Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
and now I'm so excited I probably won't sleep until then.
plus there hasn't been any dialogue in them... However, I have just spent £28.50 on 2 tickets at the Imax.
the dialogue was aaaaaawful.
3D x Imax should hopefully counteract that.
it's all about 3D at the imax though.
just parts (like the Dark Knight) or not at all?
seeing as it'd just be a rendering thing and not having to use imax cameras to film (maybe? i don't really know what i'm talking about, ask theo, he'd know)
Daylight come and me wanna go home
I can't see Cameron doing it any other way. Voices of the Abyss was.
is it all fully "holly chuff!" imax as well?
Voices of the Abyss was a full 60 minute IMAX feature and that was enjoyable, though the 3D wasn't totally necessary.
I don't see the IMAX cameras listed.
would they necessarily need to use IMAX cameras for what is esentially a fully CG film? I'd imagine that you could just render the footage in an IMAX ratio at the corresponding resolution.
he's just wilfully misunderstaning you.
And I don't really know enough about the processes involved.
However, IMAX ratio is 1.44:1 I think so it seems like this won't be in that from looking there.
You totally weren't clear what you were talking about.
It's less things jumping out of the screen at you, barring the odd action scene, more just subtle layering of background details and face forms.
but to me it felt like there weren't that many different plains of depth (i'm making these terms up but hope you get my drift) so thing were either forground, middleground, or background. Bits of it were still really impressive, whilst other bits were just distracting - like not being able to see what you were meant to be focusing on because there was a tree branch or someone's head in the way.
I did just watch it in 1080p, though, and at that res the effects still looked quite outstanding.
im speechless. in full 3D. oh my.
looked utterly turd
Come on, that looks too good, the only bad bit about it is the actors, then again Cameroon always seems to pick actors that I don't like.
i'm in two minds about this, it looks like it'll be enjoyable... BUT the story doesn't seem very original. as in... it's quite like Pocahontas? in a way. but with aliens.
But then T2 is essentially the same story as T1 and that was amazing...
from the director of Terminator. and Aliens. and Titanic.
as much as i love those films!
I just assume he should be able to make a dull story look good on screen.
The Abyss is a great film in spite of being over-sentimental, having physics errors (that affect the entire plot) and basically having one of the worst endings since Blazing Saddles.
and there's a ghosty / alien / being somewhere making people see things? Solaris-on-Sea?
It's not really like Solaris, though. Far more grounded.
I didn't know what to expect from the trailer but it's James Cameron and it's 3D and it's the imax and even if it's a failure, it'll be a spectacular failure.
and it was absolutely fucking awesome, my jaw dropped, it was so beautiful/fantastic.
Of course you need a 3d telly which is really expensive at the moment.
But words cannot prepare you for how fantastic it is.
that looks awful
with you never actually finding out what happens at the end?
and Lost in Space was directed by Stephen Hopkins.
I hate you!
can you think of any film ever that's actually done live-action humans interacting with cgi creatures well? it's always awful, and i'd go as far as to say it's probably the least appealing thing a film can feature for me.
space jam excluded.
One of the greats of films.
remember the talking dinosaur in jurassic park 3? exactly.
but almost certain i wouldnt enjoy that based on my problems with cgi.
but again, its not a talking character so its not the same as the point i'm making at all.
really really awful?
i'm pretty sure thats not a controversial opinion
(Assume we are talking ones in live action films here, because if you're saying Pixar's output is really really awful you probably need to reevaluate your ability to judge films.)
In fact the Star Wars prequels probably have 50% of all of them. Roger Rabbit isn't CGI but really you're saying any character who isn't human who speaks to humans is terrible, which seems a pretty dodgy claim.
We haven't seen this film and the examples we have are few and far between. You can't say it'll ruin it without having seen it.
Star Wars Episode I? Well the interraction's good physically just the script, acting and direction lets it down.
The Lord of the RIngs? I'd say Gollum's 100% successful. If you can't appreciate the story of one of the 20th Century's greatest books then that's a taste thing.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? 100% win I'd say.
but didn't know if that counted. That's a brilliant film.
I'm not sure it matters anyway as it would be CGI if made today.
it's just abolutely vile to look at. completely unappealing in every way. think avatr looks really similar.
but one day a film will do it spectacularly, so why not this one?
talking really really silly looking things.
really really overblown
really bad dialogue judging from the trailer.
i do concede lotr suceeded but its pretty much the only one i can think of. these cgi things look like jar jar.
You didn't like The Wire and that was pretty much a archetype of great dialogue on screen.
my problem is just the hyperbole and total fundamentalist creepy approach from every who does like it.
and lost has pretty fantastic dialogue at times. later series especially.
I'm not sure, given your Lost eulogising, that you can cast stones in that particular glass house, wrt to fandom.
I just don't really see how the few lines of dialogue we hear in the trailer are 'really bad' at all and mistrust your judgment. Maybe you've never heard really bad dialogue before?
as much as i'm a massive fan, i can see flaws with it. it just happens that i think most of the common criticisms levelled at it are generally complete rubbish - i.e. "making it up as theyre going along!!!1!" pish.
era, as I remember. People didn't just think of that out of nowhere.
Moreover you can't actually be sure they're not just making it up as they go along any more than someone could prove otherwise.
I *will* say that what I've seen of the first four seasons make it seem often like they are doing a Raymond Chandler and just making up plot twists mid-story because they're not sure where they're going next.