Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Community
Search
Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters
View Poll Results: Inception Review Poll
52.31%
33.46%
8.85%
3.08%
1.15%
0.38%
No fighting robots? Screw this...
0.77%
Voters: 260. You may not vote on this poll

Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-19-10, 01:44 PM
  #326  
DVD Talk Legend
 
bunkaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago West Suburbs
Posts: 16,391
Received 201 Likes on 134 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

I kept thinking Hardy's voice was very familiar to me but he didn't look familiar. Now I know why. I know him from Star Trek: Nemesis - he looked a little different.
Old 07-19-10, 01:54 PM
  #327  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: detroit, MI, USA
Posts: 3,669
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by bunkaroo
I kept thinking Hardy's voice was very familiar to me but he didn't look familiar. Now I know why. I know him from Star Trek: Nemesis - he looked a little different.
Sadly, I'm such of a Trek nerd that I recognized him 5 seconds after he spoke.

Mad Max, really? He'd be pretty boss in that role.
Old 07-19-10, 01:57 PM
  #328  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by toddly6666
Does anyone think that Nolan intentionally wrote this like a "choose your own adventure book", meaning that he wrote so that there are many different interpretations? For example, if someone asked him to explain the movie, would he list all the different interpretations because he wrote it in that way to clearly have many interpretations?
I'm pretty sure Nolan has his own personal interpretation, but was smart enough to leave enough things ambiguous that it would spark discussion, but I am positive some of the theories we've seen pop up in this very thread are things he never thought of.
Old 07-19-10, 03:05 PM
  #329  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

If Nolan's intention was that it is all a dream, I want to say a big FU to him.

So, I am going with the not a dream ending.
Old 07-19-10, 03:17 PM
  #330  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Phantom Zone
Posts: 2,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Without the ambiguity of whether the spinning top comes to a stop, the ending of the film is far too happy, neat, and tidy. So I'd say the final shot most definitely implies that he is still in the dream. The question is from what point in the film is it a dream, or is the whole film a dream.

Since he sees a flash of Mal behind some curtains when he is in the washroom after trying Yusuf's sedative for the first time and his attempt to spin the top is interrupted by Saito, that seems to be a logical point to assume that the rest of the film is a dream.
Old 07-19-10, 04:15 PM
  #331  
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 49,453
Received 914 Likes on 774 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

excellent movie. it was a slow build for me as i didn't gravitate right from the beginning, but once it clicked i was enthralled and loved it. wasn't the over-the-top can't understand what the hell was going on all the time that i was worried about. i mean i didn't most of the time, but still enjoyed the ride.

just to be clear, the ending...

Spoiler:
was left ambiguous not telling us if that was the "real" reality or Cobbs' limbo, correct?
Old 07-19-10, 04:21 PM
  #332  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by scott1598
just to be clear, the ending...

Spoiler:
was left ambiguous not telling us if that was the "real" reality or Cobbs' limbo, correct?
Yeah.
Old 07-19-10, 04:28 PM
  #333  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,913
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by bunkaroo
I kept thinking Hardy's voice was very familiar to me but he didn't look familiar. Now I know why. I know him from Star Trek: Nemesis - he looked a little different.
He'll always be Handsome Bob to me.
Old 07-19-10, 04:33 PM
  #334  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Boba Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,284
Received 38 Likes on 30 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
He'll always be Handsome Bob to me.
Charlie Bronson, man.
Old 07-19-10, 04:54 PM
  #335  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 43,911
Received 445 Likes on 312 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Pretty solid theory from CHUD on why 100% of Inception takes place in a dream:

[spoilerized for space]
Spoiler:
Every single moment of Inception is a dream. I think that in a couple of years this will become the accepted reading of the film, and differing interpretations will have to be skillfully argued to be even remotely considered. The film makes this clear, and it never holds back the truth from audiences. Some find this idea to be narratively repugnant, since they think that a movie where everything is a dream is a movie without stakes, a movie where the audience is wasting their time.

Except that this is exactly what Nolan is arguing against. The film is a metaphor for the way that Nolan as a director works, and what he's ultimately saying is that the catharsis found in a dream is as real as the catharsis found in a movie is as real as the catharsis found in life. Inception is about making movies, and cinema is the shared dream that truly interests the director.

