Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:04 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Chaotic Fiction » Flynn Lives
[FILM] Reviews (spoilers)
Moderators: enaxor, Euchre, spaceboy, thebruce
View previous topicView next topic
Page 2 of 15 [219 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
Planeseeker
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
thebruce wrote:
I wareally hoping expecting to hear some cheers when Alan said he got the page Razz Alas, the room was silent and I cheered to myself Razz

...But like I said, because of how they incorporated 3D into the film, it's not enough to say really that TL is a great example of 3D tech, and the movie could be just as good with the same visual/epic effect without the 3D... IMO Smile


When Alan said he got the page one of the crowd said "That was us!" and a number of us laughed. Also, I agree about it not really needing the 3d to be a hit. It was visually incredible, and while the 3d made some of the scenes nice, it wouldn't have detracted from it had they been 2d.

One thing I'm interested in
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
The part with Dillinger's kid. He didn't seem to upset about Sam leaking the OS to the web. Made me think that he is doing something suitably ebil! Twisted Evil My heart kinda jumped a bit thinking that the MCP could make an appearance in the future.

Oh, and anyone want to speculate about that chip around Sam's neck? Wink


Great film, one of my all time favorites now. I'll be seeing this a couple more times on the IMAX screen. Then a couple hundred after the Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack with the original Tron comes out. Surprised

What? A program can dream, can't he? Laughing

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:45 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
EuchreModerator
uF Game Warden


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3342

 		When I saw the Tron Night footage, it was IMAX (the lesser kind I believe) and the 3D seemed to 'pop' a little more than it did in RealD 3D. I was a bit surprised to see how much real world had 3D, since my impression was that they were going for the Wizard of Oz concept - everything in the digital world would be 3D. Although everything in the digital world is 3D, having any of the real world be 3D kind of messes that transition up.

One good thing about RealD 3D is that if it starts to bother you a bit, you can watch it for a little bit with no glasses. It will look a bit fuzzy, but its not like other forms of 3D where its totally unwatchable and you might as well be looking away.

I know that Tron Legacy was filmed direct to 3D, but I'm sure a couple of the 3D effects had to be rendered in later. As I noted before, they were for subtlety of texture and reality, not 'in your face'.
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Like the reflections as Sam enters Disc Wars.

_________________
Any sufficiently plausible fiction is indistinguishable from reality.
Any sufficiently twisted reality is indistinguishable from fiction.
Welcome to the new world of entertainment.
ŠEuchre 2007

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:50 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
thebruceModerator
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

 		Ok, more long ranting and rambling about 3D... tl;dr at the end Razz

Euchre wrote:
When I saw the Tron Night footage, it was IMAX (the lesser kind I believe) and the 3D seemed to 'pop' a little more than it did in RealD 3D.

Like I said, I've seen real and fake (post-production) 3D with the 'RealD 3D' label. As far as I'm concerned, the "RealD 3D" label means nothing to me insofar as the 3D production process. I've seen good and bad 3D films with that label. And IMAX is just the projection equipment/screen (tho a film can be optimized/filmed/produced for that environment). You can have 2D or 3D on IMAX, and you can have RealD 3D, digital 2D, or IMAX film presented on both IMAX and regular screens.

For 3D projection methods, there are two that I know of - active shutter and polarized. Active shutter 3D is awful by comparison to polarized. I feel sorry for people who only have theaters with active-shutter 3D. It's more headache inducing than fake-3D, IMO Razz

As for Tron, the real world had one or two 3D scenes as I recall, and the rest were 2D. The digital world perhaps was entirely 3D, but most of it seemed so flat you'd completely forget it was 3D until they wanted you to see 3D, then it was clear as day.

Quote:
One good thing about RealD 3D is that if it starts to bother you a bit, you can watch it for a little bit with no glasses. It will look a bit fuzzy, but its not like other forms of 3D where its totally unwatchable and you might as well be looking away.

