Lousy effort. Lame.
Best movie you've seen
- Thread starter LiamC
- Start date
Lousy effort. Lame.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
But entirely accurate. This guy might be the world expert on high frame rate filmmaking, but if he can't convince me that a problem exists without resorting to his judgment of a single audience's reaction and he can't explain the problem with some kind of quantitative statements (as opposed to "It looks like football on TV hurrr"), he might as well be writing essays about why Jacob should top Edward in Twilight slash on fanfiction.net. That's his fault as a writer and of the editor who looked at his use of big words and decided that it's close enough. It's not. I have no reason to consider this person's opinion with any greater weight than anonymous reviews on Amazon.com. In fact, I have less reason to do so since this person could not explain his position without resorting to subjective observation.
ddrueding
Fixture
Just finished watching Green Lantern while fixing file servers at work. Nice film.
Stereodude
Not really a
FWIW, I thought it was pretty poor.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Both poor arguments for convincing me to like the film or not. Epic fail, doofuses.
ddrueding
Fixture
Good thing I wasn't trying to convince anyone 
At the end of a 24-hour workday I don't try too hard.
At the end of a 24-hour workday I don't try too hard.
Stereodude
Not really a
Thanks for the lulz...
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Neither dd nor SD has made any attempt to suggest we should value their theatrical insights and neither of them have been paid for those insights, either. Unlike some doofuses.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Saw Hobbit earlier today. We have only the 3D version available. Couldn't tell if it was the fast framerate version or not. I suspect it was the standard framerate. 3D was noticeable only in some scenes. I felt it was typical Jackson. They never made the guy do precis writing in school. 3 friggin hours!
Overall, ho hum fare. Wasn't excited.
Overall, ho hum fare. Wasn't excited.
Continue to poke and prod for the sake of your own amusement rather than have constructed a valid argument to engage in a worthwhile discussion. I'm now understanding why people continued to abandon this site throughout the years. However unfortunate it took me a decade too long to realize why but now I understand. Please continue to enjoy displaying your highly educated whimsical pallet of the English language as its usefulness is amazing and makes for great discussions. You shall enjoy its continued use here because from this point forward you will be talking to yourself. I no longer enjoy having
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
What happens to the site when the admin leaves?
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,278
I saw the WORST movie, maybe ever. Killer Joe. Totally worthless, violent, no value at all.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1726669/
OK: Maybe the opening scene, just due to nudity, that appears to be Gina Gershon, but is more likely a stunt double.
Also Juno makes good trailtrash, until she takes her clothes off.
Watched Mad Men, first disk last night.
Only saving grace is really Christina Hendricks, and not enough of her.
\http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0376716/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1726669/
OK: Maybe the opening scene, just due to nudity, that appears to be Gina Gershon, but is more likely a stunt double.
Also Juno makes good trailtrash, until she takes her clothes off.
Watched Mad Men, first disk last night.
Only saving grace is really Christina Hendricks, and not enough of her.
\http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0376716/
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,278
From the article in discussion:
"In my opinion, film is not necessarily about WHAT you see—but it's almost more an exercise in what you DON'T or CAN'T see. The best directors and DPs show you only what is relevant to the story and never introduce a random shot or character if they can at all avoid it. I've always preached that a director or photographer should INCLUDE elements in a frame or shots that add to the story, and EXCLUDE elements or shots that detract from it.
The reason the standard film projection rate of 24 frames per second works so well, is that it's just a few frames faster than what the brain needs in order to be tricked into seeing what are effectively still images, appear to move on screen—it's called the "Persistence of Vision Theory." In tandem with that important theory, he motion blur you get by shooting at 24 fps and (on a standard 180 degree shutter) at 1/48th of a second, is just as important in making something look "cinematic" as the lack of depth of field we get by using larger sensors, and bright lenses at large apertures. This is precisely why one should shoot at 1/50th of a second on their HDSLRs and use ND or neutral density filters to makes sure they don't have too much depth of field and can also ensure they aren't forced into shooting at higher shutter speeds.
In the past few years we've been pushing the technology envelope pretty hard—trying to get higher frame rates, greater resolution, more dynamic range, more bit depth, more throughput/bit rates and RAW.
Yet for some reason, many top cinematographers and even directors out there still prefer shooting in 2K or 4K/5K…and why is that?"