I believe that Inception is a dream to the point where even the dream-sharing stuff is a dream. Dom Cobb isn't an extractor. He can't go into other people's dreams. He isn't on the run from the Cobol Corporation. At one point he tells himself this, through the voice of Mal, who is a projection of his own subconscious. She asks him how real he thinks his world is, where he's being chased across the globe by faceless corporate goons.

She asks him that in a scene that we all know is a dream, but Inception lets us in on this elsewhere. Michael Caine's character implores Cobb to return to reality, to wake up. During the chase in Mombasa, Cobb tries to escape down an alleyway, and the two buildings between which he's running begin closing in on him - a classic anxiety dream moment. When he finally pulls himself free he finds Ken Watanabe's character waiting for him, against all logic. Except dream logic.

Much is made in the film about totems, items unique to dreamers that can be used to tell when someone is actually awake or asleep. Cobb's totem is a top, which spins endlessly when he's asleep, and the fact that the top stops spinning at many points in the film is claimed by some to be evidence that Cobb is awake during those scenes. The problem here is that the top wasn't always Cobb's totem - he got it from his wife, who killed herself because she believed that they were still living in a dream. There's more than a slim chance that she's right - note that when Cobb remembers her suicide she is, bizarrely, sitting on a ledge opposite the room they rented. You could do the logical gymnastics required to claim that Mal simply rented another room across the alleyway, but the more realistic notion here is that it's a dream, with the gap between the two lovers being a metaphorical one made literal. When Mal jumps she leaves behind the top, and if she was right about the world being a dream, the fact that it spins or doesn't spin is meaningless. It's a dream construct anyway. There's no way to use the top as a proof of reality.

Watching the film with this eye you can see the dream logic unfolding. As is said in the movie, dreams seem real in the moment and it's only when you've woken up that things seem strange. The film's 'reality' sequences are filled with moments that, on retrospect, seem strange or unlikely or unexplained. Even the basics of the dream sharing technology is unbelievably vague, and I don't think that's just because Nolan wants to keep things streamlined. It's because Cobb's unconscious mind is filling it in as he goes along.

There's more, but I would have to watch the film again with a notebook to get all the evidence (all of it in plain sight). The end seems without a doubt to be a dream - from the dreamy way the film is shot and edited once Cobb wakes up on the plane all the way through to him coming home to find his two kids in the exact position and in the exact same clothes that he kept remembering them, it doesn't matter if the top falls, Cobb is dreaming.

That Cobb is dreaming and still finds his catharsis (that he can now look at the face of his kids) is the point. It's important to realize that Inception is a not very thinly-veiled autobiographical look at how Nolan works. In a recent red carpet interview, Leonardo DiCaprio - who was important in helping Nolan get the script to the final stages - compares the movie not to The Matrix or some other mindfuck movie but Fellini's 8 1/2. This is probably the second most telling thing DiCaprio said during the publicity tour for the film, with the first being that he based Cobb on Nolan. 8 1/2 is totally autobiographical for Fellini, and it's all about an Italian director trying to overcome his block and make a movie (a science fiction movie, even). It's a film about filmmaking, and so is Inception.

The heist team quite neatly maps to major players in a film production. Cobb is the director while Arthur, the guy who does the research and who sets up the places to sleep, is the producer. Ariadne, the dream architect, is the screenwriter - she creates the world that will be entered. Eames is the actor (this is so obvious that the character sits at an old fashioned mirrored vanity, the type which stage actors would use). Yusuf is the technical guy; remember, the Oscar come from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and it requires a good number of technically minded people to get a movie off the ground. Nolan himself more or less explains this in the latest issue of Film Comment, saying 'There are a lot of striking similarities [between what the team does and the putting on of a major Hollywood movie]. When for instance the team is out on the street they've created, surveying it, that's really identical with what we do on tech scouts before we shoot.'

That leaves two key figures. Saito is the money guy, the big corporate suit who fancies himself a part of the game. And Fischer, the mark, is the audience. Cobb, as a director, takes Fischer through an engaging, stimulating and exciting journey, one that leads him to an understanding about himself. Cobb is the big time movie director (or rather the best version of that - certainly not a Michael Bay) who brings the action, who brings the spectacle, but who also brings the meaning and the humanity and the emotion.

