|
Wild T posted:
Aside from the nausea part, that sounds really awesome. I was sitting really close to the screen for my Avatar viewing as well. I believe part of the reason I got sick, is I was so close to the screen that my peripheral was completely engulfed in the picture, and I essentially could not turn away from the screen due to my proximity to it. That screen transitioned from the most bad rear end loving thing ever, to the devil, in about 27 minutes. I'm kinda freaked out to go back to the IMAX, so when I do I will be sitting in the back. It was my first experience with motion/video/ride sickness, ever. I'm usually not that kind of person to get sick and I actually laughed at the theater attendants warning that "people have been getting sick from this movie". Avatar made me eat my words on that one.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Watching Avatar for the first time tonight and wondering where exactly all this water is coming from on these flying mountains.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 02:11
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Watching Avatar for the first time tonight and wondering where exactly all this water is coming from on these flying mountains. Rain and condensation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 02:21
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Rain and condensation. Except there's way too much water for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
My favorite to go to was the Omnimax at the museum of science and industry in chicago. You basically recline and stare up at a five story dome screen. I went a few times with my class back in grade school and without fail after the movie there were always kids sick in the bathroom.  Best theater experience ever. I've probably seen five films there.http://www.msichicago.org/whats-here/omnimax-3d-theater/hubble/ I wouldn't mind seeing this. IMAX at Navy Pier is secondary to this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 03:45
|
|
|
I remember when Omnimax was the only giant theater game in town, the one at the Carnegie Science Center billed itself as one of only 35 in the world. Also that each Omnimax film could wrap around Three Rivers Stadium eight times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 05:58
|
|
|
I saw Avatar during it's one-week re-release in an IMAX 3D theatre in Mississauga. It was shown in 1.85:1 and it was windowboxed. I could understand the cropped ratio 'cause the screen's not that wide, but windowboxed? At least I got to cash in a regular ticket's worth of Scene points instead of paying $17 per ticket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 06:29
|
|
|
The IMAX at the Liberty Science Center in New Jersey is also one of those recline back/domed ceiling ones and I've gotten that same vertigo feeling when they show aerial shots of stuff too. It was intense enough that I can still remember how I felt sitting there telling my brain that I wasn't going to fall into the ceiling and I haven't been there in probably a decade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 07:22
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:It was intense enough that I can still remember how I felt sitting there telling my brain that I wasn't going to fall into the ceiling and I haven't been there in probably a decade. Yea, if you let it that's exactly how it feels when you first sit down and stare up at the blank white screen. I told friends by me and then they felt like they were going to crash into the ceiling too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 07:51
|
|
|
The opening show of Dark Knight, where the camera follows the robbers to the edge of the building then quickly pans down to the street had several people in the IMAX theatre, myself included, audibly gasping.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 09:34
|
|
|
Does IMAX still do ridefilms?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 11:15
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
All this talk about Imax has made me curious: Is there actually a "real" Imax somewhere in the Netherlands? Because I would love to experience a feeling of vertigo by just staring at a screen, but I'm really not sure if there are still Imax's around here. Any Dutch goons here know more? EDIT: Asking because I went to an Imax theater to see Avatar, and that was one of the fake ones. Sure, it was big, but nothing mind blowing. Just an ordinary large cinema screen...but dammit, I won't be fooled again! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 02:49
|
|
|
Wild T posted:The opening shot cut from black to a straight-down helicopter shot of Los Angeles from about a thousand feet up. It gave me an actual physical reaction of vertigo and nausea, made me jump back in my seat and grip the armrests will all my strength to avoid 'falling' forward. I had this exact same experience as a kid (probably 5 or 6 years old) at the Museum of Science in Boston. I remember going in to see some movie about elephants or something, which, like all movies at the IMAX theater, was preceded by a short little "look how awesome IMAX is!" intro which started off with a helicopter shot of Boston. I freaked the gently caress out and my parents had to bring me out of the theater. About 6 months later we went back, and after a long check of "are you sure you'll be okay this time?" from my parents, I sit down and get through the helicopter shot. It then cuts to a shot of the camera at a Boston fish market with a little clip of a guy going "hey Tommy! Show 'em the lobstah!" as a lobsterman holds a lobster up to the camera, legs first. I was TERRIFIED of the gigantic 30 foot tall lobster on the screen and had to leave for that reason! Took me a while to get into IMAX but I can get past the lobsters now  EDIT: oh my god... any Boston-area goons remember this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ3OZgYv2mo