The article is written from the underlined Theory, or film writing style perspective.
If one accepts that position, ok. The Hobbit, and JR's books in particular, don't seem to fit particularly well into that philosophy of movie making. The spectacular shots Jackson used in the Trilogy were not necessary, or minimalist. Nor are the movies edited down to support this philosophy of movie making. The Hobbit clearly meanders through a long story line, and that is part of it's charm. That may not sit well with people who are impatient, who fast forward through terrible movies like Killer Joe, etc.
While I'm reading through this, I will renew my objection to 3D: Long term fooling your brains perception of distance may prove not a good thing for humans. On the other hand, film is fooling your brain into thinking a series of still images are moving, and that seems to work for us.
As for the guy being a doofus because it's his perception of the movie:
That IS the issue. How the technology is perceived compared to other formats. Our current agreed perception, at least mine and Mercs, that 3D as we have experienced it is not worth the cost of brightness and clarity, is nothing more then our perceptions.
Having a director/producer in the family, though now departed, I am aware that there are more then one view, or theory on cinematic production and philosophy. What is crystal clear is this format in particular really rubs this particular writer, since it totally fails in his perception of how film should be produced, the wrong way.
What I did get out of this is that from the writer's perspective, that of a respected photographer, and fledgling film director, who has NEVER done anything but shorts, and only 4 of those, is he was not enamored with the format.
Have a look at his website:
http://www.laforetvisuals.com/
I think that gives you a pretty clear perspective on how he likes to use 3D.
I like this, just for the audio, and the fact that it shows exactly how much experience this guy has with 3D film photography:
http://vimeo.com/7151244
4 shorts, 3 minutes each, maybe?
His end comments are certainly a better perspective on the issue then his writing:
"FOLLOW UP NOTE: This is easily one of the most popular "opinion" pieces that I’ve written on this blog. Normally this kind of traffic and discussion only truly takes place when it comes to exclusive gear reviews. Last night the post was being read by a thousand more people every 10-15 minutes at times. So far this article has been read on this blog 33,519 times in under 12 hours and on Gizmodo 61,181 times in 2 hours. What this tells me is that there is INTENSE interest with this new technique and that it’s hitting a nerve. And I’m finding (unusually respectful) dissent – with people finding they feel the exact opposite. Or didn’t notice the effect at all. While others couldn’t agree more. On average (and gain unscientific) it seems that two trends are apparent: Younger people seem more receptive to the HFR. And people that went to the film without knowing about HFR seem to have reacted much more positively than people who went in there to specifically see the new HFR technique(as I did.) Another thing I’m reading is that the technique "grew" on people as the film went on. I should mention that I did pop back into an HFR screening to see one scene AFTER I did the cycle that ended on 2D – and found my opinion had not changed at all, and that it hat not grown on me.
Again: Fascinating."
I suspect this sort of film is more easily accepted by the video game generation then someone who has spent his life making money using a 2D, still shot format.
"In my opinion, film is not necessarily about WHAT you see—but it's almost more an exercise in what you DON'T or CAN'T see. The best directors and DPs show you only what is relevant to the story and never introduce a random shot or character if they can at all avoid it. I've always preached that a director or photographer should INCLUDE elements in a frame or shots that add to the story, and EXCLUDE elements or shots that detract from it.
The reason the standard film projection rate of 24 frames per second works so well, is that it's just a few frames faster than what the brain needs in order to be tricked into seeing what are effectively still images, appear to move on screen—it's called the "Persistence of Vision Theory." In tandem with that important theory, he motion blur you get by shooting at 24 fps and (on a standard 180 degree shutter) at 1/48th of a second, is just as important in making something look "cinematic" as the lack of depth of field we get by using larger sensors, and bright lenses at large apertures. This is precisely why one should shoot at 1/50th of a second on their HDSLRs and use ND or neutral density filters to makes sure they don't have too much depth of field and can also ensure they aren't forced into shooting at higher shutter speeds.
In the past few years we've been pushing the technology envelope pretty hard—trying to get higher frame rates, greater resolution, more dynamic range, more bit depth, more throughput/bit rates and RAW.
Yet for some reason, many top cinematographers and even directors out there still prefer shooting in 2K or 4K/5K…and why is that?"
