See it on a better screen. I saw it twice, and some of the CGI looked OK at best in one theater and blew me away in the other. I can't wait to see it in a digital theater.
Also, would you have prefered Yoda to just bash Dooku in the knees like a little, green Sopranos character?
Personally, I think you get what you pay for. I've enjoyed VERY few movies in a discount theater.
REASON: Movies are a visual medium. The print you see 6 months later for $2.50 looks like someone's been using it for toilet paper, and the sound ends up comparable to the theme music from the original Super Mario Bros. I saw FotR last month, and I came out of the theater incredibly disappointed. It didn't even look and sound like the same movie. The colors were washed out. The sets, which looked perfect when I first saw the movie in December, looked awful because little defects and inconsistencies were highlighted by the degradation of the print, and there were more pops, spots, and jitters than you could shake a stick at. I need to get the DVD ASAP so I can purge myself of that experience. I'd rather spend $4 an hour and enjoy myself than drop $1.25 an hour to be p***ed off at blurry, jittery images and popping, hissing, monaural sound.
What storyline? How can you even justify using the term "storyline" in relation to Doom and Resident Evil? That aside, both of those games were revolutionary from a technical perspective and kicked up the level of purely visceral immersion in games, but that does not make them works of art. They were tremendous feats of technical skill, but not artistic works. There's a big difference.
Furthermore, Jason X is NOT an artistic work. It's a hollywood formula married to a long-running and dreadfully fallen series. And, as much as I appreciate it personally, Evil Dead is not art, either. It's a masterpiece of kitsch with some ironic parody, but not sufficient to raise it to the level of being art.
The fact that those four things could be seriously labeled as "art" makes me question the validity of modern culture. As a species, maybe we should put all our sharp sticks down before we hurt ourselves.
Odd. Usually, when someone "makes a movie for the fans" he's derided for selling out and people attack him for losing artistic integrity.
However, when George Lucas decides NOT to make movie for the fans and instead make HIS OWN decisions (even if some of those are misguided) he's ripped apart.
Maybe it's just me, but something about that doesn't add up...
How do you define "advanced"? Were the Sumerians advanced? The Egyptians? Is metalurgy an absolute requirement? That's like saying the concept of war is a necessary prerequisite to being advanced.
If these cities are the real thing, they're exactly where we'd expect them, parts of the world that were coastal, BEFORE the last batch of glacial recessions. People generally put their cities where the trade is. Pre-industrial trade works a LOT better when you have a convenient body of water.
As for radioactive dumping grounds, a little bit more radiation in a post-apocalyptic landscape is like another bucket of water in the ocean. Big deal. Rather than waste time and money on developing sufficiently scary hieroglyphics, I'd spend that time and money making people scared of the consequences of their actions in the here and now. Then maybe the question of a post-apocalyptic world could be rendered academic.
I have to agree. Metallurgy was one of several technologies that primarily developed for the purposes of war. (Secondary uses in agriculture and what not were happy accidents) If there was only one significant civilization (or a small number spread out geographically) there would be little incentive to worry about metals.
Slashdot Mirror
See it on a better screen. I saw it twice, and some of the CGI looked OK at best in one theater and blew me away in the other. I can't wait to see it in a digital theater. Also, would you have prefered Yoda to just bash Dooku in the knees like a little, green Sopranos character?
Personally, I think you get what you pay for. I've enjoyed VERY few movies in a discount theater. REASON: Movies are a visual medium. The print you see 6 months later for $2.50 looks like someone's been using it for toilet paper, and the sound ends up comparable to the theme music from the original Super Mario Bros. I saw FotR last month, and I came out of the theater incredibly disappointed. It didn't even look and sound like the same movie. The colors were washed out. The sets, which looked perfect when I first saw the movie in December, looked awful because little defects and inconsistencies were highlighted by the degradation of the print, and there were more pops, spots, and jitters than you could shake a stick at. I need to get the DVD ASAP so I can purge myself of that experience. I'd rather spend $4 an hour and enjoy myself than drop $1.25 an hour to be p***ed off at blurry, jittery images and popping, hissing, monaural sound.
What storyline? How can you even justify using the term "storyline" in relation to Doom and Resident Evil? That aside, both of those games were revolutionary from a technical perspective and kicked up the level of purely visceral immersion in games, but that does not make them works of art. They were tremendous feats of technical skill, but not artistic works. There's a big difference.
Furthermore, Jason X is NOT an artistic work. It's a hollywood formula married to a long-running and dreadfully fallen series. And, as much as I appreciate it personally, Evil Dead is not art, either. It's a masterpiece of kitsch with some ironic parody, but not sufficient to raise it to the level of being art.
The fact that those four things could be seriously labeled as "art" makes me question the validity of modern culture. As a species, maybe we should put all our sharp sticks down before we hurt ourselves.
Odd. Usually, when someone "makes a movie for the fans" he's derided for selling out and people attack him for losing artistic integrity.
However, when George Lucas decides NOT to make movie for the fans and instead make HIS OWN decisions (even if some of those are misguided) he's ripped apart.
Maybe it's just me, but something about that doesn't add up...
How do you define "advanced"? Were the Sumerians advanced? The Egyptians? Is metalurgy an absolute requirement? That's like saying the concept of war is a necessary prerequisite to being advanced.
If these cities are the real thing, they're exactly where we'd expect them, parts of the world that were coastal, BEFORE the last batch of glacial recessions. People generally put their cities where the trade is. Pre-industrial trade works a LOT better when you have a convenient body of water.
As for radioactive dumping grounds, a little bit more radiation in a post-apocalyptic landscape is like another bucket of water in the ocean. Big deal. Rather than waste time and money on developing sufficiently scary hieroglyphics, I'd spend that time and money making people scared of the consequences of their actions in the here and now. Then maybe the question of a post-apocalyptic world could be rendered academic.
I have to agree. Metallurgy was one of several technologies that primarily developed for the purposes of war. (Secondary uses in agriculture and what not were happy accidents) If there was only one significant civilization (or a small number spread out geographically) there would be little incentive to worry about metals.