Movie suggestions?
-
So I've no idea what is in theaters (in the US) these days but the 25th is coming up and I figured I should go with tradition, any movies that people can recommend?
-
The Hobbit.
-
@dhromed said:
I haven't, nor do I think I will be able to, see it in 48 fps (HFR). But they say the extra sharpness drags your suspension of disbelief into the uncanny valley.The Hobbit.
That it looks like live theatre where you can tell they're on a set wearing prosthetics. Or so I've read.
-
@Zecc said:
Or so I've read.
You make a convincing case that's not at all completely irrational nor unnecessarily dismissive! Thank you so much!
-
@Zecc said:
That it looks like live theatre where you can tell they're on a set wearing prosthetics. Or so I've read.
Wouldn't that be an improvement in many cases? I mean for that kind of story a play seems like it would be better than a movie anyway.
-
@locallunatic said:
Sure. Same goes for 3d too.@Zecc said:
That it looks like live theatre where you can tell they're on a set wearing prosthetics. Or so I've read.
Wouldn't that be an improvement in many cases? I mean for that kind of story a play seems like it would be better than a movie anyway.
Not to mention it's highly subjective. The author of the post I read says it himself. He mentions in passing that younger generations in particular seem to have been more receptive to the new technology, perhaps because they're not as "tainted" by the old, I guess?
I haven't experienced it myself, so I really can't comment on it.
I may be watching the film tonight btw, though I haven't discussed it with my girlfriend yet. I know she's not particularly interested in The Hobbbit, but Life of Pi is only available on 3D, which she avoids if she can*. And all the other movies seem "meh" to me. Okay, maybe Hotel Transylvania, but then we only get to choose between original voices in 3D or dubbed in 2D.
*The place we're going to, in particular, uses active glasses, which just makes it worse.
-
@Zecc said:
@locallunatic said:
Sure. Same goes for 3d too.@Zecc said:
That it looks like live theatre where you can tell they're on a set wearing prosthetics. Or so I've read.
Wouldn't that be an improvement in many cases? I mean for that kind of story a play seems like it would be better than a movie anyway.
Not to mention it's highly subjective. The author of the post I read says it himself. He mentions in passing that younger generations in particular seem to have been more receptive to the new technology, perhaps because they're not as "tainted" by the old, I guess?
I haven't experienced it myself, so I really can't comment on it.
I may be watching the film tonight btw, though I haven't discussed it with my girlfriend yet. I know she's not particularly interested in The Hobbbit, but Life of Pi is only available on 3D, which she avoids if she can*. And all the other movies seem "meh" to me. Okay, maybe Hotel Transylvania, but then we only get to choose between original voices in 3D or dubbed in 2D.
*The place we're going to, in particular, uses active glasses, which just makes it worse.
So do 3D movies still require one to wear special glasses?
What about 3D HFR?
I must admit, I was very happy with the TV / cinema technologies of 20 years ago...
-
So we ended up watching Hotel Transylvania in 2D.
Because it was the dubbed version I know I must have lost lots of jokes and puns that were lost in translation, or the lack of subtitles, but oh well. Such is life.
The animation was a bit hectic at times, both characters and camera, but not enough to get tiresome. I do wonder if I wouldn't have gotten slightly dizzy if I had watched it in 3D. The fact is I was a bit too close to the screen for my taste, so that didn't help.
There weren't many surprises story-wise (or were there?), but it wasn't that sort of movie anyway. What it did have was well-executed humor (I laughed at a fart joke, for cheeses' sake!), the laughing-out-loud kind even, and I don't recall a single joke that made me groan.
In short: I recommend it.
EDIT: I just realized it's been released past September in the US and is already a very high-grossing movie, so this shouldn't be news to anyone on that side of the Atlantic. Carry on.
-
@bridget99 said:
So do 3D movies still require one to wear special glasses?
Until they find a way to inject the necessary image into each invidual eyeball of every viewer at the movie, even as they move their heads, special glasses are the way to go.What about 3D HFR?
I must admit, I was very happy with the TV / cinema technologies of 20 years ago...
-
@bridget99 said:
So do 3D movies still require one to wear special glasses?
until this technology picks up
-
@Nelle said:
@bridget99 said:
So do 3D movies still require one to wear special glasses?
until this technology picks up
This could not be real. Muscle spasms aren't that fast or predictable. Ellowell.
-
I'm not sure how they are going to do three movies for The Hobit. They covered a bunch of the important scenes in this first one and they can do Smaug as the third one, but that leaves nothing I remember from the book for the second one.
-
@Nelle said:
@bridget99 said:
So do 3D movies still require one to wear special glasses?
until this technology picks up
O god torture
-
@Zecc said:
48 fps (HFR)
I saw the Hobbit in HFR - paying $25 (!) for the privilege.
