0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 23816 times.
The picture tho was crystal clear, as close to HD on the big screen than I've ever seen before.
Quote from: satfrat on 22 Jul 2008, 01:07 am The picture tho was crystal clear, as close to HD on the big screen than I've ever seen before. Aren't theaters like 4080p or something like that?
Quote from: ajzepp on 25 Jul 2008, 12:06 amQuote from: satfrat on 22 Jul 2008, 01:07 am The picture tho was crystal clear, as close to HD on the big screen than I've ever seen before. Aren't theaters like 4080p or something like that? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX , "IMAX (short for Image Maximum) is a film format created by Canada's IMAX Corporation that has the capacity to display images of far greater size and resolution than conventional film display systems available at the time."This was readily apparent to me. Cheers,Robin
Saw this today in IMAX ...I think the buzz is way over-hyped, its a good action movie but no where near "epic"... the Batman series seem to be in a parallel trajectory similar to the the Matrix trilogy...first one being outstanding, second much more action but less depth/less satisfaction...does not bode well for the third. I would give it 3.5/5 stars, and maybe even 4 for the anarchic questions the Joker posed...but I fail to see the "Darkness" in the Batman's character, they made him too politically correct IMO. In fact quite a few of the human events got a p/c spin (read spaded). But hey, its a 'modern' interpretation of old comics. Now...the preview of "the Watchmen" looks interesting. aa
Quote from: satfrat on 25 Jul 2008, 03:06 amQuote from: ajzepp on 25 Jul 2008, 12:06 amQuote from: satfrat on 22 Jul 2008, 01:07 am The picture tho was crystal clear, as close to HD on the big screen than I've ever seen before. Aren't theaters like 4080p or something like that? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX , "IMAX (short for Image Maximum) is a film format created by Canada's IMAX Corporation that has the capacity to display images of far greater size and resolution than conventional film display systems available at the time."This was readily apparent to me. Cheers,RobinRight, but what I mean is that most of the better non-IMAX theaters are displaying images that surpass 1080p...so unless you're going to a dollar theater, or a theater whose equipment is just not up to par, the images you see on the screen when you go to the movies should be better than what you're seeing on your 1080p home rig.
Perhaps the hospital was slated for demolition in real life. The fire out the windows though, not a professional job. All of the real demo jobs I have seen there is little explosion to be seen because everything is super strategic with no intent of cindering the rooms everywhere.Oh well. Perhaps the Joker knew a demo guy with some interesting personality or a family at knife point.Yeah RPGs are misleading a lot of the time I think in movies. They are dangerous, but they are nothing like say a Stinger missile. They were made for shooting at tanks and stuff, but you had to hit them in the right spots, now almost completely useless except for some new advance (unavailable on black market most likely) ones that still require some intelligent aiming. The general black market ones have no penetrating ability, but the newer ones can do light armor, however the goal of them is not so much utter destruction, but just a narrow penetration focus. Neither of which instance or really useful for blowing something up unless it is inside of it to begin with. However perfect for messing up a Batmobile's instrumentation, which is about all RPGs can do to modern tanks.
Quote from: ajzepp on 25 Jul 2008, 06:27 amQuote from: satfrat on 25 Jul 2008, 03:06 amQuote from: ajzepp on 25 Jul 2008, 12:06 amQuote from: satfrat on 22 Jul 2008, 01:07 am The picture tho was crystal clear, as close to HD on the big screen than I've ever seen before. Aren't theaters like 4080p or something like that? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX , "IMAX (short for Image Maximum) is a film format created by Canada's IMAX Corporation that has the capacity to display images of far greater size and resolution than conventional film display systems available at the time."This was readily apparent to me. Cheers,RobinRight, but what I mean is that most of the better non-IMAX theaters are displaying images that surpass 1080p...so unless you're going to a dollar theater, or a theater whose equipment is just not up to par, the images you see on the screen when you go to the movies should be better than what you're seeing on your 1080p home rig. You're probably right,, i guess I worded it wrong when I compared IMAX to HD in quality. I was more or less comparing IMAX to regular cinema as I would HD to standard digital in picture clarity. aaCheers,Robin
The second film (and third film, for that matter) in the Matrix trilogy were absolute travesties. They absolutely ruined the magic that was the first film, and in turn made the original film completely irrelevant and meaningless. In short, it sucked. How you can compare that to this film is beyond me...As for the "Darkness" aspect, it was pretty clear that the way the film ended was grounds for at least one interpretation of the the term.
Quote from: mjosef on 25 Jul 2008, 04:34 amSaw this today in IMAX ...I think the buzz is way over-hyped, its a good action movie but no where near "epic"... the Batman series seem to be in a parallel trajectory similar to the the Matrix trilogy...first one being outstanding, second much more action but less depth/less satisfaction...does not bode well for the third. I would give it 3.5/5 stars, and maybe even 4 for the anarchic questions the Joker posed...but I fail to see the "Darkness" in the Batman's character, they made him too politically correct IMO. In fact quite a few of the human events got a p/c spin (read spaded). But hey, its a 'modern' interpretation of old comics. Now...the preview of "the Watchmen" looks interesting. aaIMHO, the "Dark" part of the Batman character is supposed to be balanced with the "Knight" part. Batman is clearly a crime-fighter, so there needs to be righteousness in his actions. The "dark" part comes from the fact that he is a vigilante. One of the key story elements in Batman Begins was Bruce Wayne's overcoming the need for revenge, when he acknowledges Rachel's "Define me not by what I say, but what I do"...so in this film, it's consistent with Batman's character development that there is a line he does not want to cross. That has been THE key differentiator between Batman and The Joker, and I thought this film showed that pretty well.I do agree that some of the human events got a p/c spin (especially the ferry boat thing)....
My take was that Batman started the flick as a Knight with whom Gotham had embraced to the point of actually imitating him. But yet at the end, he ended up a vigilante by his own choice (hense the Dark) with even the commissioner turning his back on Batman by destroying the skylight batsignal.
