 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Is it just me, or is the average movie nowadays really boring?
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I think that it used to be that if I wanted
to rent a movie and there was nothing "big" at the moment I hadn't seen
already, I could pick up almost any random movie and it would be at the
very least average, and usually relatively enjoyable.
Nowadays, however, it seems that when I pick a random movie, it's just
outright boring. It doesn't matter if it has big names and known actors.
Recent examples include:
- The Town. The cover promised a lot, but it was just outright boring.
- Setup. Known actors, promising premise, really boring movie.
- Son of no one. Lingering somewhere between boring and average.
- Killer elite. Known actors, lots of action scenes, boring as hell!
- Contagion. Known actors, interesting premise, lingering somewhere
between boring and average. At least the plot was relatively easy to
follow (unlike with many of those other ones).
I think I'll just stick to big blockbusters, computer-animated movies
and comedies. They seldom disappoint.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's not just you. It's all of us (about to be) in the 40's.
Stick to books and you should do fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/2012 12:05 PM, Warp wrote:
> Is it just me, or is the average movie nowadays really boring?
No, not just you. And you are a bit late in noticing. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/2012 12:05, Warp wrote:
> Is it just me, or is the average movie nowadays really boring?
I thought it was just me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2012 12:58 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 08/03/2012 12:05, Warp wrote:
>> Is it just me, or is the average movie nowadays really boring?
>
> I thought it was just me...
Nope ... I seem to prefer older movies as well. If you get a chance
watch some of those Clint Eastwood westerns. They are full of great
quotes, for example from The Outlaw Josie Wales ... Are you gonna pull
those pistols or whistle Dixie? ... classic!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2012 4:05, Warp wrote:
> I think I'll just stick to big blockbusters, computer-animated movies
> and comedies. They seldom disappoint.
I can highly recommend Hugo. Just go see it. It's not about anything you
think it's about.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.03.2012 07:03, schrieb Darren New:
> On 3/8/2012 4:05, Warp wrote:
>> I think I'll just stick to big blockbusters, computer-animated movies
>> and comedies. They seldom disappoint.
>
> I can highly recommend Hugo. Just go see it. It's not about anything you
> think it's about.
I guess that falls into the "blockbuster" category. But yes - I guess
it's a must for anyone who likes movie pictures. Make sure to watch it
in a 3D theater.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2012 10:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I can highly recommend Hugo. Just go see it. It's not about anything you
> think it's about.
This is one of those movies which I thought looked terrible from the
trailer, but actually ended up enjoying when I watched it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 09.03.2012 07:03, schrieb Darren New:
> > On 3/8/2012 4:05, Warp wrote:
> >> I think I'll just stick to big blockbusters, computer-animated movies
> >> and comedies. They seldom disappoint.
> >
> > I can highly recommend Hugo. Just go see it. It's not about anything you
> > think it's about.
> I guess that falls into the "blockbuster" category. But yes - I guess
> it's a must for anyone who likes movie pictures. Make sure to watch it
> in a 3D theater.
Since I lack free will of my own, I did as commanded.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> On 3/8/2012 4:05, Warp wrote:
>> I think I'll just stick to big blockbusters, computer-animated movies
>> and comedies. They seldom disappoint.
>
>
> I can highly recommend Hugo. Just go see it. It's not about anything
> you think it's about.
Another vote for it, can't go wrong on Scorcese. Even my daughter
enjoyed, despite being quite longer than the average movies she watches.
watch in 3D, it was made for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Em 09/03/2012 13:42, Warp escreveu:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 09.03.2012 07:03, schrieb Darren New:
>>> On 3/8/2012 4:05, Warp wrote:
>>>> I think I'll just stick to big blockbusters, computer-animated movies
>>>> and comedies. They seldom disappoint.
>>>
>>> I can highly recommend Hugo. Just go see it. It's not about anything you
>>> think it's about.
>
>> I guess that falls into the "blockbuster" category. But yes - I guess
>> it's a must for anyone who likes movie pictures. Make sure to watch it
>> in a 3D theater.
>
> Since I lack free will of my own, I did as commanded.
so? boring or not?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/9/2012 2:38, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 10:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> I can highly recommend Hugo. Just go see it. It's not about anything you
>> think it's about.
>
> This is one of those movies which I thought looked terrible from the
> trailer, but actually ended up enjoying when I watched it.
That's because the trailer tells you nothing about the plot of the movie,
which differs drastically from what you'd expect of a typical hollywood
movie with that sort of trailer.
It's like watching a "Tom Hanks, Goldie Hawn" movie where it turns out
they're both mass murderers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Since I lack free will of my own, I did as commanded.
> so? boring or not?
Boring it wasn't.
Btw, was it just me, was it intentional, or was it a side-effect of
the 3D that many scenes looked like miniatures? Even many scenes with
people in them.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 10.03.2012 07:44, schrieb Warp:
> Btw, was it just me, was it intentional, or was it a side-effect of
> the 3D that many scenes looked like miniatures? Even many scenes with
> people in them.
Didn't notice any such effect. The only few scenes that looked weird to
me for some reason were those totals of the big hall with the kids
crawling down to (or up from) that hanging clock.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 10.03.2012 07:44, schrieb Warp:
> > Btw, was it just me, was it intentional, or was it a side-effect of
> > the 3D that many scenes looked like miniatures? Even many scenes with
> > people in them.
> Didn't notice any such effect. The only few scenes that looked weird to
> me for some reason were those totals of the big hall with the kids
> crawling down to (or up from) that hanging clock.
