|
|
Post by Colocrowbal on Oct 18, 2010 22:42:02 GMT
Ah ok. It also has the aforementioned Rose Byrne. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jim on Oct 18, 2010 22:52:13 GMT
So, what movies are people looking forward to seeing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Colocrowbal on Oct 18, 2010 22:55:47 GMT
Scott Pilgrim again. >_>
And I might catch a flick on going to London again, either Saw 7 or Burke and Haire.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jim on Oct 18, 2010 23:00:30 GMT
Does anyone think Saw 3D is actually gonna be good? I'm not a fan of the series to start with, but I really can't imagine adding gimmicky 3D crap is gonna make it any better...
|
|
|
|
Post by Colocrowbal on Oct 18, 2010 23:02:04 GMT
I'll just see it properly, I can't be arsed with the 3D option.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jim on Oct 18, 2010 23:05:35 GMT
But it's gonna be gimmicky 3D, with all random shit flying in your face. At least watching it in 3D will make those effects watchable. In 2D their really shit, rather than being just really stupid, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colocrowbal on Oct 18, 2010 23:11:23 GMT
Eh maybe. I watched FD4 on Sky and it looked terrible, probably because it didn't translate well to 2D. Haven't seen the 3D version, mind. I'm not really tossed about the 3D gimmick in all honesty. You know they wanted to convert Inception into a 3D movie, but didn't after because Nolan refused.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jim on Oct 18, 2010 23:17:59 GMT
I saw Avatar in 3D, and that showed what you can do if you use 3D for more than just daft "object flies in your face" effects. Until someone goes and does something similar to that again, I'm just not interested in 3D.
That being said, outside of the awesome use of 3D and CGI, the film is pretty rubbish. I found the plot to be really shallow and not very well written.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colocrowbal on Oct 18, 2010 23:19:33 GMT
Yeah I won't be seeing it, proud to have never seen it and that, I really don't believe in hype.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jim on Oct 18, 2010 23:20:46 GMT
I'll say it's worth seeing in 3D, but otherwise, yeah, don't bother.
|
|
|
|
Post by `AdeRin on Oct 18, 2010 23:54:49 GMT
Well, I've found that I can't really watch 3D, as when I wear the glasses over my normal glasses, I can't see it properly, and when I take my normal glasses off and just have the 3D ones, I get a headache because I'm not wearing my glasses xD
So unless someone comes up with a good idea on how to watch 3D without using glasses, I'm not going to bother. Besides, in the one film I have seen in 3D, Alice in Wonderland (ended up with stonking headache because of lack of normal glasses), I thought the 3D was completely pointless. It didn't look 3D to me, more like there were two or three different 2D parts that were being moved in front of one another. Which, I suppose, makes it 3D in a sense, but I don't think I'll ever call any film 3D unless it doesn't look like a load of cardboard cutouts moving in front of one another....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jim on Oct 19, 2010 0:00:48 GMT
Well, 3D effects do work layering multiple images on each other. Each image (in cases of the film being recorded in 3D, rather than modified from 2D to 3D) is recorded from different angles. This is how the human eyes see anyway, and allow the brain to process depth.
3D without glasses is being developed, but it generally involves a sort-of "sweet spot", meaning you have to sit straight in front of the screen, with a certain tolerance being allowed. This is what is being used on the Nintendo 3DS and some newer TVs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colocrowbal on Oct 19, 2010 6:57:53 GMT
I wonder why 3D is suddenly so successful to be honest, they tried it before.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jim on Oct 19, 2010 10:23:14 GMT
I wonder the same thing...
|
|
|
|
Post by Colocrowbal on Oct 19, 2010 12:03:56 GMT
I'm going also add I'm sick of James Cameron, the guy is a lazy so and so, in that he hasn't done a movie in 12 years, and he expected people to go cuckoo for it, and the idiots complied. He hasn't done 2 good movie since 1991, and that's arguably the only decent one he's done.
|
|
