Are real IMAX screens still acceptable?
Another fargin' Transformers movie?
- Thread starter DarkAudit
- Start date
- Status
On the "computer graphics" metaphor... first of all, people shell out lots of money for games with awesome graphics. So I don't understand what the point being made was. Second: people have a perfectly good reason to shell out money for games with awesome graphics:
Awesome graphics look awesome. Awesomeness is something that's just plain important, all by itself, to the point that people will pay money for it. People paid money for good art long before it got interesting gameplay attached to it.
Things can be awesome in isolation and then suck when you combine them with other things. Things can be awesome enough to pay for, but not enough to justify a particular price. But given a game with good gameplay with bad graphics, and a game with good gameplay and great graphics, I will happily pay more for the latter, because I just enjoy it more.
That said, the metaphor doesn't prove anything anyway. IMO, 3D in movies usually adds very little. I personally will ONLY pay money for 3D if it's exaggerated and makes the movie fun and exciting. I hate this new trend of "subtle depth" that people are using 3D for. I do think movies are slightly better with it, but something like 5% better tops (or 50 cents for a $10 movie). I'll pay an extra $3 for exaggerated fun "gimmick" 3D as long as it's used during action scenes where it doesn't distract from the plot.
The only movie that's come out recently that I cared about the 3D for was How to Train your Dragon. It's not only used for awesome flight scenes, (something even Avatar didn't impress me with), but it actually reinforces character development. (The scene where Hiccup meets Toothless the first time is much better in 3D).
Awesome graphics look awesome. Awesomeness is something that's just plain important, all by itself, to the point that people will pay money for it. People paid money for good art long before it got interesting gameplay attached to it.
Things can be awesome in isolation and then suck when you combine them with other things. Things can be awesome enough to pay for, but not enough to justify a particular price. But given a game with good gameplay with bad graphics, and a game with good gameplay and great graphics, I will happily pay more for the latter, because I just enjoy it more.
That said, the metaphor doesn't prove anything anyway. IMO, 3D in movies usually adds very little. I personally will ONLY pay money for 3D if it's exaggerated and makes the movie fun and exciting. I hate this new trend of "subtle depth" that people are using 3D for. I do think movies are slightly better with it, but something like 5% better tops (or 50 cents for a $10 movie). I'll pay an extra $3 for exaggerated fun "gimmick" 3D as long as it's used during action scenes where it doesn't distract from the plot.
The only movie that's come out recently that I cared about the 3D for was How to Train your Dragon. It's not only used for awesome flight scenes, (something even Avatar didn't impress me with), but it actually reinforces character development. (The scene where Hiccup meets Toothless the first time is much better in 3D).
Those 3D glasses are oversized. You can easily wear them over your glasses.
Easily and comfortably are miles apart, in this case.
Bingo.
True enough. Have you ever considered just taking a pair of 3D glasses, cutting off the legs, and adding a clip to the center? Then you can clip it to the bridge of your glasses.
Maybe get a second pair of glasses and chisel holes into the frame, and then screw 3D glasses to them permanently, so until you need new lenses, you're all set for your 3D adventures.
I have, actually, considered it, but then decided that since most 3D movies never should have been 3D in the first place, it's better on my eyes (and my wallet) to stick with 2D.
I have far more issue with the "only releasing it in 3D in most theaters, so good luck finding 2D!" thing that they're doing now. I don't go to my favorite (and most convenient) theater now because of it.
I have far more issue with the "only releasing it in 3D in most theaters, so good luck finding 2D!" thing that they're doing now. I don't go to my favorite (and most convenient) theater now because of it.
Yeah, it's really pissing me off. If I want to see GL at my favorite theater its going to have to be in 3D. Which really blows.
I should edit to say, again, I'm not against it being in 3D, but I believe its a post conversion again and I want my GL at full brightness dammit.
You've not seen my noggin'.
So I finally get to see a clip instead of a trailer thanks to the Late Show...
FUCK THIS MOVIE.
It took only 10 seconds for me to despise everyone involved in the scene. If that's the best humanity has to offer, the Transformers can have the fucking planet. At least it'll spare us Transformers 4.
FUCK THIS MOVIE.
It took only 10 seconds for me to despise everyone involved in the scene. If that's the best humanity has to offer, the Transformers can have the fucking planet. At least it'll spare us Transformers 4.
I can't wait to be there opening night. In 3D on a DBOX seat eating "New" Skittles along with a side dish of your tears.
That's fine. Enjoy it as much as you like. Just don't make me come with you.I loved TF2 and was one of the most fun visual experiences to watch. Looking forward to TF3.
J
Jiarn
People can love terrible movies, I should know, I love Uwe Boll films. Yet I still think the entire Transformers series is an atrocity of filmmaking and a really sad look at our nation's movie viewing preferences. Just a few more steps tillI loved TF2 and was one of the most fun visual experiences to watch. Looking forward to TF3.
You do that. I'll be enjoying my free outfield grandstand baseball tickets with a Primanti Bros sammich and a soda. And have cash left over for afters.
Added at: 18:12
I WATCHED IT AND SHE NEVER WORE THE OUTFIT
This 3D experience will be like no other. Michael Bay personally had his assistant make several copies of a letter one of his staff wrote personally to the projectionists telling them how to show the movie.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...tionis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
See, Michael Bay cares about each and every one of you.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...tionis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
See, Michael Bay cares about each and every one of you.
I may not agree with Michael Bay on many things about movies, but he's absolutely fucking right on this.
Ebert's facebook review:
No matter what though this movie is going to make a bajillion dollars.
You can imagine how his real review of it went. My favorite gems were:
and
I gotta say though, other people who were less kind to the other films seem to like this one more so I might, if I get drunk enough go see it. But you know what they say, "fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again.".
No matter what though this movie is going to make a bajillion dollars.
Would you see it if Alan Tudyk was in the film???
I'm going to see this in IMAX 3D, because I want to believe 3D can be cool, and this is "the best use since Avatar". Also, the grudgingly middling reviews give me some hope that this will be Good-Michael-Bay. Plus, I just visited Chicago and want to see it torn to shreds in a 40 minute action sequence.
- Status