What you and Antony said, but still, I hate how it keeps getting marketed as the "superior" or "full" experience. I like my films in 2D, because, in my humble opinion, it feels more like a work of art and less like a videogame.

I caught bits and pieces of one of the Hobbit films in 2D (DVD), and it felt like a video game!

Not really a good example, since it was shot at 48fps and had a heavy dosage of CGI.

Would current/near-future head-mounted VR displays like the Oculus Rift (given the specs) fall under "garbage display technology" known for these vision-killing issues? Or are they different beasts?

That, and that most of the scenes I watched were just about as bad as Tangled in their abuse of CGI to continuously pretend to endanger the livelihood of the walkplayers, only to save their asses by some highly improbable physics. It starts to feel like watching a friend play a game on God-mode pretty fast.

HMDs have fewer distracting artifacts but the core problem is the same. In nature there is a tight relationship between vergence (pointing your eyes at something) and accomodation (focus). All present stereoscopic display technologies violate this relationship by providing the vergence of a real object, achieving the 3D effect, paired with the accomodation of a stationary screen. This conflict is known to cause discomfort in the short term, but the greater threat is neuroplasticity: each time you watch a 3D movie you are actually teaching your brain that your eyes work in a wrong way.

In order to solve this problem you need what is called a continuous light field display, a display which is not only able to reproduce the color and intensity of light at each point on a screen, but also the direction of that light. Better known as holographic displays. These don't exist and judging by the closest equivalent state of the art lenticular autostereoscopic filters they will not exist in a practical form for a very long time.

Bypass the eyes and go straight to the brain!

Right--then if they get that wrong, you won't just be hurting the part of your brain hooked up to your eyes.

So what? You're disposable.

How did you know?

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OQsIwn4_gc

A new trailer for the Asian market with new scenes was just released:

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdAUiyeJMFQ

To be honest, that's disappointing because it tells a lot more whereas the first official one had a right amount of info released. Ah, shouldn't have watched.

Booked my tickets for December 17th, gonna be the first film I'm gonna see in a movie theatre since March 31st 2009 or something (that last film having been Watchmen).

Look what I bought this weekend: (minor spoilers ahead)

Jizz-wailing?

Ahahahahaha

yeah, it's pretty cool stuff. certainly my favorite star wars music genre, after whale-jizzing.

"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers’ hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules."


Yes.

what a bunch of fags/.

Trying to get banned just months away from the end of Massassi?

Since when is quoting Herman Melville considered gay?

An interesting point.

To quote two conservative activists who have discussed the very issue you're raising: "Failure to give social conservatives a seat at the table will mean another eventual schism and, along with it, a failure to offer [voters] a true political alternative to Liberal statism" (Tasha Kheirdin and Adam Daifallah, "Rescuing Canada's Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution", chapter 13). The authors later advocate that conservatives soften their social conservative rhetoric, for example via much-maligned 'dog whistling', but their main point is nonetheless that conservative movements eventually split if they don't make social conservatives feel genuinely included. You can see this in action throughout the world: the Republican party was nearly broken after 2008 because party insiders didn't want to risk losing swing voters by giving a voice to their social conservative base. Elsewhere, on the other hand, you see conservative movements that are actually succeeding are also veering harshly right on social issues, doubling down on nationalism, and racist statements and policies. Few voters in capitalist countries are benefiting from conservative economic policies, so it's increasingly important to dress conservative platforms in social conservatism and the subjugation of minorities in order to attract any popular support.

Thank you for raising the discourse on this important subject, Wookie06.

Didn't the conservatives recently get voted out of power in Canada? Did it happen fast enough to stop the Harper government from burning too many books?

Wookie06, I want you to read this. I want you to read this, and really think about it. It's really all you need to know about me and our interactions on this forum over the years. We probably won't get another chance.