The article is written from the underlined Theory, or film writing style perspective.
If one accepts that position, ok. The Hobbit, and JR's books in particular, don't seem to fit particularly well into that philosophy of movie making. The spectacular shots Jackson used in the Trilogy were not necessary, or minimalist. Nor are the movies edited down to support this philosophy of movie making. The Hobbit clearly meanders through a long story line, and that is part of it's charm. That may not sit well with people who are impatient, who fast forward through terrible movies like Killer Joe, etc.
While I'm reading through this, I will renew my objection to 3D: Long term fooling your brains perception of distance may prove not a good thing for humans. On the other hand, film is fooling your brain into thinking a series of still images are moving, and that seems to work for us.
As for the guy being a doofus because it's his perception of the movie:
That IS the issue. How the technology is perceived compared to other formats. Our current agreed perception, at least mine and Mercs, that 3D as we have experienced it is not worth the cost of brightness and clarity, is nothing more then our perceptions.
Having a director/producer in the family, though now departed, I am aware that there are more then one view, or theory on cinematic production and philosophy. What is crystal clear is this format in particular really rubs this particular writer, since it totally fails in his perception of how film should be produced, the wrong way.
What I did get out of this is that from the writer's perspective, that of a respected photographer, and fledgling film director, who has NEVER done anything but shorts, and only 4 of those, is he was not enamored with the format.
Have a look at his website:
http://www.laforetvisuals.com/
I think that gives you a pretty clear perspective on how he likes to use 3D.
I like this, just for the audio, and the fact that it shows exactly how much experience this guy has with 3D film photography:
http://vimeo.com/7151244
4 shorts, 3 minutes each, maybe?
His end comments are certainly a better perspective on the issue then his writing:
"FOLLOW UP NOTE: This is easily one of the most popular "opinion" pieces that I’ve written on this blog. Normally this kind of traffic and discussion only truly takes place when it comes to exclusive gear reviews. Last night the post was being read by a thousand more people every 10-15 minutes at times. So far this article has been read on this blog 33,519 times in under 12 hours and on Gizmodo 61,181 times in 2 hours. What this tells me is that there is INTENSE interest with this new technique and that it’s hitting a nerve. And I’m finding (unusually respectful) dissent – with people finding they feel the exact opposite. Or didn’t notice the effect at all. While others couldn’t agree more. On average (and gain unscientific) it seems that two trends are apparent: Younger people seem more receptive to the HFR. And people that went to the film without knowing about HFR seem to have reacted much more positively than people who went in there to specifically see the new HFR technique(as I did.) Another thing I’m reading is that the technique "grew" on people as the film went on. I should mention that I did pop back into an HFR screening to see one scene AFTER I did the cycle that ended on 2D – and found my opinion had not changed at all, and that it hat not grown on me.
Again: Fascinating."
I suspect this sort of film is more easily accepted by the video game generation then someone who has spent his life making money using a 2D, still shot format.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,278
Perhaps a better evaluation, with a bit more objective perspective:
http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/ask-...ed-to-the-hobbit-48fps-higher-frame-rate.html
http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/ask-...ed-to-the-hobbit-48fps-higher-frame-rate.html
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The completely valid argument is that the author started from a faulty premise couched in nothing more than his own opinion. He did not demonstrate that a problem actually exists, which is something that fundamentally needs to be done in order to justify the many thousands of words that followed. The burden of proof rests with the person making the assertions and he failed to do so. I realize that you respect this person and therefore his opinion carries some additional weight for you, but the article as it's actually presented fails to justify itself. As technical writing for a lay audience, it's a damned poor effort.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,278
"FOLLOW UP NOTE: This is easily one of the most popular "opinion" pieces that I’ve written on this blog. Normally this kind of traffic and discussion only truly takes place when it comes to exclusive gear reviews. Last night the post was being read by a thousand more people every 10-15 minutes at times. So far this article has been read on this blog 33,519 times in under 12 hours and on Gizmodo 61,181 times in 2 hours. What this tells me is that there is INTENSE interest with this new technique and that it’s hitting a nerve. And I’m finding (unusually respectful) dissent – with people finding they feel the exact opposite. Or didn’t notice the effect at all. While others couldn’t agree more. On average (and gain unscientific) it seems that two trends are apparent: Younger people seem more receptive to the HFR. And people that went to the film without knowing about HFR seem to have reacted much more positively than people who went in there to specifically see the new HFR technique(as I did.) Another thing I’m reading is that the technique "grew" on people as the film went on. I should mention that I did pop back into an HFR screening to see one scene AFTER I did the cycle that ended on 2D – and found my opinion had not changed at all, and that it hat not grown on me.
