Thor

Dewgel

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
35
Best film in a loooooooooong time. Saw it in IMAX 3D, not much in 3D but it was amazing. I want to see it again.. action scenes are great
 

otispunkmeyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
4,829
Location
Loughborough UK
Car(s)
'03 Skoda Superb (farewell :(), '06 Honda Civic ES
Well I Just saw this movie

Its not bad... not brilliant either, but not bad.

Now this might of been the pretty ropey cinema I was in but 3D was wasted on this. Completely wasted. The only two movies I've seen where 3D worked were Avatar and Tron and the one thing they had in common? IMAX. After tonight I am convinced 3D only works well in IMAX. 3D in a normal cinema does work, dont get me wrong, but the effect is awful.

Tonight the cinema I was in had a pretty small screen, which is a no-no for a start. Having real-world 3D object in your field of vision ruins the virtual 3D going on in the little rectangle infront of you. Its more difficult to trick the eye when you have a proper reference point in plain view next to the screen. IMAX avoids this with wall to wall, floor to ceiling screens. Also, I got to sample Dolby's 3D Digital Cinema technology tonight. Usually its a cinema with RealD which uses the alternating circular polarisations at 144Hz (for a 24fps film, each eye sees 3 frames per 1/24th of a second). These cinemas have to have a special silver screen but the glasses are cheap throw away items. It works but there are often artefacts in motion and depth perception is weird because you dont know where to focus. Dolby's approach plays the same frame rate (144Hz) but uses an additional colour wheel... you get left eye images with a blue hue and right eye images with a yellow hue.... some spangly looking 3D glasses filter the two for each eye and you get a 3D image in your head. The glasses are more expensive but a cinema doesnt need to replace its screens.

Now I have to say Dolby's approach looks more natural and theres less artefacting but in bright scenes you get these blue/yellow fringing on things and it took me ages for my eyes to dial out the sensation of looking at 2 different coloured versions of the same image. It was like those crap 3D magazines with the offset green and red images. It handles motion better, but I think thanks to the small screen I couldnt decipher what the hell was going on in some of the action scenes.... where do I focus? it was all a blur.

To top it, the cinema had very dim lighting on at all times... and this was enough to cause reflections in the lenses from objects behind you (the lenses had like a mirror finish inside and out). Thankfully I fixed this by wearing my hood up in the cinema. I bet I looked like a thug hoodie ready to knife someone, but at least I got distraction free viewing. I also had weird sensation like the glasses were steaming up....but they werent. Odd.

So yeah, in short, unless your going to the IMAX to see this.... leave 3D alone. Go see it in 2D on a big screen.

Im pretty sure they just shot this in 2D, ran it through a computer to add 3D and then stuck an extra ?3 on your ticket for the privilege.
 
Last edited:

Ramseus

Have you been high today?
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
5,605
Location
Derpronto
Im pretty sure they just shot this in 2D, ran it through a computer to add 3D and then stuck an extra ?3 on your ticket for the privilege.

I don't know about that, but the trailer I saw for the next Pirates of the Caribbean definitely looked like faked 3d, and if it wasn't fake then they had had their lenses three or four times further apart than they should have. People had no depth, they just looked like cutouts, and there was "lol look at how far this sticks out of the screen hurr durr" crap.

I disagree about your general sentiment on 3d though, but my preferred theatre only plays 3D on their largest screens, which are pretty big. I just don't like how the glasses darken the picture and the 3D projector isn't bright enough to make up for it. Sure, 3D doesn't add anything significant, but I don't think it detracts either. If I actually have a choice I'm not sure between 2D and 3D for this though.
 

mautzel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
2,608
Location
Frankfurt/M, Deutschland
Car(s)
Octavia Combi Mk II
Saw it yesterday in 3D and don't consider it to be something special. Animations are fine but nothing you've seen before, in fact there were only few occasions in which the film gained from 3D effects. Story and dialogues are what you expect from an action movie, so it's a nice entertainment for an evening but nothing more.
 

rowd22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
654
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Car(s)
'83 Alfasud, '77 GTV
I took my 3d glasses off halfway through the movie. It made almost no difference to any of the scenes. Half the shots were in 2D anyway

I liked Portman in it :)
 

Dewgel

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
35
Yeah, I know what people mean by the lack of requirement for 3D. I actually saw it in IMAX 3D, and it was no better. The glare on the lenses was horrible. I got used to it eventually but it was annoying.

