PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV Clash of the titans


chiefsfan93
04-18-2010, 04:09 PM
Went with my girlfriend to this flick, we enjoyed it, any one else seen it or want to see it?

Saulbadguy
04-18-2010, 04:20 PM
Heard it sucked.

Deberg_1990
04-18-2010, 04:24 PM
any one else seen it or want to see it?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=217938&highlight=clash+titans

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 04:27 PM
Went with my girlfriend to this flick, we enjoyed it

What does it feel like to be the lowest common denominator of the American moviegoing public?

DaneMcCloud
04-18-2010, 04:31 PM
Went with my girlfriend to this flick, we enjoyed it, any one else seen it or want to see it?

Media Center, n00b.

:facepalm:

Ecto-I
04-18-2010, 04:33 PM
I saw it, and thought it was pretty disappointing.

kysirsoze
04-18-2010, 04:46 PM
Heard it sucked.

You heard right. Even the effects were terrible. The 3D looked circa 1955. Waste of money and time. I'm sure it has at least 2 sequels in the works.

JD10367
04-18-2010, 04:51 PM
I'll probably see it.

I probably won't mind it.

I also don't pay for it. Big difference.

But first I sneak into a "Kick-Ass" tomorrow...

Fire Me Boy!
04-18-2010, 04:54 PM
It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't that good either. THe effect certainly weren't "circa 1955", though.

Fire Me Boy!
04-18-2010, 04:54 PM
I'll probably see it.

I probably won't mind it.

I also don't pay for it. Big difference.

But first I sneak into a "Kick-Ass" tomorrow...

So do you only steal on Mondays, or does it matter?

kysirsoze
04-18-2010, 04:56 PM
It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't that good either. THe effect certainly weren't "circa 1955", though.

I said the 3D was, and yes I was slightly exaggerating.

Plus, the original Medusa made with practical effects was much much much more convincing than the new one. She looked like she escaped from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" I LOL'd when I saw her.

Fire Me Boy!
04-18-2010, 04:57 PM
I said the 3D was, and yes I was slightly exaggerating.

Plus, the original Medusa made with practical effects was much much much more convincing than the new one. She looked like she escaped from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" I LOL'd when I saw her.

Sorry, I missed that. I actually didn't see it in 3D, so the effects looked pretty good to me. I didn't like the Medusa, though. She wasn't very good.

kysirsoze
04-18-2010, 05:00 PM
Sorry, I missed that. I actually didn't see it in 3D, so the effects looked pretty good to me. I didn't like the Medusa, though. She wasn't very good.

The problem was they didn't shoot it in 3D. They made a 3D version afterwards to jack up the price and capitalize off Avatar. Alas, I was one of the suckers who ponied up the extra cash.

Fire Me Boy!
04-18-2010, 05:02 PM
The problem was they didn't shoot it in 3D. They made a 3D version afterwards to jack up the price and capitalize off Avatar. Alas, I was one of the suckers who ponied up the extra cash.

I didn't know that. I see the regular versions because I have a fundamental problem with paying the $3 glasses "rental" they charge. Screw that.

JD10367
04-18-2010, 05:04 PM
So do you only steal on Mondays, or does it matter?

It might be busy because it's school vacation week. I don't officially get passes, I just walk into the theater and nab an empty seat, so my conscience would make me get up and leave if the show was sold out.

JD10367
04-18-2010, 05:06 PM
I didn't know that. I see the regular versions because I have a fundamental problem with paying the $3 glasses "rental" they charge. Screw that.

Regular (35-millimeter house) digital 3D, don't bother. True IMAX 3D, do it (and by that I mean original size screen, which is usually around 60'x90', and 400+ seats... don't pay extra to see "digital IMAX" or that crap, make sure it's a full-size).

chiefsfan93
04-18-2010, 05:21 PM
Also saw a cool ass trailer of the A-team gotta see it because of it being my fav as a kid. It has lemm neison and rampage so might be good.

mlyonsd
04-18-2010, 06:00 PM
They should re-do Jason and the Argonauts in 3D. When I was 6 or so and saw the original those skeleton guys that grew out of teeth scared the crap out of me.

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 06:10 PM
There will be no Clash sequel. They've only made $15 million in 16 days. Pathetic and deserved. I wonder if they're gonna even break even cus it cost $125 mil.

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 06:12 PM
They should re-do Jason and the Argonauts in 3D. When I was 6 or so and saw the original those skeleton guys that grew out of teeth scared the crap out of me.

