Star Trek (new movie)
-
Seeing to tomorrow at the IMAX. Looking forward to that.
Simon
IMAX - impressive, so you like the big screen huh. I think it would be a little too imersive.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
I love Star Fleet's new dress code (mini skirts).
// Steve McLenithan
It's the old dress code.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
IMAX - impressive, so you like the big screen huh. I think it would be a little too imersive.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
so you like the big screen huh.
Actually, this is the first time I'll have been to an IMAX. I have a friend who says it's fantastic, so I'm going with him. (Secretly my opinion is that it's resolution not size that matters. you just sit further away from a big screen. I generally prefer to sit in the front third of a cinema. The ideal sweet spot is at an exact distance so the screen almost fills your vision, but requires no neck tilt to view - It's like those video glasses. The actual screen size is just a few centimetres, but placed very close to your eyes to give an impression of a 52" screen a few metres away)
Simon
-
I thought it was a cracking good film too :) love the fact that the new actors have done a really good job of maintaining the characters. Bones is especially excellent. Being a Trekkie/trekker/trek-fan/whatever did not stop me enjoying this film. there may be inconsistencies, but there are also enough nods to the existing canon of star trek to not lose the whole concept. Classic example, the gung ho parachute guy... you just know whats going to happen to him ;)
The one thing I cannot seem to get passed is the fact that they show the star ships being built on land. It was my understanding (still looking for the actual reference now) that they were built in space. Given the mass of them, knowing that the first ones were much smaller compared tot he later models, I still don't see how that could be the case. Also, figuring that the one in the Enterprise TV show, supposedly happening prior to this movie DID have it constructed in space, gives me a bit of the willies. But other than that, the movie rocked. They did a great job on the characters and provided some very cool back-story. I think they opened the door for some very cool sequels also.
-
The one thing I cannot seem to get passed is the fact that they show the star ships being built on land. It was my understanding (still looking for the actual reference now) that they were built in space. Given the mass of them, knowing that the first ones were much smaller compared tot he later models, I still don't see how that could be the case. Also, figuring that the one in the Enterprise TV show, supposedly happening prior to this movie DID have it constructed in space, gives me a bit of the willies. But other than that, the movie rocked. They did a great job on the characters and provided some very cool back-story. I think they opened the door for some very cool sequels also.
You're making the assumption of assuming the scriptwriters have a fraction of a clue. :doh: They've done this sillyness repeadedly in the TV series' despite having the inability to enter atmosphere as a plot point in others. :rolleyes: http://flare.solareclipse.net/cgi2/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002562;p=0[^]
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
-
The one thing I cannot seem to get passed is the fact that they show the star ships being built on land. It was my understanding (still looking for the actual reference now) that they were built in space. Given the mass of them, knowing that the first ones were much smaller compared tot he later models, I still don't see how that could be the case. Also, figuring that the one in the Enterprise TV show, supposedly happening prior to this movie DID have it constructed in space, gives me a bit of the willies. But other than that, the movie rocked. They did a great job on the characters and provided some very cool back-story. I think they opened the door for some very cool sequels also.
For this film, I think they have put it being built on the land just to make the scene look dramatic rather than thinking about the actual physics of it.
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
so you like the big screen huh.
Actually, this is the first time I'll have been to an IMAX. I have a friend who says it's fantastic, so I'm going with him. (Secretly my opinion is that it's resolution not size that matters. you just sit further away from a big screen. I generally prefer to sit in the front third of a cinema. The ideal sweet spot is at an exact distance so the screen almost fills your vision, but requires no neck tilt to view - It's like those video glasses. The actual screen size is just a few centimetres, but placed very close to your eyes to give an impression of a 52" screen a few metres away)
Simon
I've been to 2 IMAX movies, both 3D. It's :thumbsup: The screen is just so big, and the seating angles mean your view is unobstructed, and the sound is better than normal too. I wish the nearest one wasn't 3 hours away.
Cheetah. Ferret. Gonads. What more can I say? - Pete O'Hanlon
-
I've been to 2 IMAX movies, both 3D. It's :thumbsup: The screen is just so big, and the seating angles mean your view is unobstructed, and the sound is better than normal too. I wish the nearest one wasn't 3 hours away.
Cheetah. Ferret. Gonads. What more can I say? - Pete O'Hanlon
(I'm kinda just mumbling to myself here so feel free to ignore me) For the sake of argument (and easier calculations), lets say the viewing angle of your eyes is 90 degrees (45 degrees from the centre line in each direction). A standard cinema screen is around 15 metres wide. So to fill your view you would have to be seated 7.5m from the screen. A standard IMAX screen is 22m wide. So you have to be seated 11m away for the screen to fill your vision. So what is the difference. I go to an IMAX and I sit 11m from the screen, I go to a regular one and I set 7.5m from the screen. In both cases, the screen fills my vision. Surely it's exactly the same? I really don't see how size matters in this case.
Simon
-
(I'm kinda just mumbling to myself here so feel free to ignore me) For the sake of argument (and easier calculations), lets say the viewing angle of your eyes is 90 degrees (45 degrees from the centre line in each direction). A standard cinema screen is around 15 metres wide. So to fill your view you would have to be seated 7.5m from the screen. A standard IMAX screen is 22m wide. So you have to be seated 11m away for the screen to fill your vision. So what is the difference. I go to an IMAX and I sit 11m from the screen, I go to a regular one and I set 7.5m from the screen. In both cases, the screen fills my vision. Surely it's exactly the same? I really don't see how size matters in this case.
Simon
Don't IMAX films use higher resolution film? They really showcase the extra detail on a bigger screen. Also, most people aren't seated the optimum distance, most sit at the rear of the cinema.
Cheetah. Ferret. Gonads. What more can I say? - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Don't IMAX films use higher resolution film? They really showcase the extra detail on a bigger screen. Also, most people aren't seated the optimum distance, most sit at the rear of the cinema.
Cheetah. Ferret. Gonads. What more can I say? - Pete O'Hanlon
Richard Jones wrote:
Don't IMAX films use higher resolution film?
I could be wrong but as far as I am aware, there is a high res 'imax format' film, but it is expensive so generally only used for specialized imax only films - often documentaries or educational films. Regular entertainment films are rarely shot on the imax format. (Like I say I could be totally wrong about that)
Simon
-
It's the old dress code.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