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 02:53
|
|
|
Riptor posted:It then cuts to a shot of the camera at a Boston fish market with a little clip of a guy going "hey Tommy! Show 'em the lobstah!" as a lobsterman holds a lobster up to the camera, legs first. I was TERRIFIED of the gigantic 30 foot tall lobster on the screen and had to leave for that reason! Yea the intro was always great. In Chicago in the early 90s they'd first turn spotlights on the speakers behind the screen and the announcer would say "Here are our 100million watt speakers!" Then it'd go dark and into some CGI intro. Flying through CGI triangles and other shapes at what seemed like 10,000MPH. (This is the first part where people got sick.) Then usually the movie would start and be zooming over some terrain at a very high rate of speed from a helicopter. At least that's how all my favorites started.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
I don't know why they built an IMAX theater here, but before they finally gave up on showing nothing but IMAX specials (which nobody went to) the intro would demonstrate the blow-your-ears-off surround sound with a flying cow in a twister.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Yea the intro was always great. In Chicago in the early 90s they'd first turn spotlights on the speakers behind the screen and the announcer would say "Here are our 100million watt speakers!" Then it'd go dark and into some CGI intro. Flying through CGI triangles and other shapes at what seemed like 10,000MPH. (This is the first part where people got sick.) Then usually the movie would start and be zooming over some terrain at a very high rate of speed from a helicopter. At least that's how all my favorites started. They still show that drat intro at the IMAX theatre's I've been to in Canada. It's been the same forever and is starting to annoy me. Especially that drat jet sound effect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Except there's way too much water for that. Wizards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
Stabbing Spork posted:They still show that drat intro at the IMAX theatre's I've been to in Canada. It's been the same forever and is starting to annoy me. Especially that drat jet sound effect. Is it the "And the best part is... It's Canadian" one? I hate that stupid intro. Especially the thing about how it's so precise you can hear a pin drop, then they use an obviously amplified pin drop. The worst part about it is that they show it instead of previews, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Especially the thing about how it's so precise you can hear a pin drop, then they use an obviously amplified pin drop. Probably a good idea considering the audience is never going to be quiet enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 00:05
|
|
|
The best part in the one I remember (for an Omnimax theater, probably in the Liberty Science Center in NJ) was Leonard Nimoy saying "Who put the ram in the ramalamadingdong?" out of synch on every surround sound channel at once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The best part in the one I remember (for an Omnimax theater, probably in the Liberty Science Center in NJ) was Leonard Nimoy saying "Who put the ram in the ramalamadingdong?" out of synch on every surround sound channel at once. Riptor posted:EDIT: oh my god... any Boston-area goons remember this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ3OZgYv2mo
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
I have a bunch of friends that have never seen Blade Runner and another friend that owns the mega complete collection. Which version of the film should I use for a movie night? Keep in mind only about half the people there will be sci-fi or movie nerds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:I have a bunch of friends that have never seen Blade Runner and another friend that owns the mega complete collection. Which version of the film should I use for a movie night? Keep in mind only about half the people there will be sci-fi or movie nerds. The Final Cut is the best version in every meaningful way, the others only have historical value now. It's really not that hard to follow without the voiceover and they even fixed a couple of continuity errors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
Why do I feel like i'm the only one who liked the voice overs? Every classic Noir movie has them. Anyways, someone mentioned Jonah Hex's being full of studio meddling, I'm curious about this. Was it a half decent supernatural Cowboy movies originally and then turned into Wild Wild West 2?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 02:35
