film from the other chain was relegated to a mini.

 

[yorksrob]

In those days there was a thing called "barring", which meant that no other cinema within a specified area could show the film. The two chains, ABC and Rank (mainly Odeons but also still some Gaumonts and other odds and sods), had "alignments" with distributors which meant that if you wanted to see, e.g., a Warner Bros. film you had to go to the ABC and if you wanted to see a 20th Century Fox film you had to go to the Odeon. By the 1980's closures had reduced the number of cinemas so that some places only had one left, which still had to give preference to its aligned distributor. Most of the survivors had been tripled, which often meant that the old circle became screen one with 600 to 800 seats, while the rear stalls were divided into two "minis" with around 120 to 150 seats. Very often a cinema had to play its aligned distributor's film in the big screen while a more popular film from the other chain was relegated to a mini.

Yes, I remember my home town's old cinema got partitioned up exactly as you described in the 80's. Then it got flattened to make a car park for the channel tunnel

 

[Bungle73]

I worked for another major cinema chain. Screening schedules are planned weekly. Depends how popular films are but they all peter out eventually, and other new films are released every week. Often enough there are surprises, films are much less or more popular than expected.

The film mentioned shall probably run for months.

Considering they already appear to have a replacement lined up, and they only have a single screen, I can't see that being the case the IMAX sadly.

In those days there was a thing called "barring", which meant that no other cinema within a specified area could show the film. The two chains, ABC and Rank (mainly Odeons but also still some Gaumonts and other odds and sods), had "alignments" with distributors which meant that if you wanted to see, e.g., a Warner Bros. film you had to go to the ABC and if you wanted to see a 20th Century Fox film you had to go to the Odeon. By the 1980's closures had reduced the number of cinemas so that some places only had one left, which still had to give preference to its aligned distributor. Most of the survivors had been tripled, which often meant that the old circle became screen one with 600 to 800 seats, while the rear stalls were divided into two "minis" with around 120 to 150 seats. Very often a cinema had to play its aligned distributor's film in the big screen while a more popular film from the other chain was relegated to a mini.

That happened to the cinema in Peckham I used to attend as a child, although well before I started going there. I remember the main screen which just had the upper level seats used, with what used to be the stalls empty, which you could look down into. On the ground floor (iirc) they had the secondary, smaller screen, which had obviously been built into that section. The whole thing got demolished some time in the '80s.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wouldn’t bother going to see the film. It’s pretty weak.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I wouldn’t bother going to see the film. It’s pretty weak.

Have you been to see it yourself? As film reviews go, that's fairly short and to the point.

 

[AlterEgo]

Have you been to see it yourself? As film reviews go, that's fairly short and to the point.

Yeah, I saw it today. I have plenty to say about the film, but it's an insipid 2 hours and 45 minutes you won't get back. Beautifully shot and half decent acting but it's just standard gunfights, no sexual tension, woefully underwritten female characters and a story I could have come up with.

The only thing I can say is the end was extremely fitting and exactly what I wanted to see happen to Daniel Craig after sitting through such a borefest.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Thanks @AlterEgo. Sounds rather underwhelming, yet another example of hype over substance, perhaps there won't now be all that many cinematic run extensions!

 

[kristiang85]

I sadly must agree. The cinematography was great, and there were some decent action scenes, but it wasn't really a Bond film. If you want a bit of escapism, you won't get it.

And the ending left me very empty and unsatisfied.

I actually preferred Spectre, which is saying something.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks @AlterEgo. Sounds rather underwhelming, yet another example of hype over substance, perhaps there won't now be all that many cinematic run extensions!

The cinema was well patronised - about 3/4 full at the O2 Cineworld who had sixteen showings yesterday.

I think die hard Daniel Craig fans will still find enough to like, although I am neither a Bond aficionado nor a Daniel Craig fan. I went because I already have Cineworld Unlimited, and it was a big film showing, so I like to pop my head in.

A lot of people have told me they either liked or loved it, which is fine - but it's not a good film. You can like McDonald's without claiming it's good!

 

[C J Snarzell]

I am not a big fan of the cinema environment, so I'm gladly going to wait until the DVD/blu-ray release then I can watch it in the comfort of my own home.

I do think the Daniel Craig Bond films have been like marmite (love them or hate them) in comparison to the previous entries in the series. Casino Royale was a good one and went back to the roots of what 007 was really about in the Ian Fleming novels. Quantum of Solace was probably the 'turkey' out of Daniel Craig's era - it came quite quickly on the back of Casino Royale and it did feel a bit flat and too rushed. Skyfall and Spectre were both marked improvements but I did think that they were trying to push the boundaries wider and make the films somewhat 'noir' in their feel.

The jury's out on 'No Time To Die' until I see it, but having already learned how it ends, I'm wondering how Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson intend to progress the Bond franchise further.

CJ