They should re do it and skip the fucking 3D. It's a stupid gimmick that only retards care about it.

Spend more money making the movie good instead of on bullshit like 3D and those uber-retarded rumble seats they have now.

Miles
04-18-2010, 06:17 PM
There will be no Clash sequel. They've only made $15 million in 16 days. Pathetic and deserved. I wonder if they're gonna even break even cus it cost $125 mil.

Ouch. Maybe this could help kill off the "everything must be in 3D" thoughts after Avatar.

mlyonsd
04-18-2010, 06:18 PM
They should re do it and skip the ****ing 3D. It's a stupid gimmick that only retards care about it.

Spend more money making the movie good instead of on bullshit like 3D and those uber-retarded rumble seats they have now.

I saw Clash in regular format when my wife and son wanted to go to the movies and our local theater is very old and there were only three to choose from. I went in thinking it would be lame but came out and didn't think I wasted the $5 to see it. Not the worst movie I've seen.

I've only seen a few movies in 3D and I think they were all computer generated and those I thought were worth the money if I had to sit through them.

Maybe the p0rn industry should consider 3D when the technology becomes cheaper.

Deberg_1990
04-18-2010, 06:31 PM
. It's a stupid gimmick that only retards care about it.

Spend more money making the movie good instead of on bullshit like 3D and those uber-retarded rumble seats they have now.


Agree...its a dumb gimmick that hopefully will die off again like it did in the 50's and 80's..

Its kind of neat for the first 15 minutes, but after that, its like no big deal...

3D wont make a strong movie better....

3D might make a mediocre movie more mildly entertaining....

Hollywood only loves it for now because they can gauge the public for more money with it. I cant really blame them, but its contributing to the "dumbing down" of movies.

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 06:35 PM
The only REAL use of 3D is for movies like Avatar, where it makes the experience more immersive.

And for Star Wars. :p

Fire Me Boy!
04-18-2010, 06:55 PM
It might be busy because it's school vacation week. I don't officially get passes, I just walk into the theater and nab an empty seat, so my conscience would make me get up and leave if the show was sold out.

So..... your conscience will keep you from stealing a seat from a movie-ticket-buying patron, but not keep you from stealing the admission in the first place?

:spock:

Miles
04-18-2010, 07:08 PM
So..... your conscience will keep you from stealing a seat from a movie-ticket-buying patron, but not keep you from stealing the admission in the first place?

:spock:

I was thinking he was a projectionist but I could be off.

JD10367
04-18-2010, 07:18 PM
Agree...its a dumb gimmick that hopefully will die off again like it did in the 50's and 80's..

Its kind of neat for the first 15 minutes, but after that, its like no big deal...

3D wont make a strong movie better....

3D might make a mediocre movie more mildly entertaining....

Hollywood only loves it for now because they can gauge the public for more money with it. I cant really blame them, but its contributing to the "dumbing down" of movies.

First off, the 3D in the 50's and 60's died off because it fucking sucked. It involved red and blue glasses and was NOTHING but a gimmick which made watching a movie painful.

Modern 3D is not a gimmick. It's been here since 1990 in IMAX film documentaries, and is quickly building itself a niche in the sci-fi/fantasy and family-film/animated areas. It's here to stay.

It amazes me how people think 3D can't make the filmgoing experience better. We SEE in 3D. How can it not make any film better and more realistic? It's like arguing HD vs. regular TV. If a film is made correctly ("Avatar", "HTTYD"), with lots of long-shots and using the 3D realistically--and not in a gimmicky "comin' at ya!" kind of way--I'd rather watch it in 3D than 2D, be it a shoot-em-up space epic or a frigging English chick-flick. Now that film is being replaced with digital, IMO there's no reason why all films don't become 3D (although I'm sure movie theaters will still offer 2D options for films, as they do now).

I'm also not sure how 3D is contributing to the "duimbing down" of movies. Aside from the pointless slasher flicks, which have been made in 3D for decades as a way to try to get butts in seats.

JASONSAUTO
04-18-2010, 07:18 PM
I was thinking he was a projectionist but I could be off.

yep, he works at the theater as a projectionist
Posted via Mobile Device

JD10367
04-18-2010, 07:21 PM
Ouch. Maybe this could help kill off the "everything must be in 3D" thoughts after Avatar.

What the fuck is GoChiefs babbling about? "Clash" made $15M this weekend. It's made $133M in 3 weeks.

"Alice" is a piece of shit and it's made over $300M.

