|
adamj1982 posted:So what is the difference in IMAX vs. regular theater films? I don't have an IMAX theater near me, so have never been. IMAX are basically the theater's "high end" screen. Bigger than average screen and better than average sound system. At least, that's been my experience with my local movie theater.
|
| # ? Aug 11, 2012 00:17 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 06:10 |
|
|
adamj1982 posted:So what is the difference in IMAX vs. regular theater films? I don't have an IMAX theater near me, so have never been. Like I said earlier, IMAX used to be loving gigantic, and those screens are still around, but now there's a bunch of slightly larger than average screen that call themselves IMAX, Here's the difference between the 2  And here's a comparison to normal theaters  Both images are taken from http://www.daveonfilm.com/screen-si...ovies-8908.html If it's a multiplex that has both normal and "IMAX" screens, it's going to be the smaller version.
|
| # ? Aug 11, 2012 01:22 |
|
|
Maybe you have one of those little shrinky-dink IMAXes but ours is way more than a "high end" screen, it's this ginormous wall with a tiny square of seats at the bottom and it totally dominates your field of vision. edit: yeah, like that. We were lucky enough to get a proper IMAX built across from our multiplex back when they'd still show poo poo like, you know, Climbing Everest or whatever (it's where I saw Speed Racer, which was mindmelting). Magic Hate Ball fucked around with this message at Aug 11, 2012 around 01:33 |
| # ? Aug 11, 2012 01:29 |
|
|
Skwirl posted:Like I said earlier, IMAX used to be loving gigantic, and those screens are still around, but now there's a bunch of slightly larger than average screen that call themselves IMAX, Here's the difference between the 2 The last illustration is complete bullocks and doesn't make a lick of sense.
|
| # ? Aug 11, 2012 02:00 |
|
|
I have decided that the only difference between London and Glasgow IMAX is the seating, Glasgow rules. The scenes shot with IMAX cameras (mainly cityscapes!) take up your full field of vision & induce motion sickness, diarrhea and in some extreme cases, pregnancy.
|
| # ? Aug 11, 2012 10:30 |
|
|
There's also the fact that film shot for IMAX specifically uses a vastly larger film stock which allows an absurd amount of detail. This goes through it pretty well: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/imax1.htm
|
| # ? Aug 12, 2012 17:41 |
|
|
Anyone know anything about Lawrence of Arabia being in theaters in 70mm this year?
|
| # ? Aug 13, 2012 22:58 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:There's also the fact that film shot for IMAX specifically uses a vastly larger film stock which allows an absurd amount of detail. When was this written? It mentions that there are only two IMAX cameras in the world, while during the filming of The Dark Knight they started out with four, and I know this because the commentary track mentions that at the end of filming there were 3- they accidentally destroyed one while filming the Lower Wacker Drive chase sequence.
|
| # ? Aug 13, 2012 23:12 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Anyone know anything about Lawrence of Arabia being in theaters in 70mm this year? Isn't it coming out in December for the film's fiftieth anniversary?
|
| # ? Aug 13, 2012 23:31 |
|
|
Oct 4, last I heard, but I guess theater locations are TBA.
|
| # ? Aug 14, 2012 00:01 |
|
|
Just watched Citizen Kane again after not having seen it for a long time. Hope this isn't a stupid question, but I still don't understand why his mother gave him away? And why to Mr. Thatcher specifically?
|
| # ? Aug 14, 2012 03:37 |
|
|
OutdoorMiner posted:Just watched Citizen Kane again after not having seen it for a long time. Hope this isn't a stupid question, but I still don't understand why his mother gave him away? And why to Mr. Thatcher specifically? Thatcher wanted to buy the gold mine Mrs. Kane accidentally inherited (the Colorado lode), and the terms of the deal required him to take on her son Charles so that he would get away from his deadbeat father and have a shot at being an important man.
|
| # ? Aug 14, 2012 03:46 |
|
|
Literally adopted by a corporation.
|
| # ? Aug 14, 2012 05:14 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:There's also the fact that film shot for IMAX specifically uses a vastly larger film stock which allows an absurd amount of detail. Wait, are you saying that IMAX is shot on a larger stock than than normal 70mm films? It uses the same 65mm stock, just run sideways. Since the width of the stock constrains the vertical instead of the horizontal dimensions, each frame can use much more celluloid. (This is also exactly how your link describes it). Bugblatter fucked around with this message at Aug 14, 2012 around 11:36 |
| # ? Aug 14, 2012 11:32 |
|
|
gently caress. Double post.