Again: Fascinating."
IT'S A BLOG. One usually doesn't get paid for that, and one generally is assumed that a blog is a persons' OPINION, period. NOT a professional piece.
Don't be afraid to let facts alter your OPINION, created by misinterpretation.
Again: Fascinating."
IT'S A BLOG. One usually doesn't get paid for that, and one generally is assumed that a blog is a persons' OPINION, period. NOT a professional piece.
Don't be afraid to let facts alter your OPINION, created by misinterpretation.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Haha, neither did that other guy! If you care that much about his article being too qualitative than quantitative then let him know. After that you drop in on some food and wine tastings and let them know how you feel.
Turning 3D cinematography into an effective tool for enjoyable storytelling is still very much an art not science. Something I would expect you to have a better grasp of than most here.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Just back after seeing Life of Pi 3D. Disappointing overall, doesn't live up to the hype. Only the storm that sinks the ship was good.
ddrueding
Fixture
Finally got to watch The Avengers the other night. Decided to watch all the movies that included the characters first. Great movie.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Just back after seeing Lincoln. Loved it.
Newtun
Storage is nice, especially if it doesn't rotate
Oscars
Cute montage.
1953-55, power trio: From Here to Eternity, On the Waterfront, and Marty. I'd watch them all again. Earnest Borgnine pretty good in quite different roles in the first and last. No McHale's Navy there.
Cute montage.
1953-55, power trio: From Here to Eternity, On the Waterfront, and Marty. I'd watch them all again. Earnest Borgnine pretty good in quite different roles in the first and last. No McHale's Navy there.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Iron Man 3 is very, very funny and incredibly comic-booky. They did something very clever with The Mandarin that I wasn't really prepared for and it was quite lovely to have a super hero movie with absolutely none of the hints of origin story that have been present in essentially every other super hero movie ever. The action sequences are a lot of fun. Can't really talk about it, obviously, but I laughed my ass off the whole time.
So will there be another sequel?
I suppose the answer is yes, since 175 milion apparently watched the movie on the opening week. I expect that Merc was at least three of those.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
It would definitely be easier if I could take all the ladies I know who will go to such a thing in a single outing but alas that never happens.
IMAX definitely wasn't worth it.
The deal with "Will there be another one?" rests on the fact that Marvel sign an enormous multi-movie (three Iron Man and two Avengers movies, plus assorted cameo appearances) deal with Robert Downey Jr. before the first movie even went into production. RDJ was considered a huge risk at the time because of his drug problems, so he doesn't make a ton of money on any of these films. At this point it's somewhat safe to say that he is the lynchpin of the whole studio and its future plans, so the only real question is how many dump trucks full of cash is it going to take to get him to make a couple more movies.
IMAX definitely wasn't worth it.
The deal with "Will there be another one?" rests on the fact that Marvel sign an enormous multi-movie (three Iron Man and two Avengers movies, plus assorted cameo appearances) deal with Robert Downey Jr. before the first movie even went into production. RDJ was considered a huge risk at the time because of his drug problems, so he doesn't make a ton of money on any of these films. At this point it's somewhat safe to say that he is the lynchpin of the whole studio and its future plans, so the only real question is how many dump trucks full of cash is it going to take to get him to make a couple more movies.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
I find RDJ annoying. I liked Thor better than either Iron Man 1 or 2. I haven't seen the new one yet.
ddrueding
Fixture
I really like RDJ, and Iron Man is one of my favorite characters. I like those that made themselves vs. those that had something happen to them (Spiderman) or started out as gods (Thor).
I suppose Batman would be the equivalent on the other side of the coin.
I suppose Batman would be the equivalent on the other side of the coin.
I went and saw a couple of movies today: Iron Man and Star Trek.