3D may not make a bad film better, but it does get stupid people to pay more money to see it, so I don't think it's going away.

Deberg_1990
04-18-2010, 07:24 PM
First off, the 3D in the 50's and 60's died off because it ****ing sucked. It involved red and blue glasses and was NOTHING but a gimmick which made watching a movie painful.

Modern 3D is not a gimmick. It's been here since 1990 in IMAX film documentaries, and is quickly building itself a niche in the sci-fi/fantasy and family-film/animated areas. It's here to stay.

It amazes me how people think 3D can't make the filmgoing experience better. We SEE in 3D. How can it not make any film better and more realistic? It's like arguing HD vs. regular TV. If a film is made correctly ("Avatar", "HTTYD"), with lots of long-shots and using the 3D realistically--and not in a gimmicky "comin' at ya!" kind of way--I'd rather watch it in 3D than 2D, be it a shoot-em-up space epic or a frigging English chick-flick. Now that film is being replaced with digital, IMO there's no reason why all films don't become 3D (although I'm sure movie theaters will still offer 2D options for films, as they do now).

I'm also not sure how 3D is contributing to the "duimbing down" of movies. Aside from the pointless slasher flicks, which have been made in 3D for decades as a way to try to get butts in seats.

hey, its great for your business...and thats great. I understand why hollywood is into it right now.

I still dont agree that it enhances an already solid film much. Case in point HTTYD, which we already discussed in another thread.

Same with HD and SD. HD is great, but it doesnt make a good movie or show better. It doesnt make the direction and writing any better.

mlyonsd
04-18-2010, 07:27 PM
I guess here's the question. Would you never pay to watch a movie in 3D or are there some you would?

If your answer is the latter you've made a case for 3D, no matter if you think a particular movie sucked or not.

Miles
04-18-2010, 07:29 PM
What the fuck is GoChiefs babbling about? "Clash" made $15M this weekend. It's made $133M in 3 weeks.

"Alice" is a piece of shit and it's made over $300M.

3D may not make a bad film better, but it does get stupid people to pay more money to see it, so I don't think it's going away.

Yeah that was misleading as hell then. I finally caved and saw Avatar the Friday Alice in Wonderland opened and the line to see it on IMAX 3D was fairly insane. Amused me people were dressing up as well.

JD10367
04-18-2010, 07:29 PM
hey, its great for your business...and thats great. I understand why hollywood is into it right now.

I still dont agree that it enhances an already solid film much. Case in point HTTYD, which we already discussed in another thread.

Same with HD and SD. HD is great, but it doesnt make a good movie or show better. It doesnt make the direction and writing any better.

Well, of course not, but technically-speaking, if it's better (HD) or more realistic (3D) to look at, it's going to make the film more enjoyable to watch (assuming, again, that it's filmed correctly, with lots of long-shots, and not done like Disney World's "Muppet-Vision 3D' with Fozzie Bear bouncing paddleballs at your face or opening exploding-snakes-in-a-can at you).

I'm sure "HTTYD" looks fine in 2D but, with all the flying in it, I'm sure it looks better in 3D. I still put the glasses on to watch the last 15 minutes.

"Avatar" definitely looked better in 3D, because 3D makes animation look more realistic. (Another case in point is "The Polar Express"; the characters looked pretty fake in 2D but the depth and roundness of 3D make them look better).

Deberg_1990
04-18-2010, 07:30 PM
I guess here's the question. Would you never pay to watch a movie in 3D or are there some you would?

If your answer is the latter you've made a case for 3D, no matter if you think a particular movie sucked or not.

Ill admit, i paid to see Avatar in 3D just because of the hype.

Like i said, its cool for about 15 minutes, then after that its like you forget its there.

Im anxious to see Avatar in 2D next week on DVD to see if it truly makes much difference.

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 07:32 PM
What the fuck is GoChiefs babbling about? "Clash" made $15M this weekend. It's made $133M in 3 weeks.

"Alice" is a piece of shit and it's made over $300M.

3D may not make a bad film better, but it does get stupid people to pay more money to see it, so I don't think it's going away.

Ah, I was just looking at the weekend totals I guess.

Lame. It may spawn a sequel. :shake:

Amnorix
04-18-2010, 07:32 PM
It amazes me how people think 3D can't make the filmgoing experience better. We SEE in 3D. How can it not make any film better and more realistic? It's like arguing HD vs. regular TV.


