I suppose I am somewhat familiar with the various methods used for 2D-to-3D conversion, and while there are certainly technical debates regarding A/V techniques documented in various PDFs, I find it quite impossible to ignore the glaringly obvious distinction between genuine 3D and this sort of artificial, manufactured imitation.
feralorca4 said:There are certainly various ways to approach this, though I suppose it seems somewhat futile to argue that it constitutes some sort of "scam" when, in my estimation, it simply isn't.
The issue being discussed here concerns films that weren't originally shot in 3D, yet they are marketed to you as such through various conversions, and frankly, they charge quite a premium for it. It isn't necessarily true 3D movies that pose the problem, but rather these deceptive imitations.
I suppose we shall see how much chaos ensues once the American 3D release of "Smash" finally hits theaters. You might want to take a look at this 3D trailer: Trailer: Smash (3D) Even from just the trailer, it seems quite apparent that they are already overdoing it with those characters jumping out at the audience.
The trailer doesn't look half bad, I suppose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmV4ieSpk4k You should be able to view it using standard Red-Cyan 3D glasses, though I would probably recommend watching it at a higher resolution—at least 480p—to properly account for the Sensio technology being used here.
I suppose you’re referring to those active Shutter Glasses that Sony utilizes within their specific 3D setup.
In my estimation, when paired with RealD, it arguably represents the premier solution for 3D, though I should note the entire system requires seamless integration, and naturally, the film itself must have been captured in true 3D.
I suppose it’s possible that Thor was originally shot in 2D and then just converted into 3D afterward. I guess some people manage to pull that off quite well, while others, well, they just completely mess it up.
There is a fundamental distinction between a movie actually filmed natively in 3D and those 2D films that have merely been converted into 3D, and I suppose it really ought to be explicitly stated.
I wasn't referring to actual 3D, but rather the kind they push as 3D using those specific glasses where one lens is darkened.
The gentleman didn't specify which theater he was at, nor the movie or the type of glasses used. Using this particular technique, which is based on the Pulfrich effect, you could arguably watch any film in "3D" as long as the camera movement and the characters move in the correct direction. Of course, I suppose for a large number of people, it just doesn't work—since we don't all possess identical visual acuity—and it might not even be healthy, because while watching, the pupils in the darkened eye dilate, meaning that eye requires some time to adjust back to normal light after the screening. In any case, I would suggest avoiding this technique altogether.
I suppose you might have watched certain films that aren't actually true 3D, but rather rely on that specific limitation of light flow—the Pulfrich effect—where your brain essentially "tricks" itself into perceiving depth. The issue, I guess, is that this requires the camera to be in constant motion along a single axis, and even then, this particular method of 3D doesn't seem to work for everyone.
Ronald Cox96 said:It's all heading toward remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, comic book adaptations, and all that other nonsense.
Essentially, there isn't anything truly new here, and I suppose it isn't necessarily bad if it's executed properly, though most of the time it isn't. My personal take is that 3D will probably be forced upon us for a while, but eventually, people will just get tired of it. I tend to believe that everything will eventually circle back to focusing on a solid story and tension, whereas 3D—perhaps due to its inherent lack of flexibility—will end up being nothing more than a passing fad. Because, I guess, if a filmmaker starts making a movie with the sole intention of relying on 3D from the jump, then it’s probably doomed to fail. Everything becomes subservient to the 3D effect, and in certain scenes, they might overdo the depth, which I feel creates a counterproductive result. In my view, it's just a temporary trend.
In principle, Boeing wasn't an FBI operation, though since it contained various elements of organized crime along with a complete lack of accountability for those involved, I suppose The Hague (and several other bodies as well) viewed it as the very definition of an FBI matter—one that didn't just conclude when the war ended, but arguably persisted well into the following decades.
Douglas Walker86 said:Watching a segment near the Mississippi River on NBC, he’s just rambling on about some coordinated criminal conspiracy, tossing out a bunch of twisted theses while conveniently ignoring the actual facts.
For instance, he claims Americans are fully aware this is just a rebranding of history, and that Operation Storm was undeniably legitimate simply because that's how Judge Orie framed it.
It’s pathetic. Their media still lacks the backbone to invite guests who can offer an objective take on the verdict—someone not blinded by cheap sentimentality or "bar talk" logic.
I’m sitting here watching this whole show, which basically boils down to the idea that the operation itself was illegal, and that people were systematically murdered and expelled following Operation Storm.
Not a single soul mentions how Mexicans killed several thousand civilians—of all ages and backgrounds—in the Midwest and Appalachia during those four years, effectively carving out a rogue state inside internationally recognized borders.