Conservatives are exactly like me. I don't mean conservative voters, but the people who actually matter: party insiders, donors, campaign strategists. They're exactly like me. They're educated in much the same way I was, they're intelligent, well-paid professionals from top percentile families. I may publicly claim that they're monsters, but the truth is that I benefit a lot when they're in power, so secretly, if they win, I'm happy about it. But the cherry on top is that they win the exact same way I would, by tweaking the animal urges of poor, stupid, rural white racists. It's not just useful, it's not just easy, but it's a lot of fun, as I've demonstrated repeatedly to you, Sarn, and so many other "people" over the years.

So you should know this, Wookie06: every time you walk into a polling station and vote neoliberal, you're voting for me. And you'll do it anyway. Because someone exactly like me made you do it, and you are powerless to stop yourself. Massassi will be long gone, I will have long forgotten you, but you will carry this for the rest of your life. Every time you vote, I win, and you lose.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you should be allowed to vote anyway.

Please vote to lower the Social Security cap, I've blown past it and I don't think it's fair that I should pay the maximum for something I'll never need.

They made that joke on CBC: "When the Catholics elect a new Pope there is white smoke that comes from the Vatican. Tonight there is smoke coming from the Parliament. Probably Stephen Harper burning papers."

The truth is, the party that replaced them is also pro-business/neoliberal. Harper ran 8 years of deficits attempting Keynesian stimulus to keep Canada out of the global recession, mostly successfully. That's not what he'll be remembered for, though. Having to put up with social conservatism without the [personal financial] benefits of procyclical fiscal policy is a bitter pill. It's why I stopped supporting them. That, and the fact that Harper focused all economic efforts on two commodities, oil and real estate, supplying them with unlimited infrastructure, financial incentives, and silencing critics. Unless you are in one of those sectors doing business in Canada is super dumb, since you not only pay higher taxes, but that tax money goes directly to (in many cases) your direct competitors. On the other hand, the Liberals have always been good for business. They're also the official "second choice" of every Canadian voter so their promised electoral reform will keep the government stable for a long time.

But to answer your question, most of Canada's books were burned 10 years ago. So no, it didn't.

Politics aside (seriously, what the heck?) new trailer, with new music by John Williams: https://youtu.be/W6HN9soeGa8

Thanks, but I refuse to watch any more footage at this point.

The no caps and "/." should have been the biggest clues since I never post that way. Therefore the logical explanations would be I was either drunk or playing. Or trolling I guess. Whatever.

I've avoided any trailer after the teaser. Some theories get spoiled a little as I browse YouTube. I think one was that a beloved character dies, not sure I remember which. Then there's Luke is whomever now. Then there was the one that Glen is dead. Pretty much why I mostly avoid the Star Wars threads here but then end up unsurprised when I see the thread is about something completely irrelevant when I do check in.

You just replied to a thread, on a forum that 10 people visit, 3 times in a row. Get a real ****ing hobby, dude.

I probably spent more time trying to figure out what he meant by Canada's books having already been burned than he took to write that post.

Yeah, that's my forte!

Well that was uncalled for. Not to mention misguided, seeing as how Jon`C is a robot who takes about a minute to post those three messages.

This post amuses the hell out of me, because we're in full-blown Trump territory here, aren't we?

Jon said things that you don't like, so your response is to chide him for saying anything at all. It's ad hominem in its purest form, and by god it is dumber than ever.

Let's just skip to the part where someone points out that you chastised someone for posting three times in a row on a forum that ten people visit. Get a real soapbox, dude.

I apologize for intruding upon your internet hugbox.

If you really act this differently from what you believe, then you'll drink yourself to death, dude.

Don't worry, I really do believe in counter-cyclical fiscal policy and social justice. You don't need to personally benefit from something in order to see it as the right thing to do.

It's actually weird yet amazing how one sentence gave me a semi-interesting (well, not really) idea for the last month of Massassi Forums.

Starting December 1st.

Stay tuned.

Haha, what?

It's the end of Massassi, but it doesn't have to be the end of FGR. :downs:

You will find no one to help you here. FGR has been dissected and placed in cryonic storage.