I'll give you one way -- it gives me a goddamn low grade but annoying and noticeable headache after about 10-15 minutes. Same with one of my sons. The other boy could care less, so we're officially done, D-U-N, done with 3D, thank goodness.

Avatar looked awesome, but the headache really makes the whole thing not worth it.

JD10367
04-18-2010, 07:33 PM
I guess here's the question. Would you never pay to watch a movie in 3D or are there some you would?

If your answer is the latter you've made a case for 3D, no matter if you think a particular movie sucked or not.

I really wish they had made this last "Star Trek" film in 3D. It would've been awesome.

I'm actually surprised "Iron Man 2" isn't coming out in 3D. On the good side, they were smart enough--like the makers of "The Dark Knight" and "Transformers 2"--to film certain scenes in IMAX so they'll jump to full-frame on the IMAX screens. ("Tron Legacy" is doing something similar, although they didn't film in IMAX. They're simply using more of the overall square image, and not just the rectangular portion in the center that the film normally gets cropped down to. So the IMAX version of "Tron Legacy" will definitely have more "image information" than the 35 print. Sort of like if you watch something in HD vs. regular-def; the HD transmission has more stuff you can see on the edges which gets cropped on your square low-def set.)

Miles
04-18-2010, 07:35 PM
Same with HD and SD. HD is great, but it doesnt make a good movie or show better. It doesnt make the direction and writing any better.

IMO, I thought it made Avatar a great visual experience but I would hardly call the movie great. However I totally agree that it doesn't make the movie itself any better. For instance, I figure Avatar would be extremely mediocre if I were to watch it at home, even on blu-ray...

JD10367
04-18-2010, 07:36 PM
I'll give you one way -- it gives me a goddamn low grade but annoying and noticeable headache after about 10-15 minutes. Same with one of my sons. The other boy could care less, so we're officially done, D-U-N, done with 3D, thank goodness.

Avatar looked awesome, but the headache really makes the whole thing not worth it.

Sounds like something was misaligned in that theater. It's not supposed to give you a headache. They might have had the image-offset incorrect (so it was the equivalent of slightly crossing your eyes for two and a half hours).

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 07:36 PM
One thing that annoys me is how much darker 3D makes the picture. I don't care for it.

I'm only going to see a movie in 3D if it's deemed to be almost essential to the viewing experience, i.e. Avatar, or Star Wars if/when it's re-released. I've seen SW in 2D enough, putting it in 3D is showing me something new. :D

JD10367
04-18-2010, 07:42 PM
IMO, I thought it made Avatar a great visual experience but I would hardly call the movie great. However I totally agree that it doesn't make the movie itself any better. For instance, I figure Avatar would be extremely mediocre if I were to watch it at home, even on blu-ray...

You sound like you're making the contrary argument--that it looked good in 3D in the theater but you think it would look shitty at home in 2D.

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 07:44 PM
No, he's just saying it has no merits beside 3D.

JD10367
04-18-2010, 07:48 PM
Ill admit, i paid to see Avatar in 3D just because of the hype.

Like i said, its cool for about 15 minutes, then after that its like you forget its there.

Im anxious to see Avatar in 2D next week on DVD to see if it truly makes much difference.

I think it's going to suck in 2D.

You know what might've been cool? Back around 1990, IIRC, some "tourist attraction"-type companies (of which, at the time, IMAX was one) flirted with the equivalent of HD cinema, using projectors that ran at higher frame rates. I can't remember the name of the company, but they had large auditoriums--not IMAX-sized, but bigger than normal--running 2D film at 60FPS for a hyper-realistic effect. It supposedly looked great, like you were actually looking into another room and seeing something "live". IMAX tried it as well: the Lincoln Center IMAX in NYC is built to run at 48FPS, but IIRC they only made one IMAX film in the format ("The Last Buffalo", I think) and they rarely used it because, to quote one IMAX technician, "when they turned the projector onto 48FPS it scared the shit out of you". Regular IMAX is already running at 6 feet per second (compared to around 15 inches per second for 35-mm. film), so this "HD IMAX" was running at 12 feet per second. You have no idea how fast and scary that is unless you know what these machines sound and look like, LOL. 12 feet per second, if you tried to grab it, it would probably take your fingers off...

Miles
04-18-2010, 07:52 PM
You sound like you're making the contrary argument--that it looked good in 3D in the theater but you think it would look shitty at home in 2D.

It is essentially what I was saying but at the same time agreeing with Deberg's comment that it doesn't make the movie itself any better.

