I would love to see it in 3d ,but a couple of us round here only have one working eye.so i will have to wait till the tech on this planet
catches up enought so I can fix my ship and get out of here .

Has anybody that's seen this film ever seen Dances with Wolves?

Mark

Yes, and yes I did think the same. Very similar.

Nick,

Given that they are using 4 different kinds of 3D technologies in the States, it could be that the one he saw was affected and yours not...

Yes. And?!

This is a fundamentally ground-breaking film. If you don't like it because you've seen it, post up and explain your viewpoint. If you're writing the story off because it's derivative, I dare you to re-examine past favourites and see how many had a truly original plot. It's HOW the story is presented that makes this film stand out. Cinema used to be about spectacle. It was about indulging in a fantasy you could never imagine in your own life. It was an adventure. I love a great plot more than most, but honestly most great plots come in books. Cinema is a different art form and people should learn to understand that.

As for cuddling up to the girlfriend, that shouldn't affect wearing of glasses. Tilting of head is not a problem. </rant>

The Transformers films (T1 and T2 from here on in) are perfect examples of when spectacle aids the story and when it's there above all else IMO.

T1 - Introduction to the main characters who were interesting/entertaining or hot enough because you were meeting them for the first time. This and the stunning effects (when they weren't just a big shiny mess) hid the fact that there wasn't much of a plot - something I maintain to this day that would have seen T1 become a genuine modern classic and increased it's box office even further.

T2 - Not even a semi-decent plot in sight, which meant any script was gonna be absolute drivel, and it was. This all seemed to happen because it was decided early on that certain sequences 'had' to be in the film before the work was even finished on the script, maybe even started (you can Google that one). I, in common with many other people it seems, actually found the whole film boring despite the fact it contained, you know, giant kick-ass robots and probably had better action sequences than the first film

I saw both of those films at the cinema. The one that had a semblance of a plot is the only one I will ever possibly watch again

My point being, Mr. Angry, was merely curiosity on my part. I was wondering if I was the only person to draw parallels between this film and the other film I mentioned. I appear to not be the only one that made that connection.

Mark

Sorry Mark, I'm not angry with you. It's mostly women actually (or one in particular, but then they all seem to insist on us jumping through hoops of [LIFTED], but I digress).

I hear what you're saying, I just think it's very, very rare that I see a truly original plot these days. How often do you eat a completely, 100% never-before-tasted meal? There's always something familiar. Maybe it's a variation on something you know, or it was cooked differently or whatever. What matters is the presentation, the ambience in the restaurant/mates house whatever, the company and the whole experience. That's how I view films these days. The Matrix was massively derivative, but still very cool and an arguable classic. Harry Potter is largely a load of nonsense, but each film gets progressively better polished. Whilst Azkaban is still probably my favourite "plot wise", Half-Blood Prince was definitely the best total package to date.

I just feel like people here don't appreciate "cinema" in it's most complete sense.

Wake up Nick. Big bucks drive many of the things/industries/experiences that we love and cinema is no exception. That still doesn't make this a bad film. It's hardly the billionth sequel to a comic-book franchise made purely for studio greed. When I say complete, I mean plot AND presentation together. Cinema is an experience, not merely a story on a screen.

I'm awake now, the film is over. I think I already mentioned that I slept through part of it.

This is a bad film, because it's so boring.

The story could have been told in an hour and a half, but was dragged out to double that.

All the 3D effects in the world can't make up for that. It was still crap.

It's sh*t.

[/troll]

Have you ever seen one man Star Wars? I watched a guy tell story of the entire classic trilogy in less than 2hrs with just himself playing all the parts. Does that make Episodes 4,5 and 6 overly padded? No. They just told the story a different way to this one dude.

Stories are embellished with details for a reason, it generally enhances the experience. As Proust said, "N'allez pas trop vite." Even the most boring things in life are interesting if you view them in a certain way and taking time over something usually makes it better IMHO. Adding folly and what might appear superfluous details, adds to the experience. There are many examples of that in all forms of art and many other things as well.

Look, you think it's an amasing film, I (and a lot of others) think it's crap.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, but you won't change my opinion.

I nearly said that in my last post actually. But then I remembered that I'm not trying to change your opinion. I can completely understand where you're coming from. I just would like it if people could understand mine. I seem to have a funny relationship with this place in terms of getting into debates. 9 times out of 10 I end up on my own side with nobody understanding where I'm coming from. Oh well.