The Sword and Laser discussion

191 views
Podcasts > Wound up for The Windup Girl - The S&L Podcast #029

Comments Showing 1-16 of 16 (16 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Veronica, Supreme Sword (last edited Mar 11, 2010 11:46AM) (new)


message 2: by Tamahome (new)

Tamahome | 6349 comments Felicia Day on Goodreads ftw (for the shelf titles alone): http://goodreads.com/feliciaday


message 3: by Ragnar (new)

Ragnar Finnvik | 3 comments Greenlit ? GREENLIT ?

I like greenlighted :)

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/d...


message 4: by terpkristin (new)

terpkristin | 4183 comments Gah, I do NOT understand the nerd obsession with Felicia Day. I enjoyed an episode or 2 of the The Guild, but it got old. Didn't care in the least for Dr. Horrible or whatever it was with Doogie Howser. Maybe I'd feel differently if I met her, but there is way too much geek lust for her.

Still, a good episode, even though I'm not reading the new book. I’m totally with Veronica, I too get headaches with 3-D. It kind of drives me crazy that 3-D is the new "it" thing for movies, but on an up note, by seeing in 2-D, I save money. ;)


message 5: by Jlawrence, S&L Moderator (new)

Jlawrence | 960 comments Mod
I'm excited to see what Red is like, myself. :)

On 3-D-ness, it used to be that 3-D film had no effect on me, but I tried out Avatar 3-D (not Imax) and it worked! This might have to do with the technology improving since the last time I tried, which was Jaws 3D. ;) I still wonder if I'm getting the full 3-D sensation others might be, as I have a right-eye dominant condition, but it *was* 3-D-y, floating ash and jelly fish creatures and all. It was tiring on my eyes (I would *not* like to try the IMAX 3D version), but I didn't get a headache or anything.

This means I can attempt Tron Legacy in 3D, which lights up my little geek heart. But I do have reservations about all big films rushing to do 3D as well.


message 6: by aldenoneil (new)

aldenoneil | 1000 comments Jlawrence wrote: "I'm excited to see what Red is like, myself. :)

On 3-D-ness, it used to be that 3-D film had no effect on me, but I tried out Avatar 3-D (not Imax) and it worked! This might have to do with the t..."


I have heard tell that seeing films in Real or Dolby 3D does make a difference (at least vs. the less-than-ideal IMAX 3D). I can't say myself, however, as I'm impervious.


message 7: by Jlawrence, S&L Moderator (new)

Jlawrence | 960 comments Mod
aldenoneil wrote: "I have heard tell that seeing films in Real or Dolby 3D does make a difference (at least vs. the less-than-ideal IMAX 3D). I can't say myself, however, as I'm impervious.


I've heard that too (and I feel like IMAX 3D would be obnoxiously overwhelming even if I could see it properly).

Does 3D just have no effect on you, or does it actually cause headaches, etc.?


message 8: by aldenoneil (new)

aldenoneil | 1000 comments Jlawrence wrote: "aldenoneil wrote: "I have heard tell that seeing films in Real or Dolby 3D does make a difference (at least vs. the less-than-ideal IMAX 3D). I can't say myself, however, as I'm impervious.


I've ..."


No, sorry. I just meant I don't get sick.


message 9: by Tamahome (new)

Tamahome | 6349 comments I think Dolby has full resolution and Real divides half for each eye?


message 10: by Rick (new)

Rick Pasley (hikr3) | 71 comments I worry about the 3-D movie making going on right now. For the most part, very few movies need it. It rarely adds much to the story telling. And I can do without things being poked at my eyes every five minutes to remind me I am watching in magic 3-D! But at least I don't get the headaches or other physical effects it seems to give others.


message 11: by Micah (new)

Micah (onemorebaker) | 1071 comments I think the 3-D movement is a big gimick. It is just something to get the crowds to rush to the theater. It jars me out of the story and actually ruins the entire movie for me. While Avatar was beautiful and amazing you could see where they spent their money. %90 on effects and making white things fly out at you %9 marketing %1 on the script. the 3-D rush just doesn't do it for me.


message 12: by Paul (last edited Apr 09, 2010 01:43AM) (new)

Paul Kelly (ptekelly) | 206 comments Micah wrote: "I think the 3-D movement is a big gimick. It is just something to get the crowds to rush to the theater. It jars me out of the story and actually ruins the entire movie for me. While Avatar was bea..."

I cannot agree here at all. Avatar was 10 years in the making so don't just write it off a simply all special affects. Lots of the effects were subtle (not all to my liking - the 'white things' in particular because they were out of focus as they would be when viewing the main action but if you happened to glance at them they stayed out of focus which was not right)

3D in itself in its current form is a stepping stone into immersive (is this a word?) entertainment. Worlds where we will choose to be passive voyeurs or active participants. This will be the point where games and film entertainment merge into a single genre (genre is not the word I want here) but where you choose to follow the story as presented or join in and become part of that story.

The 3d we have now where the 2d is converted is simplistic and flawed. 3d where you have to wear glasses is doomed because people don't seem to want them (although they dont bother me)

When we have films where you move your head and your perspective changes, where you look at near objects and they are in focus and the further away are out of focus, when we can move in and out of the frames - then we will have true 3d entertainment.

I wonder what will come along then - 4d doesn't seem likely but I am sure that if we told people 80 years ago that the black and while 2d screen would be in full colour, 3d and on screens 100feet wide they would not think it likely either.


message 13: by Micah (new)

Micah (onemorebaker) | 1071 comments Paul wrote: I am sure that if we told people 80 years ago that the black and while 2d screen would be in full colour, 3d and on screens 100feet wide they would not think it likely either."

For Sure. And I would love to check out an "immersive" movie experience. But Avatar (even though it was 10 yrs in the making) just seemed like a big gimmick to me. The effects were AWSOME!!! But the story line was so cut and paste that it just killed the movie for me. And I have liked some pretty crap movies in the past.

I guess I would rather have sub-par graphics with a good story line, rather than the other way around. I can forgive a hokey alien costume (looking at you Babylon 5) if the story line draws me in and makes me care about the character. In Avatar the characters were (for the most part) so 1 dimensional that I almost laughed.


message 14: by Paul (new)

Paul Kelly (ptekelly) | 206 comments Perhaps I am too shallow to dislike Avatar :)

that said I didn't like it so much that I will go and see the re-release with the whole extra 6 minutes!


message 15: by Micah (new)

Micah (onemorebaker) | 1071 comments Paul wrote: "Perhaps I am too shallow to dislike Avatar :)"

Oh no its not that at all. I liked the movie for the effects and everything. But for me it was a movie that you only see once. I felt like I knew exactly what was going to happen 10 min in the future while i was watching it. And then it usually did.

The one thing it really did was finally make me "NEED" and HDTV. I really see what I'm missing now with my standard def....


message 16: by Paul (new)

Paul Kelly (ptekelly) | 206 comments Micah wrote: "The one thing it really did was finally make me "NEED" and HDTV. I really see what I'm missing now with my standard def.... "

I completely agree with that - I've been SD always and didn't think i needed HD but wow


back to top