Nope, that simply all depends on how much 3D is in a particular scene. If it's relatively flat, regardless of the projection method (shutter or polarized) you can take off glasses and only get a little bit of 'fuzziness'. But if the scene itself has a lot of depth, it doesn't matter what equipment or 3D production method was used, you'll get a sort of double vision if you take off your glasses. RealD 3D has nothing to do with that.

Quote:
I know that Tron Legacy was filmed direct to 3D, but I'm sure a couple of the 3D effects had to be rendered in later. As I noted before, they were for subtlety of texture and reality, not 'in your face'.

3D rendering can be made 'real' 3D and added (blended) at any time - it's only physical filming that really suffers in the jump from 2D to 3D. You can't simply re-shoot 2D films to 3D without hefty logistical issues. Rendering you can simply re-do the CG and render with two slightly altered perspectives, then do the CG magic to combine it with the film, even if the film is 2D, and the rendered will still feel more natural than cut-and-paste fake 3D.

You could think of it simplistically like this...
In 'fake' 3D, you have a pre-filmed 2D, flat scene:
Code:
____________


To make it 3D, you find the regions you want to 'pop', cut them out, and digitally re-create the depth:
Code:

   ___
___   ___

The gap between the layers is effectively 'filled in' with CG so that two perspectives can be created (left and right eye) to give the impression of depth.

If you film in 3D, the transition is smooth, flowing, natural, because nothing is generated in post production. It's more like:
Code:

    ___
___/   \___

Depth is far more natural and less jarring.

The best example I experienced of this effect is seeing a head with a long frizzy hair in post-3D. If filmed in 3D, hairs individually have depth and flow in front of and behind each other naturally, and the eyes see this. But if it's filmed in 2D first, making that same effect takes far too much work, and usually it means you'll see a 'cut out' type effect where two, maybe 3 layers of frizzy hair will be visible with a clear separation, and a flat face (since you know, making the smooth curves of facial feature depth in post-3D is next impossible by hand).

To me, this is becoming the deciding point on whether I see a movie in 3D or not. If I haven't looked up the 3D production process used in a movie, then if the trailer to me looks to be post-production 3D, I shake my fist at the creative director!
Again I pose Avatar as a wonderful example of proper 3D, well done. Filmed completely with 3D cameras, and CG rendered in the same 3D environment.


tl;dr:

Post-production/fake/cut-out 3D sucks.
Active-shutter 3D sucks.
And RealD-3D has both real and fake 3D under its wings.
And IMAX is just a projection method (though film can be optimized for IMAX projection, whether 2D or 3D, analog or digital).
Avatar is, for me, so far still the best example of a physical+CG 'real' 3D film that is also optimal for an IMAX experience.
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:17 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
OU812
Boot


Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 33
Location: Silver Spring, MD
thebruce wrote:


tl;dr:

Post-production/fake/cut-out 3D sucks.
Active-shutter 3D sucks.
And RealD-3D has both real and fake 3D under its wings.
And IMAX is just a projection method (though film can be optimized for IMAX projection, whether 2D or 3D, analog or digital).
Avatar is, for me, so far still the best example of a physical+CG 'real' 3D film that is also optimal for an IMAX experience.


This is an excellent summary.

I'll say this - what I didn't like about Avatar's 3D was that they needed to still serve the 2D world. In 2D films, in order to pull the audience's focus to different depth levels, cinematographers will either rack the focus or use the shallow depth of field to draw attention to a point of reference.

The 3D adaptations that use this technique heavily (for later playback on 2D media) - I find to be amazingly annoying. The final battle scene of Avatar does this - and it really killed that scene for me. In Toy Story 3 this same problem exists. This is the early days of 3D and the old techniques just need to adapt. Cinematographers have begun to adapt, but the problem is still going to be how to satisfy 2D devices.

