I’ve Just Seen… II -

OANST · #**481** 12-02-2009, 07:12 AM

But seriously, it's not a kid's film. It's very Wes Anderson (makes sense since it was made by him), and contains his signature sense of humor.

The scenes where the animals eat are hilarious. They are all very civilized, and proper, but the moment that they begin to eat they revert to animal behavior, and start shaking their food all over the place.

Sekto Springs · #**482** 12-02-2009, 07:22 AM

I'm looking forward to Avatar.

MeechMunchie · #**483** 12-02-2009, 07:29 AM

Funnily enough, I had the choice between seeing Fantastic Mr. Fox or 9. I picked 9, aided in my decision slightly by the fact that FMrF was sold out.

If anyone's interested, I also look a little like Wes Anderson, and have the same name as his son.

T-nex · #**484** 12-02-2009, 09:01 AM

:

I'm looking forward to Avatar.

I wanna watch it with you !

Strike Witch · #**485** 12-02-2009, 11:46 AM

:

The second one was the worst, but the third was by far the most disapointing. It was better than the second, but not by much. Plus they totally lost the plot.

Pirate king for fuck sakes, what were they thinking?

YA YO YA YOOO
HIS NAME IS LUFFY
THAT'S MONKEY D
GONNA BE
KING OF THE PIRATES

enchilado · #**486** 12-02-2009, 12:01 PM

Was 9 good? I watched the trailer, it looked awesome, literally.

Wings of Fire · #**487** 12-02-2009, 12:12 PM

It literally filled you with an overwhelming feeling of wonder and admiration? Literally? Literally now?

I'm metaphorically struck dumb by that!

enchilado · #**488** 12-02-2009, 12:30 PM

Yes, it did.

***Nate*** · #**489** 12-02-2009, 03:42 PM

:

Pirate king for fuck sakes, what were they thinking?

Sekto Springs · #**490** 12-02-2009, 03:49 PM

:

Was 9 good? I watched the trailer, it looked awesome, literally.

There was short-lived thread about 9. The popular opinion was that it was decent but nothing amazing.

enchilado · #**491** 12-02-2009, 03:51 PM

Okay... how about 'Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs'?

***Nate*** · #**492** 12-02-2009, 03:58 PM

Cloudy was brilliant! I haven't laughed so hard in a movie for ages. The animation was pretty good - nothing amazing, but above average for CG. That said, they really used the 3d well. It's the first 3d film I've seen that I feel you'd really miss out on part of the experience by seeing it in 2d.

My only qualm was the obligatory "Just be yourself and be proud to be nerdy" message. Why the hell couldn't Sam Sparks have tried to be smart and attractive at the same time?

enchilado · #**493** 12-02-2009, 04:00 PM

Unfortunately I don't know if I'll be able to see it at the cinema for the 3D experience.

It's just green/red glasses, right? We have some of those somewhere.

***Nate*** · #**494** 12-02-2009, 04:01 PM

No, it's the new sort with the filtered lenses so you can still see almost (it's complicated) all colours.

Sekto Springs · #**495** 12-02-2009, 04:15 PM

Fuck that green and red shit. It's not real 3D.
The polaroid lenses have a much more effective system. They actually film the movie from two slightly different angles, and then overlap the footage (sometimes with two projectors), the glasses you are given corrects this and adds a whole new dimension to the object you're seeing.

Wings of Fire · #**496** 12-02-2009, 04:20 PM

And as an interesting note kids, that's exactly how your eyes detect motion!

enchilado · #**497** 12-02-2009, 04:22 PM

That's what the green and red ones do... right? Like that weird Shrek 3D thing?

Anyway. If it's more complicated than green and red glasses, I'm out.

Sekto Springs · #**498** 12-02-2009, 04:24 PM

:

Anyway. If it's more complicated than green and red glasses, I'm out.

Um... why?
It doesn't require any thought on your part. Go into the movie theatre, put on your glasses, and just enjoy the fucking show.

enchilado · #**499** 12-02-2009, 04:28 PM

Because I can't get to the movie theatre, I'd only be able to watch a rental. And that'd mean owning our own glasses, right?