This fascination with 3D is too much now.. It was okay when Toy Story and that done it, as it was actually in 3D.. but half the stuff nowadays doesn't need it.

Did anyone catch the trailer for Kung Fu Panda 2? The 3D in that looked epic.

Also, I found the IMAX chap very rude when he came in to introduce us to our cinema. His greeting was something along the lines of "Welcome to Imax, please be aware of that the glasses you hold are property of Odeon and they must be returned in suitable condition at the end of the film, and as such we must warn you they are of poor quality, particularly the lenses as they break easily so please be careful"

I felt like shouting back asking if they were so cheap and flimsy, why do we pay ?3+ for the privelage of using them, and then to top it off we return them.

My glasses were smudgy as hell, along with the previous girls makeup on the nose bit. Pretty nice.. my friend had some mascara on his lens, but we're convinced that was his.

All in all, brilliant film. Ruined by 3D


EDIT: By the way, I saw Inception in IMAX 2D. Amazing. They need to show more 2D Imax showings. It's so clear and easy to watch. The 3D is too dimming.
 
Last edited:

rowd22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
654
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Car(s)
'83 Alfasud, '77 GTV
Whoa! you have to return your glasses? Ours come in sealed plastic things, then thrown out after the movie.

Adds an extra $1 on the ticket price for a pair
 

otispunkmeyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
4,829
Location
Loughborough UK
Car(s)
'03 Skoda Superb (farewell :(), '06 Honda Civic ES
I don't know about that, but the trailer I saw for the next Pirates of the Caribbean definitely looked like faked 3d, and if it wasn't fake then they had had their lenses three or four times further apart than they should have. People had no depth, they just looked like cutouts, and there was "lol look at how far this sticks out of the screen hurr durr" crap.

I disagree about your general sentiment on 3d though, but my preferred theatre only plays 3D on their largest screens, which are pretty big. I just don't like how the glasses darken the picture and the 3D projector isn't bright enough to make up for it. Sure, 3D doesn't add anything significant, but I don't think it detracts either. If I actually have a choice I'm not sure between 2D and 3D for this though.

Granted the cinema I was in was particularly poor in all regards. I mean you can hear people eating pop corn all the way from the front of the theater as clearly as if they were sat next you munching in your ear. I dont think they have surround sound either and all their screens are far too small for the size of the room. Admittedly it isn't the best place to appraise 3D tech. At least at the nearest proper cinema in Leicester they have good projectors... the 3D geggs still darken the image somewhat but its well compensated by the projector lamp. 3D doesnt detract if done well, but often its not and it has trouble with fast motion at times. Like I say I do actually prefer Dolby's approach to this because the image just looks more natural to me... it was just ruined by the crummy cinema, which wasnt dark enough to avoid reflections in the mirrored lenses and had too small a screen.

So Dolby > RealD but IMAX tops them all and Im still not completely sold on 3D for every film. Some films just dont need it.
 

otispunkmeyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
4,829
Location
Loughborough UK
Car(s)
'03 Skoda Superb (farewell :(), '06 Honda Civic ES
Whoa! you have to return your glasses? Ours come in sealed plastic things, then thrown out after the movie.

Adds an extra $1 on the ticket price for a pair

Yeah thats RealD

Here they used to do exactly that, then I think they started asking you to pop them in the designated bins on the way out to stop littering and mess (which is fair enough) and do some recycling (again fair enough, no point in waste for wastes sake). RealD use circular polarising lenses made of plastic. These are dirt cheap to make hence why it doesnt cost much to add them on to a ticket and hence why you can keep them or bin them after. The cost of their 3D system is wrapped up in the projectors and the new silver screen required for polarised projections.

Dolby use the 2 colour approach and their tech (in basic terms) adds a second color wheel to the projector set up. This means they can show stereoscopic images with slightly different colour tinges for each eye. You dont need a new cinema screen either but then the glasses are more expensive as a result because they seem to have some expensive coatings on them to try filter the images nicely.
 

