Lu Posted March 9, 2011 Well, respect that he didn't budge to the studios at least. Indeed, Hollywood Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kolzig Posted March 9, 2011 I forgot to say that I also saw The Tourist during the weekend. What a waste of time, absolutely a bad, bad movie. I was surprised to see Johnny Depp in such a movie because usually he keeps his level and lifts even bad movies to ok level. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHoatzin Posted March 9, 2011 You know, it would be totally amazing to show shadows of the non-euclidean architecture Lovecraft spent so much time talking about as shadows of 4-dimensional objects on 3D film. I dunno if that was their intention, but it would be a pretty rad use of 3D film; they would have to get some high-concept artists and scientists in on this, if that is their intention. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted March 9, 2011 Nothing in that article is good, it's all depressing, including the movie Del Toro will make in between waiting for news. 'Pacific Rim'? Ugh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted March 10, 2011 Is it even possible to make a good Lovecraft movie with anything less than R? That just seems like a natural requirement for the mythos. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Posted March 10, 2011 You know, it would be totally amazing to show shadows of the non-euclidean architecture Lovecraft spent so much time talking about as shadows of 4-dimensional objects on 3D film. I dunno if that was their intention, but it would be a pretty rad use of 3D film; they would have to get some high-concept artists and scientists in on this, if that is their intention. I sometimes wonder whether 4D space could be projected onto 3D media as well as 3D space can be projected onto 2D media. I guess it's not really the same thing, but I would still love to see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noyb Posted March 10, 2011 I sometimes wonder whether 4D space could be projected onto 3D media as well as 3D space can be projected onto 2D media. I guess it's not really the same thing, but I would still love to see it. I'm hoping this comes close: GhBoY6s-Fhw Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nappi Posted March 10, 2011 I sometimes wonder whether 4D space could be projected onto 3D media as well as 3D space can be projected onto 2D media. I guess it's not really the same thing, but I would still love to see it. Mathematically there should be no difference, but perceptually it would probably be very different. We have no real world experience with 4D. Furthermore, one could argue that we already see 3D scenes more or less projected into 2D space, forced to rely on various depth cues to judge distances and ordering in one direction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted March 10, 2011 I sometimes wonder whether 4D space could be projected onto 3D media as well as 3D space can be projected onto 2D media. I guess it's not really the same thing, but I would still love to see it. That's a really cool idea. I'm sure it could be done with that animated cube really easily... I was about to say it was an amazing idea, but isn't the fourth dimension time? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nappi Posted March 10, 2011 I was about to say it was an amazing idea, but isn't the fourth dimension time? I assumed we were talking about the fourth dimension of Euclidean space, one whose axis is orthogonal to the other three. While time is sometimes referred to as the fourth dimension of "spacetime" it is very different from the spatial coordinates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted March 10, 2011 Is it even possible to make a good Lovecraft movie with anything less than R? That just seems like a natural requirement for the mythos. I good lovecraft film could have no gore and almost no violence and still get an R for psychological horror alone. (although kids would probably just find it boring - you can't be scared of cosmic horror if you can't understand the implications). In fact a large portion of cosmic horror comes from the utter amorality of the universe. Submitting to a ratings system implies a morality, which negates that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHoatzin Posted March 10, 2011 I see no reason why the 4d space couldn't cast a 3d "shadow" onto 3d film that can then be perceived by us. That youtube vid is somehow not enlightening, tho. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted March 10, 2011 I good lovecraft film could have no gore and almost no violence and still get an R for psychological horror alone.(although kids would probably just find it boring - you can't be scared of cosmic horror if you can't understand the implications). In fact a large portion of cosmic horror comes from the utter amorality of the universe. Submitting to a ratings system implies a morality, which negates that. Hmmm, I didn't consider that. Excellent point, and agreed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHoatzin Posted March 10, 2011 On a flipside of some sort, it is super easy to terrify kids and get a pristine PG rating. For example, I can conceive of a story where a child's loving mother (established as awesome in the first 20 minutes of the film) is brutally murdered (off frame) and the kid gets to fend for her/himself in care of his/her cynical and distant father.* Instant horror. The rating systems are really bollocks. As is whatever pop morality conceived it. * Bambi. Not my example, I dunno where I heard it first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Posted March 12, 2011 Furthermore, one could argue that we already see 3D scenes more or less projected into 2D space, forced to rely on various depth cues to judge distances and ordering in one direction. Well that's my point, although perhaps I expressed it poorly: Given that we can represent a good approximate of 3D scenes in flat media, would a representation of a 4D scene on some sort of 3D medium be a profoundly better and less confusing visualization than something like this. Perhaps not. Interestingly, ThunderPeel's mention of the time-as-fourth-dimension theory isn't entirely irrelevant: it's through the addition of time that the animation I linked to is able to represent a hypercube. The way I look at it is this: It starts with a 2D square, which is extended the traditional way to make an image of a cube. Extending this again on a flat surface would be confusing, so to give the illusion of extending it in 3D, the virtual shape is rotated, simulating a moving viewing point, allowing for simulated extension into 3D space. Perhaps. I'm probably completely missing the point, though. MOVIES AND TV. