The last movie you saw

[Captain]

Was TDKR even in 3D?

Also, GFY is so hilariously wrong about movies most of the time. 3D is a gimmick to "immerse" the viewer into alternate reality for a couple hours because god knows the sub-par acting and awful plots won't get it done. Movies are mostly shit these days, so you need some shiny eye candy to keep the lardasses in the seats.

[LawL]

Was TDKR even in 3D?

I just assumed it was. If not, it's the thought that counts.

[GONNAFISTYA]

I saw TDKR in imax non-3D. U mad bro?

I still love the IMAX format.

[GONNAFISTYA]

3D is a gimmick to "immerse" the viewer into alternate reality for a couple hours because god knows the sub-par acting and awful plots won't get it done. Movies are mostly shit these days, so you need some shiny eye candy to keep the lardasses in the seats.

I won't argue your rant against the quality of movies that are out, especially these days of head-up-their-ass remakes. But you're missing the point...probably on purpose...as I mentioned the focus of 3D being of how things move in 3D space rather than how they look, and that it's the look that I have the problem with.

"Immerse the view into an alternate reality for a couple of hours"

That's the goal of every movie, not only 3D you moron.

The point is that the theatre industry spent millions upgrading their gear to accomodate the tech as - ultimately - it was meant for a sustained period of non-gimmicky shit films that would make 3D as standard viewing in all theatres, much in the same way multi-channel surround sound became standard fare. Your rant also completely ignores the insane amount of work and attention to detail it takes to get 3D to work correctly in the first place, never mind the sub-par acting and awful plots. If you want some idea of the amount of work involved in creating a quality 3D presentation, read this article, which even goes down to the level of discussing 3D film grain issues. You can also watch this interview with John Knoll, a VFX guru with more than a few major projects under his belt, for more insight on converting 2D to 3D.

I'm simply lamenting the fact that regardless of all the 3D problems that are fixed with respect to convergence, edge violations, "stereo budgets", etc...stuff that actually create the immersive 3D effect...are ultimately undermined in that the tech only works when the audience is distracted (ducking) and don't pay attention to how horrible the actual on-screen elements look.

Also, GFY is so hilariously wrong about movies most of the time.

p.s fuck u....

[Captain]

I'm simply lamenting the fact that regardless of all the 3D problems that are fixed with respect to convergence, edge violations, "stereo budgets", etc...stuff that actually create the immersive 3D effect...are ultimately undermined in that the tech only works when the audience is distracted (ducking) and don't pay attention to how horrible the actual on-screen elements look.

You're talking about how it could be better implemented, but I want it gone altogether. Even the most realistic 3D film can't compare to a good game with a story worth following. The movie industry should stop trying to push the envelope and just focus on not being so shitty all the time.

the audience is distracted (ducking) and don't pay attention to how horrible the actual on-screen elements look.

Or like I said, how horrible the film itself is

[Tsakali]

3D as an idea is fine... it's more than fine, it's inevitable really. But besides the less than perfect implementation of it right now, I think they are having a fundamental problem, they might need to go further than just trying to project 3D at a flat rectangular screen by patching up old technology.

Faking 3D might just not do the trick.... something along the lines of spacial 3D manifestation might need to take place before it starts looking and feeling right.

And whatever technology that might be, it could prove completely worthless in the movie making industry. Maybe film might not be able to adapt to something more captivating than what it already is....a projection of pictures in sequence on a flat surface, because of its fundamental requirement of a completely controlled environment, that is required to control the scene, the frame and forcing the attention to whatever the director whats to place focus on.... you know, the kind of shit that they cannot control in plays from the perspective of the audience.

[MKJ]

Was TDKR even in 3D?

it wasnt. hence my post.

[GONNAFISTYA]

hence the "fuck u..."

[LawL]

it wasnt. hence my post.

fuck u...

[GONNAFISTYA]

Faking 3D might just not do the trick.... something along the lines of spacial 3D manifestation might need to take place before it starts looking and feeling right.

Full colour holograms.

[xer0s]

For the most part, 3D is a joke. But I do think it can be done correctly. For instance, I thought Avatar was great in 3D...

[GONNAFISTYA]

For instance, I thought Avatar was great in 3D...