To me it was like playing a FPS game where the video card is only just keeping up. Some scenes - like the wide panning shots or hand-held camera - felt like it was accelerating rather than being smooth. It was fairly disconcerting, not sure if it was from the HFR or what.
-
@Zemm said:
@Zecc said:
48 fps (HFR)
I saw the Hobbit in HFR - paying $25 (!) for the privilege.
To me it was like playing a FPS game where the video card is only just keeping up. Some scenes - like the wide panning shots or hand-held camera - felt like it was accelerating rather than being smooth. It was fairly disconcerting, not sure if it was from the HFR or what.
Just saw the hobbit in 3D+HFR, too (for "only" €3 more than the normal price) and same experience. I also noticed some quick movements of the actors felt weirdly out of sync, kind of as if the movie would play at an accelerated speed for a second, then flip back to normal speed. (e.g. old Bilbo rummaging through his chests in the beginning)
My personal theory is that you start noticing very small, quick movements that before were swallowed by the low framerate - whereas slow and steady movements (which I think were supposed to become "smoother" somehow) didn't change much at all, because the brain already did a good job interpolating them before. You basically reduced the low-pass filter that motions went through before.
Speaking of questionable new movie technologies, 3D. I know it's getting old, but seriously, guys could you at least do some research on visual perception before using this stuff? Protip: You can't just throw stereoscopic imaging on everything but expect zooms, transitions and depth of field to work just like before. Wasn't the whole point of 3D once that everything should feel more realistic? Yeah, that worked beautifully here.
-
I'm going to see the Hobbit tonight.
The main problem with 3D is that it doesn't really project sharp images in front and behind the screen, and thus depth-of-field sharpness (an important active depth cue) is always unnatural. As such 3D in its current state cannot possibly work correctly.
Next technology: holograms!
-
One possible reason for offering films in 3-D is that it involves more faff to film the screen in order to make DVDs of the film.
The best bit of a version of "I Robot" that a friend bought in Hong Kong was the transcriptions of the mis-heard and misunderstood dialogue as Ingrish encoded DVD subtitles.
-
I have extensively reviewed the Hobbit! Three stars. Not worth the ticket price.
3D and HFR didn't add jack shit, as expected.
HFR - specific short sequences appeared as if they were fast-forwarded. This is probably an illusion, since I've observed a smiliar thing happens when you lower a game's settings a little and go from 30 to 50-60fps. It doesn't acatually improve anything.
3D - again succeeded in making some scenes look like paper cutouts floating on top of a photograph, like the shoebox 3D thing that kids sometimes make. Otherwise completely unnoticable. This too, adds nothing at all.
What a load of bullshit to drive up ticket prices.
I went with 4 other people, and while we all had different subjective experiences with the 3D and HFR (some said it was hardly noticeable; other said it was terrible), none of us had anything positive to say about it.
-
@mikedjames said:
The best bit of a version of "I Robot" that a friend bought in Hong Kong was the transcriptions of the mis-heard and misunderstood dialogue as Ingrish encoded DVD subtitles.
-
It's a valid interpretation.
-
@dhromed said:
I went with 4 other people, and while we all had different subjective experiences with the 3D and HFR (some said it was hardly noticeable; other said it was terrible), none of us had anything positive to say about it.
Glad I didn't do the 3D. Anything people are looking forward to this year?
-
if race2 is playing, AVOID AVOID AVOID.
-
Going by the teaser, I now have a massive quivering erection for The Man With The Iron Fists.
-
@dhromed said:
Filed under: badly hidden handjob jokeGoing by the teaser, I now have a massive quivering erection for The Man With The Iron Fists.
-
The word is "fists" and you're going for handjobs?
How tame.
-
These movies are currently playing locally:
Life Of Pi (3D)
Django Unchained
Dangerous Night
Oz The Great And Powerful (3D)
Who should get my money?
-
Anything that's not 3D, because you'll pay more and get nothing.
-
Life of Pi.
I haven't seen any of the others.
And ignore Dhromed, Life of Pi has *amazing* *incredible* 3D.
-
@blakeyrat said:
*amazing* *incredible* 3D.
There's no such thing. It flattens movies by making things look like those cardboard cutouts, like on a stage— except all the people are cardboard as well.
So yeah, granted, all those cardboard components are convincingly placed in a 3D environment, but I don't think that's what you want.
Maybe it's better to say that the 3D effect occurs only on a large scale (like an eagle soaring over a mountain) but not on short depth distances, (like the eagle itself).
The two-bar technique that you see in those "3D" gifs gives a better 3D effect.
-
@dhromed said:
There's no such thing. It flattens movies by making things look like those cardboard cutouts, like on a stage— except all the people are cardboard as well.
No no no. There's two types of 3D:
1) Good 3D: Avatar, Life of Pi
2) Shitty 3D done that way only to cash-in on a retarded 3D trend: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, that mediocre remake of Total Recall.The difference is that 2 is done using post-processing on a normal bog-standard 2D film. The process comes out looking as you describe-- flat 2D-looking characters moving in a 3D space. Basically Golden Axe 3, but on a movie screen.
