The Inhumans Marvel/IMAX
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
They should make a dome version where the viewer is engulfed in 360 degrees of glorious CGI wig hair.
The theatrical release is just a promotional marketing gimmick. If they're lucky they'll break even on the marketing cost of it <--- and that's probably the best they're expecting.
[Hell, given how the whole "Inhuman" thing was handled maybe Marvel Studios had it in some contracts that this was for a 'film to be theatrically released' - so they're doing the limited IMAX release just so they don't need to redo some of the contracts.]
Arrrgghh... There is no "dark side of the Moon!" The far side is dark when it's full, the near side is dark when it's new! They mean Attilan is on the far side of the Moon. Why is it so hard to banish that nonsensical phrase from the language? (I suspect Pink Floyd bears a share of the blame...)
Well it does just generally sound cool.
Also, in the context of a city that is presumably stationary, it's not the phrase that's nonsensical but the concept itself, so... might as well at least make it sound cool.
Just because the dark side of the moon as a phrase is confusing doesn't mean it's not the dark side. The side of the moon that's not visible to us is known as the dark side of the moon regardless of whether it is in fact dark if you're on the moon.
It's properly known as the far side of the Moon.
Although Wikipedia does offer the rationalization that "dark" is meant figuratively in the sense of "unknown," as well as radio dark, i.e. spacecraft there will be out of contact with Earth. Which I guess I can accept, but I'm sure there are countless people out there who don't know the difference and believe it's literally dark. I mean, heck, the misconceptions people have about the Moon are legion. Like the commonplace belief that the Moon is only in the sky at night, even though you can literally look up and see it in the daytime sky for 2 out of every 4 weeks. And obviously it couldn't eclipse the Sun if it were only up at night. With so much ignorance out there, I dislike any usage that perpetuates misconceptions or creates confusion.
Oh, of course. Wallace and Gromit proved that conclusively.
I looked into this a while back... Apparently Kirby intended it to be some kind of hairband, but many later artists have drawn/painted it as a colored stripe within her hair itself. And really, it's hard to see how it could work as a band or headdress, structurally speaking. The dye interpretation was no doubt simpler to pull off and probably looks better in live action.
"Gerry O'Driscoll, the doorman for Abbey Road Studio, provides the voice at the end of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, heard here from the original tape, including an extra bit."
No, based on what I've seen its actually an egg.
I guess we'll have to ask the man in the moon to clarify this. He may not answer though. I hear he's still angry about the rocket that ended up in his eye and doesn't speak to humans.
Those of you who thought it looked cheap... you were right.
This, in a nutshell, is the difference between Perlmutter and Feige.
This, in a nutshell, is the difference between Perlmutter and Feige.
I don't think that's a charitable reading of the quote, which was explicitly about his ability to make something look like a big budget movie. We don't know what the budget of the show is and there's nothing there that says. It's not a blockbuster movie budget, of course, which is the point of the quote.
The thing is from everything we've seen thus far it most certainly does not look at all like a big budget movie. It looks like one of those naff TV b-movies SyFy is known for knocking out every few months.
Not a knock against the director, mind. If they hired him to work fast, cheap and competently and that's what he did then good on him.
And yet they're happy to charge IMAX ticket prices for it. Sorry, for 80% of it. To see the rest you'll have to watch it again on TV!