So did I. However, I'm just thinking that it's possible that I overlooked the artifacting of moving objects in that movie because it was the first 3D I'd seen in almost 10 years. But ever since Avatar, I've noticed the problem in every 3D film.

[xer0s]

Well I feel like Cameron shot the film in 3D, but he kept it out of his mind for the most part, and just shot it like he would any other film. Because of that, the 3D doesn't feel forced or gimmicky. It just works where it needs to...

[Tsakali]

it's the opposite. he shot every frame with 3D in mind. But he didn't shove all the obvious 'omg3D' tricks in your face.

[EmeraldTiger]

I think 3D is overall not worth the money if it is possible to see it in regular. tbh, I actually thought Avatar looked better on Blu-Ray than in the movies in 3D. The 3D glasses appear to "dilute" and darken the environment, if I remember correctly. Not only that, they can be uncomfortable if they're too tight or whatever - especially if one is already wearing glasses like me and has to stack them, since the 3D glasses obviously won't help you see better.

Personally, I go by a "less is more" philosophy - keep the gimmicks out and just enjoy the movie for what it is - for the story, characterization, plot, and the natural elements that bring the movie to life. I don't need 3D special effects that only are interesting for the first three minutes to tell me that.

[Whiskey 7]

Changing Lanes

IMDB
Yes enjoyable and I'd watch again




7.5/10

[Ferrao10]

3D as an idea is fine... it's more than fine, it's inevitable really. But besides the less than perfect implementation of it right now, I think they are having a fundamental problem, they might need to go further than just trying to project 3D at a flat rectangular screen by patching up old technology.

Faking 3D might just not do the trick.... something along the lines of spacial 3D manifestation might need to take place before it starts looking and feeling right.

And whatever technology that might be, it could prove completely worthless in the movie making industry. Maybe film might not be able to adapt to something more captivating than what it already is....a projection of pictures in sequence on a flat surface, because of its fundamental requirement of a completely controlled environment, that is required to control the scene, the frame and forcing the attention to whatever the director whats to place focus on.... you know, the kind of shit that they cannot control in plays from the perspective of the audience.

You nailed it.
Real3D or any other technology used nowadays just looks like several layers of silhouette technique on top of each other. It does NOT good at showing things move in 3D space. Actually it sucks at that.
Only the silhouettes themselves look more plastic but not their behaviour to each other. That's my perception, at least.

I'd go with Tsakali and say real 3D-cinema would only be possible with a revolutionary break from old tradition projection onto 2D surfaces. The human eye/brain-system through stereoscopic view can perceive objects in 3D but not unless the viewer changes his/her position is it possible to recognize each object's correlation in 3D to each others'. In other words, our body needs to move through or around the scenery to really get the immersive impact.
So, yep, holograms... But not like in Star Trek. A simple cylinder, cone or sphere would do for the beginning.
But that also asks for activeness from the auditory. They would have to move around that cylinder, whatever.
And that again takes away control over the auditorium's perception and focus, like Tsakali pointed out. It's a dilemma.

Saw Prometheus in 2D and didn't see one scene that would shout out for 3D. But because of comments on it being the film that used the technique the most "intelligent" way I'll probably make the second round in 3D. Score would be a 7/10. It throws up more questions than it answers, didn't expect that.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Total Recall Remake#1 (pretty sure they'll remake this again someday. not sure though) = 3/10 - Fucking garbage. Basically a series of chase scenes punctuated with horrible acting, with Kate Beckinsale being uncharacteristically fucking horrible. She really should stop taking the lead roles in her worthless husband's movie projects. God he's horrible. The production design and VFX were top-notch as expected because that's all this movie offers and where they spent most of the money. TBH the film had a very Blade Runnerish look to it, so they don't have to remake that movie now...it's been done. It's funny...this remade, rehashed, predictable POS was produced by a company called "Original Film"...hilarious.

Here...I'll save you two hours and twenty bucks if you just watch this clip from Siggraph 2000. I mean seriously...the production design is the same right down to the robot police.



There...now you've basically seen the Total Recall remake #1. From a short clip made twelve fucking years ago.

To those of you who will snobbishly state "I'll wait until I see it to judge it" (knowing full well you probably won't enjoy it as much as Arnie's version) and who go out and pay money to these remake-whoring assholes: fuck you. No seriously...fuck you. You're the reason Hollywood sucks.