I have to admit I really enjoyed Iron Man 3 and RDJ was really good in his part. I even liked Gyweneth Paltrow, quite a bit, as his wife. The plot made enough sense that I found it to be somewhat predictable. There was plenty of humor to go around. RDJ was over the top and it worked in the same way Johnny Depp makes his outrageous characters work. This is definitely worth the ticket price.
The new Star Trek movie outright offended me with its attempts to reuse old sub plots in ways that are absolutely inconsistent with the old considering this movie predates it all. I don't want to give spoilers (for all those that like me feel obligated to watch everything Star Trekie), so I won't give details but it really bothers me that they didn't spend the time to actually come up with something new rather than twists on the old that won't work being it is a prequel. Do not support badness -- Please skip this movie!
I have to admit I really enjoyed Iron Man 3 and RDJ was really good in his part. I even liked Gyweneth Paltrow, quite a bit, as his wife. The plot made enough sense that I found it to be somewhat predictable. There was plenty of humor to go around. RDJ was over the top and it worked in the same way Johnny Depp makes his outrageous characters work. This is definitely worth the ticket price.
The new Star Trek movie outright offended me with its attempts to reuse old sub plots in ways that are absolutely inconsistent with the old considering this movie predates it all. I don't want to give spoilers (for all those that like me feel obligated to watch everything Star Trekie), so I won't give details but it really bothers me that they didn't spend the time to actually come up with something new rather than twists on the old that won't work being it is a prequel. Do not support badness -- Please skip this movie!
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
A prequel to the most recent? Isn't this a series reboot and therefor not obligated to be consistent with what has gone before?
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
A prequel to the most recent? Isn't this a series reboot and therefor not obligated to be consistent with what has gone before?
Gatsby was worth it. Made us go home and rewatch Moulan Rouge.
Gatsby was worth it. Made us go home and rewatch Moulan Rouge.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Baz Luhrmann movies are uniformly god-awful. I'd rather sit through "A Serbian Film" followed up by "Salo" followed by a light dinner and then a Twilight movie marathon.
Star Trek was just "meh." I didn't pay to see it. I really don't like Kirk but then I never have. I found myself wandering how many different uniforms they have (five, I think), though I appreciated the call-back to the original Star Trek movie in the tunic-style outfits. Quinto is a good Spock replacement but the conclusion was insultingly stupid. I liked getting to see a big budget version of Star Trek's Earth though.
His movies are mainly about style and atmosphere, but not strong on substance. Moulin Rouge was a fine film.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The new Star Trek movies are a magnificently convoluted bit of meta-fiction. Spoiler if you know nothing of the 2009 Trek movie.
1. Everything that happened in the pre-2009 Star Trek universe still happened. The Star Trek MMO and some novels actually do continue in that continuity.
2. In the 2009 movie, there is a time travel event that results in an alternate timeline that dates to about the time that Kirk was born. This means that all the events of Enterprise are unchanged, but nothing that takes place after.
2a. Enterprise established that there's a Temporal Police Authority that could in theory reset this whole mess anyway.
3. Anyway, Spock from the old universe did in fact travel to and exists in the new one. Leonard Nimoy is still alive and kicking, after all, but so is the guy from Heroes. They meet. They hang out. Just like that Audi commercial.
4. In the middle of the first Lens-Flare Trek, Enterprise fails to stop the destruction of Vulcan, which presumably is the major point of departure for the timeline.
4a. Also new-Trek Klingons look like TNG Klingons rather than TOS Klingons so I guess that's something different too.
5. The new movies seem to be making nods here and there while re-hashing important plots from the previous version. Pike still winds up crippled and there's a reference to the "Mudd Incident" very early in the latest movie.
I was left thinking that I'd be much happier to see a Trek TV show rather than these movies. The secondary characters have well established personalities but given only a few minutes of screen time each, we only get the broadest sense of that.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Judging from the trailer, the upcoming Riddick movie seems to be a remake of year 2000's Pitch Black, except with the same main actor.
I disagree. Mostly yes, but I thought Romeo + Juliet was the best Shakespearean adaption that I've ever seen.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
I think that Pitch Black is one of the most underrated Sci-Fi movies ever. I'd go so far as to say it's an original classic.
Whether this sequel can recapture the essence is debatable, but I'd be prepared to check it out if it's not a stinker.