For those of you still going, huh!?! Let me explain - the 3D illusion adds depth to a scene, so your brain (through another illusion) changes the focus of your eyes to the proper depth needed to see the main action (thus fuzzing out the objects you aren't going to focus on). When the cinematographer/VFX artists mess with the depth of field, you have two competing methods (your brain/direct visual) competing in your brain - saying don't look at me. Most folks don't notice this - but it drives me nuts.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:49 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
thebruceModerator
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

 		Yep. it's a tradeoff... I think the safest solution is to not use focal depth at all, or keep it minimal to the point of using it naturally, instead of forcing people's views to an object. ie, if the scene already emphasizes a certain object (such as zooming in to something), then alter the DOF for other objects - but don't dramatically change the blurring to push someone's focus to a specific object.

That is an inherent problem with any 3D image perceived on a 2D surface, and why I think 3D won't be truly natural 3D until we go holographic, or 'holodeck'-like =) where eyes can physically focus on objects in real space, not an illusive object repesented in 3D because of two eyes' perception from a single flat surface.



...wait, I thought this thread was titled '3D technology reviews'...! =P
* thebruce * tries to return to topic

...TRON was awesome! Smile
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:58 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
OU812
Boot


Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 33
Location: Silver Spring, MD
thebruce wrote:
Yep. it's a tradeoff... I think the safest solution is to not use focal depth at all, or keep it minimal to the point of using it naturally, instead of forcing people's views to an object.

...TRON was awesome! Smile


TRON is awesome!!!

That is the safest solution, but it's not going to fly when you have 90%+ of views occurring in 2-D devices. I guess they could make a 2-D and 3-D version, but the movie companies see the 3-D rollout as a giant honeypot of profit and doing multiple edits would hurt that.

I'll stop now...I'm enjoying this conversation, but we are so far OT, I think I have pushed myself into the Transformers 3 ARG forum.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:23 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
madopal
Unfettered


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 527
Location: Chicago, IL

 		One issue I wanted to ask people about:
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
So, after all of the cuts in the previews just before Sam gets digitized, did anyone else feel kinda gypped that there was no really cool digitization sequence?

Also:
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
We know a bunch of the system was saved, as the whole point of showing Tron/Rinzler turn back blue as he sank in the water would be meaningless if his program didn't get backed up on the chip around Sam's neck.

Finally, anyone else wish Jeff Bridges played Flynn a bit more as Flynn and a little less as The Dude? Also, moar tanks, plz.

Minor quibbles, btw. Disney folks asked me after, and I gave it a 7.5, but might be closer to an 8. I really hope they get to do more. I can't remember the last movie that dealt with some of these issues as head on. I mean, you have Avatar, which basically has a technology for telepresence and doesn't explore it AT ALL. Tron: Legacy at least has the guts to start dealing with some of the ramifications of its ins and outs (perfection vs. chaos, creation of life, etc.). And I appreciated that a ton.
_________________
"...if you drink much from a bottle marked 'poison', is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later."
- Lewis Carroll

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:25 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
 Back to top 
thebruceModerator
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

 		On spoiler 1: Yes.

On spoiler 2: Not so sure that's the case.. I think it's most definitely a set up for the next movie though.

And definitely, on the philosophy topics. This is sci-fi. Exploring the human condition, in a sense. Much of that is present in TL.
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:40 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
kwool
Veteran


Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 121
Location: Iowa
thebruce wrote:
And IMAX is just a projection method (though film can be optimized for IMAX projection, whether 2D or 3D, analog or digital).
Avatar is, for me, so far still the best example of a physical+CG 'real' 3D film that is also optimal for an IMAX experience.


I worked at an IMAX, so a couple things:

(1) Every Hollywood IMAX film undergoes a conversion process called DMR (digital re-mastering) to ensure that everything is optimized for the super-large screens. This includes removing artifacts and other things that would distract from the IMAX experience.

(2) Digital IMAX has a different aspect ratio that film-based IMAX. On film-based IMAX, most DMR films will seem letterboxed on the screen--that's because IMAX does not toy with the aspect ratio of the films, except special cases!

For example, The Dark Knight switched to full IMAX format about 1.4. And in Tron, certain sequences are supposed to expand upwards for a large image--and aspect ratio of about 1.8. However, this larger format is still not complete "IMAX" and will not have its clarity or detail either.