|
| # ? Aug 14, 2012 11:36 |
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Wait, are you saying that IMAX is shot on a larger stock than than normal 70mm films? It uses the same 65mm stock, just run sideways. Since the width of the stock constrains the vertical instead of the horizontal dimensions, each frame can use much more celluloid. (This is also exactly how your link describes it). But doesn't the aperture and the framing use a much larger portion of negative for each frame?
|
| # ? Aug 14, 2012 22:41 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:But doesn't the aperture and the framing use a much larger portion of negative for each frame? The frame is larger, because the film is run sideways, like I said. The stock is the same though. I'm not sure what you mean regarding aperture... You do use smaller apertures (larger f-stops) with larger formats though, to compensate for the depth of field lost in the longer lenses. Is that what you meant?
|
| # ? Aug 14, 2012 23:11 |
|
|
It's been announced that Raiders will be re-released in IMAX. I thought the film was shot in 35mm? Is there any benefit to seeing it in IMAX other than OMG HUGE?
|
| # ? Aug 15, 2012 17:49 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:It's been announced that Raiders will be re-released in IMAX. I thought the film was shot in 35mm? Is there any benefit to seeing it in IMAX other than OMG HUGE? It isn't going to be in 3d is it?
|
| # ? Aug 16, 2012 01:20 |
|
|
I don't think there's an equivalent TV IV thread so I figure I'd best ask here. I want to watch The Prisoner (the original) but I'm getting caught up in the different orders to watch it in. Does it make a huge difference what order I use? Or is that only for really hardcore Prisoner fans? What do you lot recommend?
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2012 20:14 |
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:I don't think there's an equivalent TV IV thread so I figure I'd best ask here. I want to watch The Prisoner (the original) but I'm getting caught up in the different orders to watch it in. Does it make a huge difference what order I use? Or is that only for really hardcore Prisoner fans? What do you lot recommend? Just go with the order that is on the dvd. I do not remember there being any problems and if there are they are very minor.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2012 20:16 |
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:I don't think there's an equivalent TV IV thread so I figure I'd best ask here. I want to watch The Prisoner (the original) but I'm getting caught up in the different orders to watch it in. Does it make a huge difference what order I use? Or is that only for really hardcore Prisoner fans? What do you lot recommend? The order doesn't make a lot of difference, there's very little continuity beyond the premise and enough deliberate weirdness that you won't even notice minor cross-episode errors. The important parts of the order are that "Arrival" is first, "The General" is immediately after "A, B, and C", and "Once Upon a Time" and "Fallout" are last, and the DVD set is structured that way anyway. haveblue fucked around with this message at Aug 22, 2012 around 20:25 |
| # ? Aug 22, 2012 20:22 |
|
|
Can anyone else with the old, 2-sided Goodfellas dvd confirm that it is not (despite what the box claims), enhanced for widescreen tv? On my 16:9 television set I can only get it pillarboxed. Having to flip the disc halfway through is annoying enough, but if I can't watch it in any better video quality than this I'll definitely just go get a newer version. edit: Watching anyway and the whole supporting cast of the Sopranos is here. Not surprising, but still fun. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at Aug 24, 2012 around 22:52 |
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 22:03 |
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Can anyone else with the old, 2-sided Goodfellas dvd confirm that it is not (despite what the box claims), enhanced for widescreen tv? On my 16:9 television set I can only get it pillarboxed. Having to flip the disc halfway through is annoying enough, but if I can't watch it in any better video quality than this I'll definitely just go get a newer version. It's non-anamorphic widescreen, taken from the transfer made for the 1991 laserdisc. Not bad for its time, but doesn't hold a chance against the awesome remaster on the Blu-Ray (which was supervised by Scorsese).
|
| # ? Aug 25, 2012 03:24 |
|
|
I am currently watching the first Total Recall for the first time and Quaid just made the statement "clever girl" . Was Muldoons "clever girl" in Jurassic Park a reference to this?
|
| # ? Aug 27, 2012 04:01 |
|
|
I saw a movie in a double feature with "Time Walker" at a drive-in in Oklahoma in the early 80s (or late 70s), and I'd like to remember the name. In the movie there are some aliens from a crashed UFO or something that the government is trying to track down, and the protagonist is trying to get them to safety. The aliens look like the typical gray aliens. There are two details I can remember that might be helpful. The first is that the aliens kill or incapacitate some people by touching them on the neck with their fingertip, which caused a hissing noise. This scared the poo poo out of me when I saw it. The other thing is that the government tells the media that the protagonists kidnapped contagious sick children as a cover story for the existence of the aliens. I remember seeing commercials for the movie on TV before seeing it, so it was a fairly big release.
