The middle two are arthouse documentaries - in Pina, 3D really does make a difference with dance sequences.
So not my taste.
I suppose dance is a better fit for the technology though.
The directors I'd like to see having a go at 3D are the ones who go for long sequence shots - but Theo Angelopoulos is dead and Béla Tarr has retired, and no one would have given them the money to shoot in 3D anyway. But from the sound of it, the forthcoming Gravity (directed by Alfonso Cuarón) may be an example of what I just suggested.
Alejandro Jodorowsky would be able to do something amazing, and I can imagine that - given the right film - Scorsese would be able to make me pay attention to the film rather than the 3D (which is a constant problem), but most of the people I would like to see tackle it are either retired or dead. I'm sure Kurosawa would have loved a new toy to play with...
I keep a spreadsheet, and I recently passed 1700 DVDs/Blu-rays.
About a third of my collection are films nobody wants to watch... And yes, I have nearly everything that The Asylum have churned out. I will pay for my sins eventually, I am sure...
The Man Who Folded Himself, by David Gerrold?
That's the one. I remember it being confusing, annoying and fascinating in equal measures.
Actually, that's kind of where I was going with 'fully immersive'
(and I meant, re: cloverfield, that they could have done away with the handheld if they'd been able to do holodeck-style 3D; or effectively that, in that the audience member would be in the middle of the action instead of in front of it... Hm. I can picture in my head what I mean, but I'm not sure I can explain it.
)
That film wasn't vomit-inducing enough?
Just got the phone call. Mom's coming home!!!!!
Yay. Hopefully everything goes well.
That, to me, is the definition of creepy-eepy.
It isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, the ickiest book I have here. There are some from the late forties and early fifties which were properly sold "under the counter", and have suitably lurid cover paintings - they are more collectible as pieces of historical art than literature these days, and for very good reason.
1) You can't pants it. You just can't. It won't work. You need to know, in advance, how things work, otherwise you will generate plot-holes the size of which will require dedicated teams of cartographers to properly explore.
Oh gods... Yes, yes, and yes - working out the primary and tertiary alterations to the timeline, and the number of times the same thing can be shown again... it is hard enough to read some time-travel books, but writing one? it may be the death of me.
Random question to anyone who knows: If I really enjoyed reading War of the Worlds, what are the odds I'm going to really enjoy reading H.G. Wells' other stuff too?
As far as I am concerned, all of his SF is amazing. His non-fiction is... less entertaining (though full of little bits of business which are just as interesting, but very, very different).
Because I love that book but I don't want to take a plunge and blow some of my preciously little supply of money on his other works only to find out I don't so much love him as an author, I just love that one particular book and don't like all the rest.
You don't have to spend a lot...