BUT, this changes are only really noticeable in film-based IMAX because of the smaller aspect ratio of the digital IMAX theatres.

In short, try to see it in a film-based theatre. The quality is better and you'll see the effects of the larger aspect ratio.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:48 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address
 Back to top 
kneelb4zod
Decorated


Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 216

 		I thought the film was simply awesome. From the opening sequence, to the light bikes...my hair on my neck stood on end...

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:57 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
madopal
Unfettered


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 527
Location: Chicago, IL
Full storyline
Anyone play Tron: Evolution all the way through yet? I'm not done (it's painful), but I want the story.

So:
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
I'm wanting more about CLUs corruption and Tron's fall. The game seems to hint that a code fragment from a virus that mutated from an ISO is what either corrupted CLU or gave him his power. When we see Tron fall, we don't really know what happens, so it's interesting to see Tron's arc. They obviously hint at his personality still being present when he stops short before killing Sam ("A user.")...but it's unclear if it's CLU's order that would make him do so. After all, Flynn reveals that CLU sent the page, and that Sam is there "to bring another piece onto the board." So it's unlikely that CLU would want Sam dead.

That being said, it's very unclear of any details of how Tron became corrupted, and why he's ultimately able to resist and redeem himself. Tron was the best security program, so it would logically follow that perhaps even if he can be changed, he's ultimately uncorruptable. Seeing him change back to blue as he sank could just be a nod to his action, or it could be a hint at him returning.

_________________
"...if you drink much from a bottle marked 'poison', is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later."
- Lewis Carroll

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:13 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
 Back to top 
Planeseeker
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
thebruce wrote:
On spoiler 1: Yes.

On spoiler 2: Not so sure that's the case.. I think it's most definitely a set up for the next movie though.


Spolier 1. Not so much. I figured Kevin figured out how to make the process more efficient. I actually liked it.

Spolier 2. I thought pretty much the same thing.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:16 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
thebruceModerator
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Planeseeker wrote:
Spolier 1. Not so much. I figured Kevin figured out how to make the process more efficient. I actually liked it.

Oh for sure. But it would have been nice with more for we the viewers visually Smile
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:20 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Shad0
I Have No Life


Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 2180
Location: Southern California, USA

 		Re: Film Reviews
Full storyline
madopal wrote:
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
did anyone else feel kinda gypped that there was no really cool digitization sequence?

I was a bit -- well, I'm not sure disappointed is the right word, but certainly surprised. (And I blame "Flynn Lives," because of all the effort the PMs put into creating that part of the experience for us at SDCC 2010.)

madopal wrote:
anyone else wish Jeff Bridges played Flynn a bit more as Flynn and a little less as The Dude?

How long has it been since you've watched the first TRON? I felt those lines were the original boyish Kevin Flynn peeking through the new exterior he'd developed over those many many many years on the Grid.

madopal wrote:
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
They obviously hint at his personality still being present when he stops short before killing Sam ("A user.")...but it's unclear if it's CLU's order that would make him do so.

I assumed it was, some sort of standing order regarding what to do if anyone working for CLU ever encountered a User.
_________________
These were the puzzles that would take a day, these were puzzles that would take a week, and these puzzles they'd probably never figure out until we broke down and gave them the answers. ... The Cloudmakers solved all of these puzzles on the first day.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:24 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
OU812
Boot


Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 33
Location: Silver Spring, MD

 		Re: Film Reviews
Full storyline
Shad0 wrote:

I assumed it was, some sort of standing order regarding what to do if anyone working for CLU ever encountered a User.


Spoiler (Rollover to View):
It was probably a plot device used to say: 1) Rinzler is Tron and 2) Ties in with the flashback 'Protect the Users' line.

The buddy I went with (as big a fan as all of us, but was working hard core all year) had no idea that Rinzler was Tron until the end.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:35 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 15 [219 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 13, 14, 15  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Chaotic Fiction » Flynn Lives
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group