|
| # ? Aug 27, 2012 06:54 |
|
|
Where did the term "cliffhanger" originate? Was someone in an old timey movie left hanging from a cliff at the end of a movier and the term just stuck?
|
| # ? Aug 27, 2012 08:53 |
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Where did the term "cliffhanger" originate? Was someone in an old timey movie left hanging from a cliff at the end of a movier and the term just stuck?
|
| # ? Aug 27, 2012 10:23 |
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Where did the term "cliffhanger" originate? Was someone in an old timey movie left hanging from a cliff at the end of a movier and the term just stuck? Doctor Who did do that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw6OwJQDCoM
|
| # ? Aug 27, 2012 13:29 |
|
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:I saw a movie in a double feature with "Time Walker" at a drive-in in Oklahoma in the early 80s (or late 70s), and I'd like to remember the name. In the movie there are some aliens from a crashed UFO or something that the government is trying to track down, and the protagonist is trying to get them to safety. The aliens look like the typical gray aliens. There are two details I can remember that might be helpful. The first is that the aliens kill or incapacitate some people by touching them on the neck with their fingertip, which caused a hissing noise. This scared the poo poo out of me when I saw it. The other thing is that the government tells the media that the protagonists kidnapped contagious sick children as a cover story for the existence of the aliens. This would be the thread you want here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...hreadid=2177344 its the identify a movie thread.
|
| # ? Aug 27, 2012 16:00 |
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Where did the term "cliffhanger" originate? Was someone in an old timey movie left hanging from a cliff at the end of a movier and the term just stuck? kuddles posted:Actually, it's believed the term originated with a book called "A Pair of Blue Eyes". Since a lot of books were published chapter by chapter in magazines at the time, they tended to employ cliffhangers a lot. Another theory is that it referred to The Perils of Pauline, a 1914 action serial which was shot around the New Jersey Palisades. They figure at least one of 'em had to have Pauline hanging off those cliffs.
|
| # ? Aug 27, 2012 23:31 |
|
|
Does anyone know if they're actually planning on releasing John Dies at the End? I heard something about it playing at a film festival earlier in the year but other than that nothing.
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2012 02:26 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Does anyone know if they're actually planning on releasing John Dies at the End? I heard something about it playing at a film festival earlier in the year but other than that nothing. It just got picked up this week by Magnet releasing. They're saying VOD this December, with a limited theatrical run in early 2013. No word yet on DVD release. Edit: According to the JDaTE Facebook and an article I saw on IMDB a few days ago.
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2012 11:21 |
|
|
Wild T posted:It just got picked up this week by Magnet releasing. They're saying VOD this December, with a limited theatrical run in early 2013. No word yet on DVD release. Good to know, I was just reminded of it because I saw that the sequel to the book comes out in October.
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2012 11:39 |
|
|
In the recent Thor, did Loki ever intend for Odin to die? I read it as he intended Odin to be killed but then changed his plan when he saw Thor in Asgard.
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2012 12:49 |
|
|
euphronius posted:In the recent Thor, did Loki ever intend for Odin to die? I read it as he intended Odin to be killed but then changed his plan when he saw Thor in Asgard. No, his whole plan after he found out he was adopted was to goad/convince the Frost Giants into attacking Asgard so that Loki could retaliate and destroy them, so when Odin comes out of his sleep he thinks that Loki did a heroic thing and was worthy of being his 'real' son (and probably inherit the kingdom instead of Thor).
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2012 14:11 |
|
|
computer parts posted:No, his whole plan after he found out he was adopted was to goad/convince the Frost Giants into attacking Asgard so that Loki could retaliate and destroy them, so when Odin comes out of his sleep he thinks that Loki did a heroic thing and was worthy of being his 'real' son (and probably inherit the kingdom instead of Thor). SO much more interesting than Loki in the Avengers.
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2012 14:15 |
|
|
In Avengers he's still got the same end goal - prove to daddy how cool he is.
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2012 19:19 |
|
|
Why didn't Woody Allen direct Play It Again, Sam?
|
| # ? Aug 31, 2012 16:05 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 06:10 |
|
|
Are any of these Troma films worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/tromamovies?
|
| # ? Aug 31, 2012 16:17 |
|