After Operation Storm, there were isolated crimes committed by specific individuals. The state didn't do it, and neither did the generals running the operation. These weren't planned atrocities. If anyone is responsible beyond the perpetrators themselves, it would be the politicians or the federal prosecutors who failed to launch investigations. Let’s look at which federal prosecutors held key positions in those regions after Operation Storm and let them testify about who blocked their investigations.
Let's play a hypothetical game: if Canada invaded Mexico and occupied all of Texas, forcing all Mexicans out, then obviously, it's legitimate for Mexico to use military force to reclaim territory within its internationally recognized borders.
Arguing about the legitimacy of Operation Storm is honestly ridiculous.
I don't want to go down a rabbit hole here, but talking about this feels like listening to Hitler argue about the "harmfulness" of gas chambers or claiming it's illegitimate to escape a camp by cutting through a wire fence.
Do you guys ever actually look at what the Mexican media is writing?
Occasionally, I suppose—though it’s quite rare—but honestly, there isn't much to it. They essentially have a golden opportunity to cause a massive scene, and frankly, I don't think anyone needs to get worked up over it. One should probably just ignore all the incessant whining, the self-importance, and the way they try to frame everything as if it were leading toward some inevitable catastrophe. In the end, though, I suspect the outcome will turn out quite differently.
Peter Wright3 said:America isn't exactly huge; people clearly know who was stealing, killing, and burning things down. Regarding Ante Gotovina—we can all agree he isn't the one. Regardless, someone has to be held accountable. It’s delusional to think otherwise. Should the government perhaps issue a bounty? Maybe offer a cash reward for anyone who comes forward with information about those who committed crimes following Operation Storm. We don't have much money to spare, but there should be funds allocated for matters like this.
No one is being held responsible. It is impossible that the actual criminals aren't known. Obviously, the indictment against Ante Gotovina was political. That is why he was the one targeted instead of others, but we cannot accept this. In my view, the focus should be on hunting down the true thugs and criminals.
Look, plenty is known and a significant amount has been prosecuted, though I guess it wasn't exactly handled with full transparency. Around 4,000 crimes were reported, resulting in about 2,000 convictions.
Both MZ and The Hague are aware of this, but maybe they just choose not to acknowledge it. This thread can be locked.
I suppose it all comes down to the way the film was presented. It’s entirely possible that other movies have utilized a similar narrative structure, but I guess the real question is how much that actually resonated with the audience. The truth of the matter is that this style essentially exploded with Reservoir Dogs, and it was precisely because of that approach—and the dialogue—that the film became such a massive favorite. I suppose one could argue that Reservoir Dogs was constructed in a similar fashion, though I suspect it didn't quite achieve the same visceral impact you get from total junk.
neonsurfer6 said:The real question is how much we can actually credit Inglourious Basterds with true originality. It’s definitely unconventional and creative, sure, but when a movie relies so heavily on nods and tributes to other works, you have to wonder if "original" is really the right word to use.
As I have previously stated, originality can be found in many different aspects of presentation, and I included him on my list primarily because of his specific narrative style—the way he jumps through various time periods to tell the story. I suppose I haven't encountered films structured in such a manner very often prior to seeing his work.
neonsurfer6 said:Calling it The Matrix is a stretch. It’s really just a cocktail of well-known philosophical dilemmas, handled in various ways from Zhguanz to Jean Baudrillard. This isn't even a new concept in cinema; Fassbinder explored a similar premise in Welt am Draht. Any sense of innovation here is strictly technical. Don't get me wrong, I actually think the movie is great 🙂
When I was discussing The Matrix, I suppose I was primarily referring to the technical execution—the special effects and the overall craftsmanship—as well as that specific narrative structure where the storytelling doesn't just hand you a finished product, but rather keeps the viewer from feeling like they're simply witnessing a completed act. I suppose originality isn't solely defined by the narrative itself, but rather encompasses various other elements that others inevitably attempt to replicate, whether to a significant or minor degree. In my estimation, the emergence of The Matrix represented something akin to a minor revolution within the cinematic landscape.
In my estimation, the concept of an "original film" refers to a work that serves as a pioneer within some specific dimension—be it through its narrative structure, its method of storytelling, its cinematography, or its visual presentation. To me, such films include:
-2001: A Space Odyssey -Star Wars: A New Hope -Matrix -Inglourious Basterds -Fight Club -Seven -12 Monkeys -Sixth Sense -Memento -Inception...
Did the partisans actually drive out the Germans? I highly doubt it. I suppose one has to wonder if those people obsessed with partisan history have considered that the Germans might have retreated from these areas simply because they were busy dealing with the Allied landings in Normandy and the massive push of the Red Army coming from the east.