Strange. Most of the panoramic views (of the train station and the
city) and some of the street-level views looked a lot like filming a
miniature. I couldn't tell if it was because of the 3D or if it would
have looked like it also in regular 2D.
(Nevertheless, the 3D looked spectacular, especially in the beginning
of the film.)
Btw, for some reason I'm almost completely unable to perceive things
coming "out of the screen" in these films (I have seen three in total now).
Many people say that things look like they literally come out of the screen
and you could almost touch them, but for some reason it just doesn't work
for me. I can see anything that's deeper than the screen just fine, but
if anything is supposed to be closer, then it somehow just doesn't work.
(Maybe if it's just a bit closer than the actual screen, it looks like it,
but the closer it's supposed to be, the less it works for me.)
If I concentrate really hard on focusing my eyes on the screen and don't
pay attention to whatever might be flying closeby, it kind of works
sometimes. (For example I tried this at the beginning of the film with
the flying snowflakes, and I could sort of make it work at moments.)
I wonder if this is a common phenomenon.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 10.03.2012 11:59, schrieb Warp:
> Btw, for some reason I'm almost completely unable to perceive things
> coming "out of the screen" in these films (I have seen three in total now).
> Many people say that things look like they literally come out of the screen
> and you could almost touch them, but for some reason it just doesn't work
> for me. I can see anything that's deeper than the screen just fine, but
> if anything is supposed to be closer, then it somehow just doesn't work.
> (Maybe if it's just a bit closer than the actual screen, it looks like it,
> but the closer it's supposed to be, the less it works for me.)
>
> If I concentrate really hard on focusing my eyes on the screen and don't
> pay attention to whatever might be flying closeby, it kind of works
> sometimes. (For example I tried this at the beginning of the film with
> the flying snowflakes, and I could sort of make it work at moments.)
>
> I wonder if this is a common phenomenon.
I had that problem with the snowflakes, too. It's no surprise actually:
When viewing something nearby, there is a strong correlation between the
alignment of your eyes and the proper lens focus. With 3D movies the
proper lens focus is always at the screen distance, no matter how close
the objects are supposed to appear. So unless you concentrate, your
brain will consider that sensory input as implausible, and try its best
to ignore it.
IIRC this effect is limited to distances up to roughly 5m; at that
distance, lens focus comes close to the "infinity" setting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > > Since I lack free will of my own, I did as commanded.
>
> > so? boring or not?
>
> Boring it wasn't.
Ok
>
> Btw, was it just me, was it intentional, or was it a side-effect of
> the 3D that many scenes looked like miniatures? Even many scenes with
> people in them.
I didn't notice that, but that s perhaps because I'm by now used to 3D movies.
You may have a point there: the stereoscopic camera has a larger separation
between lenses than our eyes. This leads to more dramatic 3D but also to a
sensation of viewing everything as through the eyes of a giant. Specially
notable of course in landscapes or crowd scenes.
A yet more dramatic take on the idea leads to hyperstereo:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/hyperstereo/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2012 2:59, Warp wrote:
> miniature. I couldn't tell if it was because of the 3D or if it would
> have looked like it also in regular 2D.
I saw it in 2D, and I thought the artistry of it was a little odd. Now that
you mention it that way, yah, it looked a little bit like a miniature,
possibly because everything was in focus at once?
> Many people say that things look like they literally come out of the screen
> and you could almost touch them, but for some reason it just doesn't work
> for me.
I've been in shows where people actually duck because the stuff is flying at
their face, and yeah, it's a real effect.
In Disney World, they have a 3D movie where tinkerbell flies out of the
screen and runs into one of the lights in the movie hall, which sputters out
in a shower of sparks and suddenly has a pair of animatronic legs sticking
out kicking around. Very amusing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I saw it in 2D, and I thought the artistry of it was a little odd. Now that
> you mention it that way, yah, it looked a little bit like a miniature,
> possibly because everything was in focus at once?
I thought it's the opposite. If there's a strong focal blur it makes it
look like a miniature. Like in tilt shift photography.
By the way, if you write the word "tilt" on google's search field,
does something funny happen?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2012 11:23, Warp wrote:
> I thought it's the opposite. If there's a strong focal blur it makes it
> look like a miniature. Like in tilt shift photography.
Sure, but that's because it's a lens effect. I.e., it looks small because
the blur is telling you the camera is so close that the focal length of the
camera is large relative to the picture you're taking of the scene.
Whereas if you see an entire scene that you expect to be a little blurry
farther away, and it's not, perhaps your brain interprets that as "it's all
equally far from the camera/eye, and thus probably smaller than I think."
I'm guessing, btw. :-)
> By the way, if you write the word "tilt" on google's search field,
> does something funny happen?
Yep. There are dozens if not hundreds of these sorts of things active at any
given time. "do a barrel roll", "gravity", "let it snow", etc etc. And
they're changing all the time. (And sometimes don't work with "instant"
turned on.)
It's fun to be behind the firewall and see the dozens of experiments running
on any given search query. (Stuff like "if they put in a date and
previously searched for music, include near the top results for the bands
they searched on having concerts in their city near the date they searched
for.")
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 10.03.2012 20:17, schrieb Darren New:
> On 3/10/2012 2:59, Warp wrote:
>> miniature. I couldn't tell if it was because of the 3D or if it would
>> have looked like it also in regular 2D.
>
> I saw it in 2D, and I thought the artistry of it was a little odd. Now
> that you mention it that way, yah, it looked a little bit like a
> miniature, possibly because everything was in focus at once?
That's pretty unlikely to be the reason. Normally the more pronounced
the focal blur, the more things look like a miniature.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
