Quote:
Originally Posted by
sdurani 
In the Star Trek movie thread you claimed that you experienced distorted close-ups in that movie and were convinced that they had been deliberately shot that way. I had never seen those distorted close-ups the several times I saw Star Trek on the big screen, nor did anyone I know. When it came out on BD, I asked you to point out examples of those distorted shots but you couldn't.
Sorry, I remember the beginning of that conversation from the time of the theatrical release, but I don't recall the later follow-up where you asked me to point out examples on the Blu-ray. The movie
does have close-ups on the Enterprise bridge that appear slightly stretched, and they
are visible on the Blu-ray. I don't have time codes, and I'm not in a position to check at the moment (nor will I have any time in the near future to watch the whole movie again to hunt for a few isolated examples), but I noted this in my disc review that I wrote at the time. If you didn't see it, then I guess your tolerance for the geometric distortion was greater than mine.
I did not call this a flaw. I merely pointed it out as one of Abrams' stylistic affectations, like his excessive use of lens flares. (You see
those, right??)
Quote:
Likewise, the few times I saw Prometheus on the big screen there wasn't any lessening of 3D in the second half of the film. Having already read your "I hated hated hated f***ing HATED ‘Prometheus’" review before my last viewing, I deliberately took off the 3D glassed at various moments late in the film to check if your claim had any validity. The 3D remained consistent throughout the film. There were more outdoor shots earlier in the film, which might have highlighted the 3D effect during the first half for some viewers. But that subjective impression is not that same as you objectively stating in your review that the film "stops being 3D in the second half".
Not liking the film is one thing, claiming things that don't exist is something else. To paraphrase a certain senator: you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
In my experience, the quality of 3D presentation can vary greatly from theater to theater. This was the only 3D movie I'd seen in that particular theater. Perhaps it was just a bad screening, or perhaps it's an IMAX issue (the linear polarized glasses caused
terrible crosstalk unless I held my head perfectly level at all times), but what I experienced was that the movie's 3D was pretty effective in the first half, and then it stopped dead being 3D at all in the second half.
I also find that 3D is generally better at home than in any theater, so maybe the Blu-ray will give better results. I cannot cast judgment on a Blu-ray that hasn't even been released yet. If the movie weren't so f*ing horrible, I might be inclined to check it out again. Sadly, it
is f*ing horrible.
