Dubstepforum.com

not drug-induced!!! that would be cheap and boring.
but yeah the hazy state between reality and imagination really lends itself to being rotoscoped. people complain to me it makes them feel seasick, but surely that can be a good thing.

anyway its just linklater's team's style of rotoscoping that does that, other people (like me) do it a bit more rigidly

i really loved the book of this when i read it ages ago, but i'm not sure if I'll like this.

waking life was great the first time i saw it but when i rewatched it it was like spending 2 hours talking to annoying hippies at a festival about, like, life, man. i dunno if this is just cus its less immersive the second time round though.

prob will download this anyway as right now its that or do some work.

Alex bk-bk wrote: anyway its just linklater's team's style of rotoscoping that does that, other people (like me) do it a bit more rigidly

Yeh the Linklater style of rotoscoping is real loose...there are points where you dont even notice the animation and then in other parts its all you can see..

Alex bk-bk wrote: anyway its just linklater's team's style of rotoscoping that does that, other people (like me) do it a bit more rigidly

Yeh the Linklater style of rotoscoping is real loose...there are points where you dont even notice the animation and then in other parts its all you can see..

I went to see A Scanner Darkly last night; i'm quite disapointed.

It flattens out the narritve and feel in much the same way that it flattens out the pictures; Loose ends are tied up and connections are forced.

It's not bad, but in it's own way it's just as capital H Hollywood as Minority Report, which makes it worse than MR; when you up the blockbuster pulp on/in one of PK's more pulp-y novels it feels better, certainly much better than a sanitisation of one of his (much, much) better written ones.

Why use the rotoscoping Pop-art filter on one of his most ostensibly realistic novels? Total wasted opportunity - it would have been perfect in tone and feel for something like The Three Stigmata Of Palmer Eldritch or maybe Galactic Pot Healer.

I'm mosty disapointed, not least 'cause i've got quite a lot of time for Linklater...

boomnoise, sorry this is a technical thing that isnt relevant either way to your opinon of the film, but just wanna point our rotoscoping isnt a filter, but a painstaking physical process of drawing over each frame of video. though obviously a cool process does not a good film make

Alex bk-bk wrote:boomnoise, sorry this is a technical thing that isnt relevant either way to your opinon of the film, but just wanna point our rotoscoping isnt a filter, but a painstaking physical process of drawing over each frame of video. though obviously a cool process does not a good film make

technically yes, i know. but essentially for the layman viewer it is a filter between normal real life action and their eyes. and visually it does give the impression that you are watching something through something else, hence filter.

anyway you visual geek bkbk - like you say - it don't matter like

Saw it last night. I enjoyed it for what it was but I haven't read the book so can't comment about the transfer to film. Some of it was confusing but I can't say if it was a clunky interpretation of the story.

Well worth the £2.50 entry!

boomnoise wrote: It's not bad, but in it's own way it's just as capital H Hollywood as Minority Report, which makes it worse than MR; when you up the blockbuster pulp on/in one of PK's more pulp-y novels it feels better, certainly much better than a sanitisation of one of his (much, much) better written ones.

How can you say it was worse than Minority Report? Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg? I couldnt even watch that film! I agree that "A Scanner Darkly" is one of PKD's best though, thats probaly why you feel disappointed! I thought Linklater did well myself, actually enjoyed it more the second time.