I downloaded a cam copy because that's all this garbage deserves. Er...actually it doesn't even deserve viewing.

[Tsakali]

is it because it's a remake? i thought it was more enjoyable than the original if only because the story was more closer to reality, more relevant , and didn't have cheesy / ridiculous parts as the original . Not sure why it scored so low with peeps, I would have easily given it as high as 8/10 if it wasn't for the original ruining any chance I had at enjoying the plot.

[menkent]

i always hated the Schwarzenegger version. does that mean I'll like the new one?

[Tsakali]

it's a start

[GONNAFISTYA]

i always hated the Schwarzenegger version. does that mean I'll like the new one?

yeah sure....perfect logic

A turd is a turd no matter what you compare it to.

[LawL]

Total Recall Remake#1 (pretty sure they'll remake this again someday. not sure though) = 3/10 - Fucking garbage. Basically a series of chase scenes punctuated with horrible acting, with Kate Beckinsale being uncharacteristically fucking horrible. She really should stop taking the lead roles in her worthless husband's movie projects. God he's horrible. The production design and VFX were top-notch as expected because that's all this movie offers and where they spent most of the money. TBH the film had a very Blade Runnerish look to it, so they don't have to remake that movie now...it's been done. It's funny...this remade, rehashed, predictable POS was produced by a company called "Original Film"...hilarious.

Here...I'll save you two hours and twenty bucks if you just watch this clip from Siggraph 2000. I mean seriously...the production design is the same right down to the robot police.



There...now you've basically seen the Total Recall remake #1. From a short clip made twelve fucking years ago.

To those of you who will snobbishly state "I'll wait until I see it to judge it" (knowing full well you probably won't enjoy it as much as Arnie's version) and who go out and pay money to these remake-whoring assholes: fuck you. No seriously...fuck you. You're the reason Hollywood sucks.

I downloaded a cam copy because that's all this garbage deserves. Er...actually it doesn't even deserve viewing.

I've never seen anyone get their jimmies as rustled by a movie as you. I don't for a second think the remake could ever be as good as the original, if not only because there will only ever be one Arnold. But that doesn't mean I'm automatically filled with venomous hatred towards it. What's amazing is that even though you had already decided you were going to despise every single thing about this movie, you were still so incredibly eager to watch it that you downloaded it at the first possible opportunity and actually endured watching a shitty cam copy. Personally I'll just wait however long it takes for the Bluray rip to come out because I really don't give a fuck.

By the way, waiting to actually see a movie before deciding whether you like it or not isn't being snobby. It's called being normal.

[PrMink]

as much as I agree with lawl, his new red font hurts my eyes. so I'm on both of your sides. except gonnaetc.

[GONNAFISTYA]

I've never seen anyone get their jimmies as rustled by a movie as you. I don't for a second think the remake could ever be as good as the original, if not only because there will only ever be one Arnold. But that doesn't mean I'm automatically filled with venomous hatred towards it. What's amazing is that even though you had already decided you were going to despise every single thing about this movie, you were still so incredibly eager to watch it that you downloaded it at the first possible opportunity and actually endured watching a shitty cam copy. Personally I'll just wait however long it takes for the Bluray rip to come out because I really don't give a fuck.

By the way, waiting to actually see a movie before deciding whether you like it or not isn't being snobby. It's called being normal.

I cut myself with a meat knife preparing lunch today. So I cleaned the wound and dug all the crap out of it as quickly as I could, so that the pain would be over asap and I could get on with the rest of my day. I guess that's why I watched it...to get it over with.

Idiocracy was right all along. In the future, the only movie that Hollywood ever makes will be a 3 hour feature of someone farting at the camera. It'll be released every 3 months and they won't even bother acknowledging the remade/sequel/braindead nature of it and simply name every film "Ass". People will love it and spend their money on it and even then, there will still be a moron like you who will defend it.

Seriously dude...you've posted here in the past your passion for film and mine is no less than yours. Shall I quote the stuff you've posted regarding films you give shit about? stfu.

Besides...it really has nothing to do with a lack of Arnie or any other connection to the original. It's simply a really shit film cynically cranked out because of brand recognition. For someone who professes to love movies, crap like this should piss you off, too.

And besides...I really am trying to save you money.