The movies-as-dreams aspect is part of why Inception keeps the dreams so grounded. In the film it's explained that playing with the dream too much alerts the dreamer to the falseness around him; this is just another version of the suspension of disbelief upon which all films hinge. As soon as the audience is pulled out of the movie by some element - an implausible scene, a ludicrous line, a poor performance - it's possible that the cinematic dream spell is broken completely, and they're lost.

As a great director, Cobb is also a great artist, which means that even when he's creating a dream about snowmobile chases, he's bringing something of himself into it. That's Mal. It's the auterist impulse, the need to bring your own interests, obsessions and issues into a movie. It's what the best directors do. It's very telling that Nolan sees this as kind of a problem; I suspect another filmmaker might have cast Mal as the special element that makes Cobb so successful.

Inception is such a big deal because it's what great movies strive to do. You walk out of a great film changed, with new ideas planted in your head, with your neural networks subtly rewired by what you've just seen. On a meta level Inception itself does this, with audiences leaving the theater buzzing about the way it made them feel and perceive. New ideas, new thoughts, new points of view are more lasting a souvenir of a great movie than a ticket stub.

It's possible to view Fischer, the mark, as not the audience but just as the character that is being put through the movie that is the dream. To be honest, I haven't quite solidified my thought on Fischer's place in the allegorical web, but what's important is that the breakthrough that Fischer has in the ski fortress is real. Despite the fact that his father is not there, despite the fact that the pinwheel was never by his father's bedside, the emotions that Fischer experiences are 100 percent genuine. It doesn't matter that the movie you're watching isn't a real story, that it's just highly paid people putting on a show - when a movie moves you, it truly moves you. The tears you cry during Up are totally real, even if absolutely nothing that you see on screen has ever existed in the physical world.

For Cobb there's a deeper meaning to it all. While Cobb doesn't have daddy issues (that we know of), he, like Fischer, is dealing with a loss. He's trying to come to grips with the death of his wife*; Fischer's journey reflects Cobb's while not being a complete point for point reflection. That's important for Nolan, who is making films that have personal components - that talk about things that obviously interest or concern him - but that aren't actually about him. Other filmmakers (Fellini) may make movies that are thinly veiled autobiography, but that's not what Nolan or Cobb are doing. The movies (or dreams) they're putting together reflect what they're going through but aren't easily mapped on to them. Talking to Film Comment, Nolan says he has never been to psychoanalysis. 'I think I use filmmaking for that purpose. I have a passionate relationship to what I do.'

In a lot of ways Inception is a bookend to last summer's Inglorious Basterds. In that film Quentin Tarantino celebrated the ways that cinema could change the world, while in Inception Nolan is examining the ways that cinema, the ultimate shared dream, can change an individual. The entire film is a dream, within the confines of the movie itself, but in a more meta sense it's Nolan's dream. He's dreaming Cobb, and finding his own moments of revelation and resolution, just as Cobb is dreaming Fischer and finding his own catharsis and change.

The whole film being a dream isn't a cop out or a waste of time, but an ultimate expression of the film's themes and meaning. It's all fake. But it's all very, very real. And that's something every single movie lover understands implicitly and completely.

* it's really worth noting that if you accept that the whole movie is a dream that Mal may not be dead. She could have just left Cobb. The mourning that he is experiencing deep inside his mind is no less real if she's alive or dead - he has still lost her.

Thoughts?
Old 07-19-10, 05:03 PM
  #336  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 43,911
Received 445 Likes on 312 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

One thing that theory does is address this criticism pretty well:
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
For one, more backstory on the other characters. Someone else mentioned an Eames/Arthur spin-off film being potentially more interesting than this, and I agree. By putting SO much focus on Cobb, it showed the deficiencies in that particular story, as I for one didn't care much about Cobb and Mal. By making everyone else nothing but blank pages on which to write the story, it robs the film of its impact when something happens to them. Saito's fate in particular should have been nail-biting, but since we know nothing about him, how are we meant to care?

I also would have put more emphasis on the prep for the job, seeing how Ariadne was making the dream worlds, and not copped out at the end by telling everyone to use a shortcut.

Those two things would have helped just from the start. You've got a great ensemble. Give them something to do other than relentlessly move the plot forward.