Deberg_1990
04-18-2010, 07:54 PM
On the good side, they were smart enough--like the makers of "The Dark Knight" and "Transformers 2"--to film certain scenes in IMAX so they'll jump to full-frame on the IMAX screens.

Those IMAX filmed scenes in The Dark Knight kicked a**.

JD10367
04-18-2010, 07:55 PM
I think they should combine the now-dormant HD-cinema (60FPS) with 3D IMAX and throw in "Smell-O-Rama" to make the best porn film ever. Preferably starring Olivia Wilde and Megan Fox. Take THAT, "Avatar"... it would smash that box-office record. :D

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 07:57 PM
Smell-O-Rama is a much better idea than those stupid rumble seats.

FAX
04-18-2010, 07:58 PM
Very disappointing, in my opinion.

A rental. Maybe.

FAX

JD10367
04-18-2010, 07:59 PM
Those IMAX filmed scenes in The Dark Knight kicked a**.

Although I'm biased, I'd have to agree. Although I've been pro-3D in this thread, if I could choose between "3D IMAX that only utilized the rectangular 'Scope' center of the screen" and "2D IMAX that actually uses the whole IMAX screen", I'd prefer they just make the Hollywood films in 2D and use the whole screen.

Even the scenes in "Transformers 2" looked awesome in full-screen IMAX (e.g. when Optimus Prime fought the two robots and "bought it", and when the giant bad robot was hacking away at the pyramid near the end).

"The Dark Knight" was sneaky, too. While they filmed whole scenes in IMAX (the opening bank robbery, the prison paddywagon and 18-wheeler chase through the city) they also snuck in quick shots of it whenever they showed Gotham City from above. It took me a couple of viewings to catch it, it was done so subtly. The "Tron Legacy" trailer does the same thing: in IMAX, it's in Scope, until they enter the computer world, at which point it jumps to almost full-frame.

Miles
04-18-2010, 08:04 PM
than those stupid rumble seats.

I have never gone to a theater that had those but they have been around in home theater versions for a while. From what I can remember about the HT version is that they were/are called buttkickers. The name is just as bad as the concept.

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 08:07 PM
They're just being introduced. I sat in one after I saw Clash and tested it out. Moronic and distracting.

Miles
04-18-2010, 08:14 PM
They're just being introduced. I sat in one after I saw Clash and tested it out. Moronic and distracting.

My ass feeling the bass notes is not something I need.

Deberg_1990
04-18-2010, 08:19 PM
They're just being introduced. I sat in one after I saw Clash and tested it out. Moronic and distracting.

Here in SA they charge $17 bucks a ticket for those...unreal.

I dont see the D-Box seats catching on honestly....


Im starting to wonder when the movie ticket price bubble is going to burst? Whats the price point that will make people say "its just not worth it anymore" ??

TEX
04-18-2010, 09:24 PM
Went with my girlfriend to this flick, we enjoyed it, any one else seen it or want to see it?

I did the same thing and liked it too. In fact, I saw the one with Harry Hamlin about 20 years ago (also with my GF at the time) and liked that one too. Out of the two, the new one was better IMO but noth were / are good.

Douche Baggins
04-18-2010, 09:28 PM
If you didn't enjoy these types of lame movies maybe you would have kept the same girlfriend.

Valiant
04-18-2010, 10:01 PM
Also saw a cool ass trailer of the A-team gotta see it because of it being my fav as a kid. It has lemm neison and rampage so might be good.

Are you being sarcastic??

Fire Me Boy!
04-19-2010, 06:01 AM
yep, he works at the theater as a projectionist
Posted via Mobile Device

Ah. I had no idea. :thumb:

Deberg_1990
04-19-2010, 06:09 AM
Ah. I had no idea. :thumb:

He specializes in IMAX.

Sweet Daddy Hate
04-19-2010, 03:00 PM
I'm glad it sucked.

Harry Hamlin and Claymation FTW!!!

chiefsfan93
04-19-2010, 05:35 PM
Are you being sarcastic??

No, I mean it I want to see it, not sure Ill see it in the theater tho.

JD10367
04-19-2010, 06:35 PM
My ass feeling the bass notes is not something I need.

Although it could give a whole new meaning to porn. :D

JD10367
04-19-2010, 06:37 PM
He specializes in IMAX.

Yeah, so unlike the projectionists on the 35 side, who can wander up to any of the 16 windows and watch a flick, I have to actually go across and sit in the theaters to watch them. The only film I get to see is what I'm running.... over, and over, and over, and over again...