shafnutz05 wrote:I'm very excited for the new Gravity movie. Looks very well done
Idoit40fans wrote:I don't understand what is gained by watching in 3D. You aren't getting more information or seeing anything additional.
pittsoccer33 wrote:There is also the problem that in real life you see everything in 3D but decide which objects to focus on. In a traditional movie the director and cinematographer decide what will be in focus for you. On a 3D film you're never quit sure what you're supposed to be looking at and your brain just can't keep up.
Kaizer wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:I saw Captain Phillips last night. Kind of what I expected, castaway with a hostage situation instead of a plane crash.
did seal team 6 snipe the captain's volleyball?
WDWBurghGooner wrote:Watched 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea a couple of weekends ago. For a movie that is gonna turn 60 next year it still holds up.
pittsoccer33 wrote:That said, 3D is mostly garbage. The problem comes from the fact your eyes just can't do it. They are focusing on a screen that doesn't move - a fixed point in the room. But they are trying to converge at different lengths to focus on whatever object is popping out, that could be closer than the screen or further away.
eddysnake wrote:WDWBurghGooner wrote:Watched 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea a couple of weekends ago. For a movie that is gonna turn 60 next year it still holds up.
completely agree, watched it not too long ago for the first time, really liked it.
pittsoccer33 wrote:David Fincher was talking about redoing that but I guess it never got under full blown development.
eddysnake wrote:It was close to the 1st for me, both really good. This was almost like a buddy cop flick (which fits Shane Black directing/writing) with Rhodes and Starks and I liked them out of the suits for a lot of the movie. 2nd one felt way too much like the 1st.
Users browsing this forum: meow and 4 guests