I feel, in theory, a director's cut could alleviate some of these issues, but as it is, I think the movie shortchanges itself.
Old 07-19-10, 05:06 PM
  #337  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CKMorpheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Great thoughts, but I still side with "It's real"
Old 07-19-10, 05:13 PM
  #338  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Port Moody, BC
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by CKMorpheus
Great thoughts, but I still side with "It's real"
Agreed, or I'm just telling myself it was real!
Old 07-19-10, 05:33 PM
  #339  
DVD Talk Legend
 
bunkaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago West Suburbs
Posts: 16,391
Received 201 Likes on 134 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Thanks for the link slop - very convincing.
Old 07-19-10, 05:57 PM
  #340  
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 49,453
Received 914 Likes on 774 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

I would have also liked a little more backstory, like why they were all such good marksmen? previous military perhaps, special ops...
Old 07-19-10, 06:39 PM
  #341  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

So it's a movie about being at the movies? other hints that give it away:

The way Arthur is dressed. He's dressed like a classic movie producer during the majority of the movie.

The way the three acts play out like 3 totally different movies. The tone explicitly changes the moment they enter a new dream layer.

Yusef is the giant blunt I smoked before I went into the theater.
Old 07-19-10, 07:01 PM
  #342  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 43,911
Received 445 Likes on 312 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

I especially like the idea of it being analogous of movie making and the relationship between the filmmaker and the audience.

And as stated, all of it being a dream explains away my one major criticism, that every other character besides Cobb was underdeveloped and almost peripheral.
Old 07-19-10, 07:01 PM
  #343  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Warrenton, VA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Just got back from seeing a screening in a Regal IMAX digital theater. What a disappointment, it looked like crap. It was slightly bigger than a standard screening, and the image was really blah. It looked like an OK Blu0ray blown up. I'm thinking just watching a standard 35mm print would have been better. I'll never waste the money on an IMAX digital screening again, it seems essentially a blu-ray considering IMAX digital is 2k right? We even had a ticket that shaved $10 off our total, and it still cost $23 for the two of us. What a stupid gimmick.

The movie was good. Memento and The Dark Knight are still my two favorite Nolan flicks.

Anyone else here that can comment on any IMAX screening they may have seen? Anyone see it in real IMAX? Was it still entirely 2.35:1? Or did it switch aspect ratios like TDK? It'd be nice if there was a real IMAX theater around the Charlotte area that showed feature length films. Our screening was entirely 2.35:1. IMDB shows it was filmed in digital, IMAX, and 35mm, but I didn't notice an real differences in our digital screening, other than some shots looked more "in focus" than other shots.

Last edited by mhanlen1; 07-19-10 at 07:04 PM.
Old 07-19-10, 07:16 PM
  #344  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by mhanlen1
Anyone else here that can comment on any IMAX screening they may have seen? Anyone see it in real IMAX? Was it still entirely 2.35:1? Or did it switch aspect ratios like TDK? It'd be nice if there was a real IMAX theater around the Charlotte area that showed feature length films. Our screening was entirely 2.35:1. IMDB shows it was filmed in digital, IMAX, and 35mm, but I didn't notice an real differences in our digital screening, other than some shots looked more "in focus" than other shots.
1.) It was not shot with IMAX cameras. The vast majority of the film was shot with anamorphic 35mm. Select shots were shot on 5 perf 65mm, IMAX is 15 perf 65mm.

2.) The aspect ratio is 2.40:1, it does not change throughout.

3.) Two slow motion shots were filmed digitally, everything else was shot on film, as Chris and Wally prefer film to digital. Hell, the color grading was even done photo chemically. So maybe 10 seconds of the movie was shot digitally.

4.) "Liemax" is shit, I'm surprised you wasted your money on it. 35mm prints have a much higher resolution then the digital IMAX projectors, the only real benefit is sound.

Last edited by Blu Man; 07-19-10 at 07:28 PM.
Old 07-19-10, 07:39 PM
  #345  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Warrenton, VA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by Blu Man
1.) It was not shot with IMAX cameras. The vast majority of the film was shot with anamorphic 35mm. Select shots were shot on 5 perf 65mm, IMAX is 15 perf 65mm.

2.) The aspect ratio is 2.40:1, it does not change throughout.

3.) Two slow motion shots were filmed digitally, everything else was shot on film, as Chris and Wally prefer film to digital. Hell, the color grading was even done photo chemically. I should add that the majority of slow motion was also filmed on film, not digitally.