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Why do I feel like i'm the only one who liked the voice overs? Every classic Noir movie has them. The general problem with the voice overs was Ford's delivery of them and their total redundancy to onscreen information. In only a few cases do they add information not gained elsewhere. In my opinion, voice overs are best when they give you insight into a character's thought process so that you can appreciate them as well rounded individuals more. BR's feel like Cliff Notes to an interpretive and emotional film With regards to Jonah Hex, it would take substantial and incredible proof that there was ever a decent movie in the mess that ended up onscreen. The makeup artists were really good but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:The general problem with the voice overs was Ford's delivery of them and their total redundancy to onscreen information. In only a few cases do they add information not gained elsewhere. Some of the bits of narration---Deckard explaining the dialect Gaff is using, Deckard talking about Bryant---work as standard noirish voiceover. But that ending narration is just poison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
If I did not like "There Will Be Blood", does that make me a bad person?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
SubG posted:I'm ambivalent to a lot of the narration in Bladerunner (1982), but I thought that the last one---the one starting with `I don't know why'---was absolutely terrible. It really steps on the emotional beats in the scene, and it feels an awful lot like the film explaining it's own moral to the audience. For somebody so meticulous about citation, you really should know it's Blade Runner, not Bladerunner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 05:23
|
|
|
kapalama posted:If I did not like "There Will Be Blood", does that make me a bad person? No, but I think it's one of those films (like Eyes Wide Shut) that requires multiple viewings to really understand and appreciate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:No, but I think it's one of those films (like Eyes Wide Shut) that requires multiple viewings to really understand and appreciate. It's more of a character study. That said, character studies are merely Oscar-bait depending on who you ask and how cynical they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 06:24
|
|
|
"Character"? Feh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 06:36
|
|
|
I was a little confused at the end, because it did seem like he had hung his Important Theme on a traditional "character study", and yet Daniel wasn't raised off the screen at any point. It made me wonder if Anderson was just going for some kind of purely aesthetic flat account like grade school readings on historical figures, but that doesn't exactly help with making a "point". I don't know, maybe I need to watch it again, I just didn't get what he was trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 09:04
|
|
|
Daniel is a person who isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 09:07
|
|
|
If that's an opaqueness joke, well done, but would you mind elaborating? This has bugged me for a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 09:10
|
|
|
He simply isn't; there's really nothing there. It's probably the most compelling aspect of the film, at least for me. I mentioned Eyes Wide Shut because it also deals with the idea of a void in a character; Bill aspires to be like Ziegler, but he doesn't realize that there's almost nothing to Ziegler, that he's defined entirely by his money, his American charm, and his basic primal urges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 09:23
|
|
|
Ah, thanks, that helps me clarify. I didn't make the connection to Kubrick, but that definitely would have helped. Rewatch it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 09:35
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:He simply isn't; there's really nothing there. It's probably the most compelling aspect of the film, at least for me. I mentioned Eyes Wide Shut because it also deals with the idea of a void in a character; Bill aspires to be like Ziegler, but he doesn't realize that there's almost nothing to Ziegler, that he's defined entirely by his money, his American charm, and his basic primal urges. You are talking about the main character in THere Will Be Blood right? Tell me more about this idea if it is please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 10:36
|
|
|
kapalama posted:If I did not like "There Will Be Blood", does that make me a bad person? Yes, yes it does. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 11:46
|
|
|
kapalama posted:You are talking about the main character in THere Will Be Blood right? Daniel is entirely defined by his drive, his manipulative nature, and his mistrust and hatred of people. He has no meaningful relationship with anybody or anything (besides profit), and unlike similar characters/films, this isn't portrayed as tragic in the least. The ending is very enigmatic, and to me it hits on a more emotional and spiritual level than a "and now, here is the MEANING OF IT ALL" type ending. I don't think the film needed to make some moral or philosophical "point" to be incredible and powerful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
I kind of like the ending because it really is just the end. He's killed a man, the end. No weaseling out, he'll go to prison, he'll lose his fortunes, and essentially the tiny wisp of person that could be considered Daniel Plainview will dissipate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 22:33
|
|