But good 3D is good. Avatar's awesome IMAX 3D is the reason you even have to think about what version of the film to watch.
-
@blakeyrat said:
1) Good 3D: Avatar, Life of Pi
The Avengers, Captain America: the first Avenger@blakeyrat said:
2) Shitty 3D done that way only to cash-in on a retarded 3D trend: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, that mediocre remake of Total Recall.
and all others ...
-
@blakeyrat said:
The difference is that 2 is done using post-processing on a normal bog-standard 2D film. The process comes out looking as you describe-- flat 2D-looking characters moving in a 3D space. Basically Golden Axe 3, but on a movie screen.
No, all 3D has that flattening effect.
Including The Hobbit and MIB3.
-
@dhromed said:
No, all 3D has that flattening effect.
Including The Hobbit and MIB3.
I can't comment on movies I haven't seen. It's possible those movies had the right technology, but shitty directors/effects people who couldn't make it work.
But the difference between Life of Pi and Total Recall is night-and-day. And anyway, the story of Life of Pi is freakin' amazing regardless of the 3D.
I've almost forgiven Ang Lee for Hulk. ... almost. Then I remember he put a hulk poodle on the screen.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I can't comment on movies I haven't seen.
This is a conundrum. Clearly we need more overlap.
I saw Avatar in 2D, so I can't comment on that either. Would not have been worth the extra $ anyway.
I saw one other movie in 3D, but I can't remember what it was. :\
I'm not going to watch Life of Pi, because I am done with emotionally void movies like Cameron's Avatar and The Dark Knight. I liked Watchmen, and it was still strong on a second viewing, though surprisingly less so. My most surprising re-watched favourite is 300, which basically delivered a mightly blow to my mind even on an old-ass CRT TV plus commercial breaks.
-
All my colleges are going to see Django Unchained and I am going with them.
-
@dhromed said:
I am done with emotionally void movies
Go see Seven Psicopaths if you can. It's good fun and non-emotionally-void.
-
@Zecc said:
Seven Psicopaths
WELL SEE ABOUT THAT.
Also, you are the first dyslexic on this forum that actually shows it.
-
-
@dhromed said:
Also, you are the first dyslexic on this forum that actually shows it.
Bad English and/or bad typing due to posting when tired is not the same as dyslexia.
-
@Zecc said:
Bad English and/or bad typing due to posting when tired is not the same as dyslexia.
YES IT IS.
IS TOO IS TOO IS TOO
-
@dhromed said:
@Zecc said:
Seven Psicopaths
WELL SEE ABOUT THAT.
Also, you are the first dyslexic on this forum that actually shows it.
I would totally watch a movie named "Seven Piscopopaths", assuming it was cast with Joe Piscopo playing all 7 lead roles.
-
I thought 'Oz the great and powerful' was really good, minus the few designed for 3d moments of things jabbing at the screen (saw in 2d)
'Burt Wonderstone' wasn't bad, but nothing will be lost by waiting for video.
-
Django Unchained is good movie. I like it.
-
Necro!
(I still haven't watched The Hobbit, by the way).
Yesterday I watched Stasis:
It is currently classified as 3.0 out of 10, which I find is a little bit harsh.
I personally would have scored it something closer to 4.0. It's not exactly a good movie, but it's not that terrible. I enjoyed it.I am ready to blame the general mediocreness on bad directing. I'm sure a better director would have done a better job of taking out the moments where editing was bad (not that many) and special effects were sub-par (often). And omg those oh-so-long initial credits.
I disagree with the reviewer which says the acting was bad. I thought it was pretty decent, even when their lines were acting against them. The main antagonist was quite pleasing to look at.
I quite liked the concept and plot. Heck, it had more juice than, say, the Mission Impossible or Fast and Furious franchises. There were a couple of twists towards the end I liked; nothing spectacular, but the kind you'd expect in an action movie.
All in all, I'd recommend this movie to anyone who's willing to see past its execution faults and turn a blind eye to the usual plotholes of stories based on time-travelling. It won't rock your world, but it will keep you entertained for 1h30 hours. At a minimum you can go on to complain about how it could have been so much better executed.
Edit: a review on YouTube tells me the plot matches the one on a series called Travellers, so if you've watched that then probably don't watch this.
@Luhmann said in Quotes Out of Context:
try reversing the polarization
In the movie there's a part where the token nerd uses some cringy technobabble. A non-technical character asks: "have you tried reversing the polarity?"
The other guy stares awkwardly for a second and then ignores it.I laughed. It felt like a moment of self-conciousness from the moviemakers, though I'm not sure they meant it (which to me just make it funnier).
Stasis (2017) ⭐ 3.0 | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
