Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 4:39 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

For a starter for 10 (bonus points if you name the show)

*University Challenge

One million bonus points right there!

 
 Posted:   May 6, 2013 - 8:44 PM   
 By:   TM2-Megatron   (Member)

Most IMAX 3-D glasses need to be given back because they're essentially useless outside of the IMAX theatre. They're based on LCD-shutter technology, similar to the active 3-D televisions, rather than the polarized glasses used in regular Real D cinemas. Their LCD shutters are sync'd wirelessly to the projectors. IMAX 3-D glasses also have an integrated battery which is charged between uses by equipment only possessed by the theatre. Who on Earth would want to take those home?

 
 Posted:   May 8, 2013 - 7:48 AM   
 By:   GOLDSMITHDAKING   (Member)



Ok no need to be insulting.I think you misread my statement cos when i mentioned 3D is going to be the death of cinema, i meant as an ART FORM.
.


Ok apologies for getting overly personal but I'm not sure I could misread what you MEANT to say. I read what you actually said and I still think your original post was pretty dumb. Your subsequent clarifcation of what you meant to say hasn't changed my view on that.

So, what are you suggesting now? That 3D is killing the art of movie making? But wait a second, I'm confused.... aren't you saying that 3D is just a fad? Hmm, well, cinema history is replete with fads and yet, goodness me, it is still rcognised as an art form. And there are thousands more movies made each year in 2D than stereo(either native orconverted). That hasn't changed since the latest resurgence of 3D movies from, say, 2003.

3D hasn't had a negative impact on cinema any more non-stereo movies like Scary Movie 27 has. Or for that matter has Fifty Shags Of Grey contributed to the death of literature.

Im glad that there are filmakers such as Christopher Nolan who have outright rejected the use of 3D in their films but as long as cinemagoers who dont know better keep paying for this 3D nonsense it is never going to go away

Oh yeah? Heard of Man Of Steel have you? Nolan is the producer of that, has a huge amount of clout with WB off the back of the Batman trilogy and one assumes could have dictated how the new Superman movie was going to be shot.... and yet... oh look... it's being released in 3D! And post-conversion as well. So much for your beloved Mr Nolan's supposed integrity to the art of cinema.

Look, I don't disagree with you that studios are not being especially responsible with the use of 3D and so poorly converted movies are damaging the format itself. But even those are not damaging cinema either as a business or as an art form. But to dismiss well-made (in their own right and as examples of good 3D) like Avatar, Hugo or Life of Pi to name but three is just being absurdly closed minded.

. Oh by the way, i saw Iron Man 3 last week ( In 2D ) and it sucked.

Not artistic enough for you, eh? Perhaps I could recommend for your consideration the film Pina by avante-garde director Wim Wenders? Or art-house favorite Werner Herzog's Cave Of Forgotten Dreams? Both high acclaimed films which are certainly capable of holding the "film making as an art form" banner high. And neither feature Tony Stark iin cool armour so they should be right up your two dimennsional street. Oh wait, I've just realised you'd hate them.... they're in 3D. Those pesky serious movie makers trying to kill cinema. The cads.


Man Of Steel is a ZACK SNYDER directed film.Yes, Nolan is a producer but Snyder is the director and he doesnt have as much clout with the studio than Nolan does.Therefore if WB want the film in pointless money grabbing post conversion 3D, he pretty much has no choice in the matter.If it was Nolan directing it would be a different story.

And i didnt like Iron Man 3 because halfway through it tuned into a farce and the climax was just Transformers with less racist humour and Shia Le Beauf.

 
 Posted:   May 8, 2013 - 8:21 AM   
 By:   Hercule Platini   (Member)

Saw it in 2D, perfectly decent (probably the best of the IM movies).

I've given 3D plenty of opportunity to impress me, but it hasn't worked; on the contrary, it's proved itself as nothing but an empty sales gimmick. Frankly I'd like nothing better than for it to die out.

 
 Posted:   May 8, 2013 - 12:48 PM   
 By:   Warunsun   (Member)

Most IMAX 3-D glasses need to be given back because they're essentially useless outside of the IMAX theatre. They're based on LCD-shutter technology, similar to the active 3-D televisions, rather than the polarized glasses used in regular Real D cinemas.

I haven't seen those used. The IMAX theater I often go to uses the typical polarized glasses you would expect. They are over-sized but polarized ones. They do reuse them however.

 
 Posted:   May 8, 2013 - 8:23 PM   
 By:   TM2-Megatron   (Member)

Most IMAX 3-D glasses need to be given back because they're essentially useless outside of the IMAX theatre. They're based on LCD-shutter technology, similar to the active 3-D televisions, rather than the polarized glasses used in regular Real D cinemas.

I haven't seen those used. The IMAX theater I often go to uses the typical polarized glasses you would expect. They are over-sized but polarized ones. They do reuse them however.


I have an AMC near me that does use polarized glasses with their IMAX showings, but that screen is one of those that many IMAX fans call "LieMAX", heh. I think the majority of genuine, full-sized IMAX screens use LCD shutter glasses. The one near me was one of the first true IMAX screens in a commercial movie theatre in this area, and projected using the original 70mm format before being "upgraded" to digital projection (though they still retain the old projectors, but they aren't used very often).

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.