Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Thanks for alerting me to this utter travesty, Chintz.
but the fucking idiots who go to the cinema will lap this shit up. I know that I will.
I CAN'T WAIT.
Imagine that bit, where they jump up at the ceiling?
JUST IMAGINE, THEO!
It looked amazing in 'normal D'.
It does mean that you can pick up the trilogy on blu-ray for a tenner so they don't have excess stock for the new 3d re-release
Only thing that even comes close to this on my film excitement scale is Die Hard 5
he'll probably swap all of the guns in it for radios, a la ET.
This is why Ghostbusters rules. They all smoke, constantly, there's loads of sexual references (Dan Acroyd gets a blowjob from a woman ghost), and they eat like shit. Not that nutrition is a on-the-edge issue but you get what I mean.
It's like when Lucas made Greedo shoot first before Han Solo killed him, making the entire character completely different.
Again, to reiterate: Lucas, what a cunt.
They'll probably love it. I don't think the film studio is worried about upsetting a few bedwetters.
the coolest cat ever to be committed to celluloid - gets to be introduced fresh to another generation.
- QUIET! ALL OF YOU! THEY’RE APPROACHING THE TYRANNOSAUR PADDOCK.
- THE SHUTDOWN MUST’VE TURNED OFF ALL THE FENCES. DAMMIT, EVEN NEDRY KNEW BETTER THAN TO MESS WITH THE RAPTOR FENCES.
Just so quotable.
That's just a riff off another of his lines
for this new generation
about a dinosaur hunter wearing khaki shorts and constantly scowling.
What a guy.
In the book he drunkenly tries to blow up the T Rex! True story kids.
and therefore, even though I think 3D films are wang and won't be going myself, have nothing against it.
Did cat_race write this article? >_>
can everyone stop whining about how it 'gives you a headache' or whatevr now please
Taking a 20 year old film to spend ages giving it a false crappy 3D look is just lame. :D
What's wrong with this exactly?
If I was going to whack 3d on any film it'd be the one with the fuck off dinosaurs in it.
Surely by now 'scientists' have finished off dion-cloning IRL
will annoy me anywhere near as much as this dumb unfunny sub-sub-Brooker troll article did.
(tho unfunny because it's an inherently unfunny and pointless trolling style) ignorance-trolling because it's to depressing if he's serious. :(
You only strongly perceive three dimensions beyond a few metres ahead via moving your head to see the effect. So all of it is fake. The point he was making about the mirror is that you don't really see any more three-dimensionalness in wing mirror than you do in a film of a wing mirror.
Essentially it's a crappy gimmick and it's pretty weird when you combine it with a film like Jurassic Park, that works amazingly well without it because it was filmed by a master. Leave 3D films for directors like Paul WS Anderson who don't have the skills to make something work.
it's still wrong
unless cat_race starts a thread asking
an object either behind or reflected in glass is inherently two-dimensional,
To be honest, the whole 3 dimensions / 2 dimensions argument is utter toilet.
To put it another, the image you see reflected in a mirror is no less three dimensional than the image you see projected in a standard cinema screening.
but dunno what you're on about
and the drop ZOOMS at your face before sliding down thingy's hand.
THINK OF THE TREX STOMP RIPPLES!
This is going to be amazing.
the jelly will be coming right at you
Jurassic Park still feels quite contemporary. But Star Wars to me in 1997 was like ancient history.
no denying that, most blockbusters could only dream of rendering anything half as convincing
the is a lot of glass in JP
but yes it had never really occurred to me how glass-centric it is. Bet someone could write a really good (terrible) critical theory paper on that.
that you can't do the STAB OUT IN YOUR FACE 3D effect because the object is behind a screen. You effectively have something between you and the object. So any sense of depth will be lessened.
I'm not really sure about this but your sense of depth beyond a few metres isn't really affected too much by *static* stereoscopic vision. What stereoscopic vision does is give you a greater sense of depth combined with a moving view point.
e.g. if you're with your honey and you're making out, when the phone rings, and you answer it and a voice says, "What are you doing with my daughter?" You tell your girl and she says "My dad is dead," THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
it seemed to trail off a bit
(No. You haven't understood the post.)
try making it make sense?
because there's a layer of glass in the 3d space thus enhancing the illusion.
(can't be much fun to generate the depth map for wet smeary reflective glass tho)
the author's entirely different point was pure cat_race style trollphysics, or maybe he's amazingly visually illiterate/stupid or only has one eye.
or with window in the foreground and dinosaur in the distance
both perfect situations for it to have a lot of stereo depth
so fuck yes I'm excited about this