Mac Sirloin · #**500** 12-02-2009, 04:45 PM

:

Cloudy was brilliant! I haven't laughed so hard in a movie for ages. The animation was pretty good - nothing amazing, but above average for CG. That said, they really used the 3d well. It's the first 3d film I've seen that I feel you'd really miss out on part of the experience by seeing it in 2d.

My only qualm was the obligatory "Just be yourself and be proud to be nerdy" message. Why the hell couldn't Sam Sparks have tried to be smart and attractive at the same time?

YOU FORGOT THE PART WHERE IT WAS THE SINGLE GREATEST MOST ENTERTAINING THING EVER MADE

A SONG ON THE SOUNDTRACK IS CALLED MEATIER SHOWER FOR CHRISSAKES

MEATIER SHOWER

enchilado · #**501** 12-02-2009, 04:46 PM

ahahah

***Nate*** · #**502** 12-02-2009, 05:17 PM

:

Fuck that green and red shit. It's not real 3D.
The polaroid lenses have a much more effective system. They actually film the movie from two slightly different angles, and then overlap the footage (sometimes with two projectors), the glasses you are given corrects this and adds a whole new dimension to the object you're seeing.

Actually, many/most 3d films now don't use polarised lenses. The glasses in the Dolby3d system have filters that block certain specific wavelengths of light. The image seen by each eye is actually subtly different in terms of colour, but it's close enough that humans can't detect the difference.

This means that the glasses are more expensive than polarised ones, but the projectors are much cheaper, which is why the cinemas really love it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D

T-nex · #**503** 12-02-2009, 06:10 PM

:

Actually, many/most 3d films now don't use polarised lenses. The glasses in the Dolby3d system have filters that block certain specific wavelengths of light. The image seen by each eye is actually subtly different in terms of colour, but it's close enough that humans can't detect the difference.

This means that the glasses are more expensive than polarised ones, but the projectors are much cheaper, which is why the cinemas really love it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D

So could this actually work at home with no extra equipment?(besides the glasses of course)

***Nate*** · #**504** 12-02-2009, 06:15 PM

I doubt it. The colour spectrum output by tvs isn't near as precise as what you can get out of a cinema projector, particularly when you take in to account different types of tv and even the different manufacturing process within a type.

Also, even the cinema projectors need some sort of filter.

enchilado · #**505** 12-02-2009, 06:16 PM

Only if you have two projectors.

EEK Natey posted. So they have a special projector? I thought they might have two. K.

T-nex · #**506** 12-02-2009, 07:02 PM

The only 3D projecters Ive seen so far were the ones with 2 of them. But I guess technology is getting better.

At some point we shall be able to see real 3D movies in our living rooms =D

***Nate*** · #**507** 12-02-2009, 07:06 PM

Read the wikipedia link. Then you will know as much as I do.

I suspect they do have two projectors and a different filter in front of each one. It might be just one projector but a very precisely fitted filter.

:

At some point we shall be able to see real 3D movies in our living rooms =D

You already can, if you have enough cash: http://www.engadget.com/search/?q=3d+lcd

T-nex · #**508** 12-02-2009, 07:12 PM

:

You already can, if you have enough cash: http://www.engadget.com/search/?q=3d+lcd

But I'm talking about normal-people living rooms. Like you and me. Unless you're not normal o_o *duhn duhn*

Anyway I think Coraline was an amazing movie, that I really wish I had experienced in 3D. They actually made a great effort to take the pictures with such space as if it had been a little human's eyes watching the movie, making it realistic on the big screen. Hope that made sense

Wings of Fire · #**509** 12-02-2009, 07:15 PM

It was fucking awesome in 3D, we even got to keep our little specs.

enchilado · #**510** 12-02-2009, 07:19 PM

I READ IT

Now I understand all.

EDIT: Ooh, people posted. Coraline was bloody amazing.