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nappi Posted March 12, 2011 Yes, I see your point. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 3D medium, though. 3D glasses and the like would only add stereoscopic depth to the mix. We would still be limited by the 2Dish nature of our vision (our retina is not entirely unlike a film or CCD, after all), and our nonexistent experience with 4D geometry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) I saw Rango and The Adjustment Bureau today.Rango: The beginning of this film is fucking sublime, but it turns into a standard Hollywood flick by the end. Looks beautiful, though. The Adjustment Bureau: It really is Inception-Lite For Romantics. Which is to say that it wasn't that bad at all. Just not great. Paul was also better than I was expecting. Agreed on Rango, worth seeing. Agreed on TAB although I would probably give it one more thumb than TP - I thought it was smart and interesting all the way through, even if it sometimes fudges its way through specifying their line between free will and destiny. Unfortunately, some cunt dragged their 3-year-old along with them and it made noise all the way through, which really hampered my enjoyment. Also saw Battle: Los Angeles, which has some tremendous crash bang wallop and Aaron Eckhart, but unfortunately is also chock-full of cheese and every war cliche you could think of, plus Michelle Rodriguez. It's ID4 post-9/11, basically. Drive Angry 3D was alright, but a bit dull. Better than Machete (which I thought was dreadful) but not as good as Grindhouse/Planet Terror. Edited March 13, 2011 by bbX1138 Forgot to put titles in BOLD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted March 13, 2011 Agreed on TAB although I would probably give it one more thumb than TP - I thought it was smart and interesting all the way through, even if it sometimes fudges its way through specifying their line between free will and destiny. Unfortunately, some cunt dragged their 3-year-old along with them and it made noise all the way through, which really hampered my enjoyment. Ironically I had a similar experience in Rango... I kind of felt sorry for the kid, though, because he was probably expecting something aimed at kids. Rango was a little more mature, I felt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Posted March 13, 2011 I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 3D medium, though. Hey, me neither. Ideally something one could move around, like some sort of crazy hologram or something. But a stereoscopic 3D image would be closer than a flat 2D image. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted March 13, 2011 Ironically I had a similar experience in Rango... I kind of felt sorry for the kid, though, because he was probably expecting something aimed at kids. Rango was a little more mature, I felt. Yeah, I was actually surprised to walk into Rango and see so many kids. I'd imagined it would be getting an older audience, but it didn't really bother me when they made a bit of noise throughout as it is really a kids/family film. When someone's selfish enough to bring a wired infant into a 12A film mostly about philosophical concepts, that pisses me off. I nearly went up to them after the film and told them they'd ruined the film for me, but I didn't want to upset the kid or get punched in the face. Tellingly, when they left the cinema, they all went to the toilet or whatever and left the 3 year old to run out into the shopping centre on her own. I actually had to follow it to make sure it didn't get hurt or lost until a minute or so later when they realised it had gone and came out looking for it. Pricks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted March 13, 2011 Ugh, I hate irresponsible movie-goers. Conversely, I was at a Dutch children's movie a week ago and there was a little girl whose dad would occasionally explain quickly what had happened. I didn't mind at all, it was OK with this movie. But with Rango it would've been misplaced. Anyway, I watched Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet, as I do every few years, and this movie always destroys me. I don't know what it is, but the tragedy is so utterly gripping, the romance so true in all its theatricality, and the style of the movie so awe-inspiring. I love it, and can't bear to watch it, but must. -BVSj76rREI Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted March 13, 2011 Anyway, I watched Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet, as I do every few years If asked, would you say you... recommend this film? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted March 13, 2011 Wholeheartedly! Luhrmann never topped Romeo + Juliet afterwards. Moulin Rouge is nice if a little self-indulgent, Australia I couldn't even be bothered to see through to the end. I'm looking forward to his next movie: The Great Gatsby. It's definitely up his alley. Anyway, back to R+J. See it, if only for the set design and cinematography, and stellar soundtrack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted March 13, 2011 Tellingly, when they left the cinema, they all went to the toilet or whatever and left the 3 year old to run out into the shopping centre on her own. I actually had to follow it to make sure it didn't get hurt or lost until a minute or so later when they realised it had gone and came out looking for it. Pricks. Ugh. What utter fucking assholes! Jesus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) I, ashamedly, didn't know Romeo + Juliet existed until about a month ago. It's definitely up there in my top 20 or so. Great film. Also! Velociraptor uses "Clever Girl!" on Samuel L. Jackson. It's super-effective! AKA - I forgot just how much I liked Jurassic Park 1. Edited March 14, 2011 by Orvidos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