4.) "Liemax" is shit, I'm surprised you wasted your money on it. 35mm prints have a much higher resolution then the digital IMAX projectors, the only real benefit is sound.

Provided if I would have seen an IMAX print of the film, the 65mm shot sequences should have looked slightly better than those shot on 35mm right?

I read on IMDB that the aspect ratio was scope, I was just confirming, because I noted there were multiple formats used.

As for falling for Liemax... I've seen exactly 3 films in "Liemax." The problem with the internet, is that it rarely specifies which type of IMAX format it's in, and sometimes it's plain wrong. A lot of people also aren't very technical about it other than "it looks awesome" or "like shit." The other 2 movies were AVATAR and Alice in Wonderland 3D, so the 3D sort of masked the lower resolution. This is my first 2D "IMAX" narrative film experience. I have seen IMAX before, but they were always the real deal at science centers. It's actually hard to find true IMAX theaters that play Hollywood/narrative films and not just educational films or documentaries.

I had read IMAX Digtal theaters weren't great, but finding out which theaters plays Liemax vs. IMAX isn't super easy... let alone even finding which theaters screen digital prints in 2k vs. 4k. Is there some sort of online forum or website that shows exactly what type of screenings are where?

Jesus Chirst, what a waste Digital IMAX is... it's basically a Blu-ray shown on a big screen. I won't fall for it again. Thanks Blu-Man for fleshing it out a little better for me.


So I guess my next question is. Whats better: A 3D Imax digital film or just a standard 3D showing. Are any recent 3D movies 35mm or are they all digital?

Last edited by mhanlen1; 07-19-10 at 07:43 PM.
Old 07-19-10, 07:47 PM
  #346  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by mhanlen1
Is there some sort of online forum or website that shows exactly what type of screenings are where?
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...6c5915161c3667

Green marker: Real IMAX
Red marker: Fake
Purple: Dome IMAX

Edit:

So I guess my next question is. Whats better: A 3D Imax digital film or just a standard 3D showing. Are any recent 3D movies 35mm or are they all digital?
Digital IMAX will have a slightly larger screen and better sound then a regular DLP 3D theater. So it just depends on what movie you are seeing and what the price gap is. The majority of 3D theaters have 2k projectors, but 4k projectors are becoming more common. 3D movies are only digital.

Last edited by Blu Man; 07-19-10 at 07:51 PM.
Old 07-19-10, 07:51 PM
  #347  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
The Bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,916
Received 19 Likes on 14 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

This may be the first movie of the year I go see twice.
Old 07-19-10, 07:58 PM
  #348  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Warrenton, VA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by Blu Man


Digital IMAX will have a slightly larger screen and better sound then a regular DLP 3D theater. So it just depends on what movie you are seeing and what the price gap is. The majority of 3D theaters have 2k projectors, but 4k projectors are becoming more common. 3D movies are only digital.

Thanks for the Map.

Aren't or weren't some 3D movies film. I remember seeing some dome IMAX in 3d many years ago, and I don't think they were with the red and blue glasses. I also so Ghosts of the Abyss in 2001 or 2002 and I believe that was film. I would guess that all modern narrative movies that are in 3d are digital nowadays right? Except some science dome movies, right? Or are all IMAX dome 3d features now digital.

Sorry about all the questions.
Old 07-19-10, 08:02 PM
  #349  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Originally Posted by mhanlen1
Thanks for the Map.

Aren't or weren't some 3D movies film. I remember seeing some dome IMAX in 3d many years ago, and I don't think they were with the red and blue glasses. I also so Ghosts of the Abyss in 2001 or 2002 and I believe that was film. I would guess that all modern narrative movies that are in 3d are digital nowadays right? Except some science dome movies, right? Or are all IMAX dome 3d features now digital.

Sorry about all the questions.
IMAX 3D still exists. But it's not 35mm, it's 70mm.

Colored glasses aren't really used anymore. IMAX 3D, Digital IMAX 3D, Regular 3D, they all use clear glasses.
Old 07-19-10, 08:05 PM
  #350  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Warrenton, VA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Inception (Nolan, 2010)- The Reviews Thread

Yeah I haven't used colored glasses since Spy Kids 3D... oops forgot about that one. But you through me off when you said all 3d films were digital. Anyway, you cleared it all up for me. Thanks for the lesson, and again sorry about all the questions.


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.