Dewgel

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
35
Yeah thats RealD

Here they used to do exactly that, then I think they started asking you to pop them in the designated bins on the way out to stop littering and mess (which is fair enough) and do some recycling (again fair enough, no point in waste for wastes sake). RealD use circular polarising lenses made of plastic. These are dirt cheap to make hence why it doesnt cost much to add them on to a ticket and hence why you can keep them or bin them after. The cost of their 3D system is wrapped up in the projectors and the new silver screen required for polarised projections.

Dolby use the 2 colour approach and their tech (in basic terms) adds a second color wheel to the projector set up. This means they can show stereoscopic images with slightly different colour tinges for each eye. You dont need a new cinema screen either but then the glasses are more expensive as a result because they seem to have some expensive coatings on them to try filter the images nicely.

My cinema is the Dolby one I believe, it's the Digital IMAX one in the Metro Centre in the North East England, the only one besides the 2 in London.

The glasses are reused, not binned. They're awful, the glare is absolutely insane. I paid ?12.60 for my ticket for Thor 3D Digital IMAX.
 

otispunkmeyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
4,829
Location
Loughborough UK
Car(s)
'03 Skoda Superb (farewell :(), '06 Honda Civic ES
Theres a wicked IMAX in Birmingham, I think at or near the University. Its not actually got that many seats but the screen is bloody gigantic and actually ends well below the front row of seats so even if you sit at the front you almost have to look down to see the bottom.

Ahh yes the Metro Center... thats my neck of the woods!!! Though I dont live in the north east anymore :( Yeah the glare on the dolby specs was insane... it has to be pitch black in the cinema or you'll be seeing what the guy behind is doing out of the corner of your eye for the whole movie. This is why I wore my hood up inside the cinema....
 

Dewgel

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
35
Btw, you Marvel nuts out there. Did anyone catch the 30 second preview of "The Avengers" at the end ? I won't post any spoilers unless anyone else announces they saw it, but it's damn good. I'm excited for the avengers.
 

Ramseus

Have you been high today?
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
5,605
Location
Derpronto
Of course there has to be a post credits scene, Marvel's been doing that for the past few movies. But Avengers isn't until next year :( But Captain America is later this year :) Just the fact that Joss Whedon is directing The Avengers has had me excited about it since it was announced that he was directing it.
 

jedd_kenobi

Forum Addict
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
6,498
Location
Gallifrey
Car(s)
A Blue Police Box
i'm a fan of marvel but dont think i'll waste my time with this one

Really?

This is one of Marvel's finest!

Agreed, i've just finished watching it and enjoyed it a lot. I went into the film really unsure about it since i hadn't read the comic books it was based on (Iron Man, Incredible Hulk and Captain America i've read but Thor never really grabbed me) and i ended up really enjoying it. I would definately recommend it and the post credits scene obviously hints at what to expect in the future. Although if it is a plot line regarding the Avengers film or a Thor sequel, i'm still definately signed up to it.

Really looking forward to seeing Captain America later this year and almost definately getting really geared up for The Avengers film next year.
 

JohnnyRacer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
3,527
Location
37.19/-93.28
i'm a fan of marvel but dont think i'll waste my time with this one

Then you're missing out.

Saw it at the midnight showing. It's definitely one of the better movies. It doesn't have much cheese and some good acting. The visuals are amazing. The story is also pretty good. It also has some great comedy. I really don't want to say much more and give it all away. And, as usual, stay after the credits.
 
Last edited:

RaptorJesus

Resident Callboy
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
3,357
Location
Chicago, Illinois, USA
I hate that Kat Dennings, she just ruins movies for me. Natalie Portman though is one of my favorites, so that might skew the movie back into the see category.
 

Ilpav

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
6,653
Location
GTA, Ontario, Canada
Car(s)
'04 Toyota Corolla LE
I hate that Kat Dennings, she just ruins movies for me. Natalie Portman though is one of my favorites, so that might skew the movie back into the see category.

But she is teh hawt...:wub:
 
Top