This is topic The Incredibles (2004) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000851

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2004, 05:20 AM:
 
I have two things to say about this film.

*This has the best sound mix of the year. Absolutely every single sound in the track was well placed, perfectly balanced and smoooooooooth.

*5 out of 5 stars

Nothing else needs to be said.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2004, 06:01 PM:
 
I would have figured "The Incredibles" great sound mix to be yet another credit on Gary Rydstrom's distinguished resume. However, I was surprised to find out Rydstrom didn't work on this project. This is the first Pixar feature without Rydstrom as the main sound designer. Apparently Gary must be taking a break from the movie business. His last credit was the 2003 holiday release, "Peter Pan." There's nothing in the pipeline with his name on it. I guess he's not working on Pixar's "Cars" either. Maybe Spielberg will get him back to work for "War of the Worlds."

Incidentally, Randy Thom was the sound designer and supervising sound mixer for "The Incredibles." It might seem strange he had the same duties for "Polar Express," which opens in a few days.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 11-04-2004, 09:21 PM:
 
So was the 5 out of 5 stars for the audio mix or for the film?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2004, 09:26 PM:
 
Overall experience.
 

---

Posted by David Yauch (Member # 2754) on 11-04-2004, 09:53 PM:
 
I'm gonna go preview it in about an hour, I'll add my review in this spot.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-05-2004, 12:13 AM:
 
I give it 3.5 out of 5. It was too long. Little kiddies are going to be squirming in the middle. The fact that somebody's super-power was always available "just in the nick of time" got a little old being repeated over and over. And the whole part with the robot in the city near the end, went on too long and had a fairly flat ending.

But the sound was excellent, the animation (as expected) was amazing and the story was pretty good. Voices were all good, especially Craig T. Nelson.

Could have used some judicious editing.
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 11-05-2004, 01:04 AM:
 
The film was long, but it didn't seem long. I looked at my watch and I was like...woah. I agree with Brad, I saw the movie tonight in DTS and Dolby Digital (neither with rear surrounds) and it was awesome. Fly bys especially came alive, and really made this movie. And did anyone see that beautiful Water?!?!?

4.5 out of 5
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-05-2004, 01:33 AM:
 
Excellent film! Very entertaining, great sound, great animation, great story, and it wasn't too long at all. Although I think little little kiddies will have a tough time sitting through it. We'll see.

I didn't notice and Pixar easter eggs in this film. I guess I should go watch it again and look harder.
 

---

Posted by David Yauch (Member # 2754) on 11-05-2004, 02:59 AM:
 
I agree with mike here, but I'd give it 4 out of 5. Sure it was long, and kids are gonna get restless, but it kept a quick pace for most of the movie and the sound WAS excellent. Hell I felt my pants shake during a couple fly-bys. Digital surround Also it dispelled some of the fears I had while watching trailers that it would be hell for an adult to sit through, it actually wasn't so bad. Not shrek, but not so bad.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-05-2004, 03:14 AM:
 
A darn good movie. It was a great action/adventure flick for everyone in the family. I really thought they nailed the voice casting. The sound mix was good, but it lacked that Rydstrom "oomph" that some other Pixar features have had. Nevertheless, technically very well made.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Hannes Helfenstein (Member # 2709) on 11-05-2004, 07:17 AM:
 
To Bobby: "Peter Pan" was Gary Rydstrom's last sound project. He left Skywalker Sound and went to Pixar but I still hope that he will return. I will miss his perfect soundmixes... Read this article here: http://mixonline.com/recording/interviews/audio_gary_rydstrom/index.html

Fortunately there are a lot of very fine sound designers at Skywalker Sound that will replace Gary as good as they can: Christopher Boyes, Randy Thom, Ben Burtt, Steve Boeddeker, Tom Myers, Ethan Van der Ryn to name just a few.

And I can't wait to see and listen to "The Incredibles" in Extended-Surround!
 

---

Posted by Jason M Miller (Member # 2597) on 11-05-2004, 05:26 PM:
 
I thought this movie was great....plus I got to see the new Star Wars trailer..It was a little slow in places but it was not a big deal...
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-05-2004, 06:41 PM:
 
The evil genius reminds me of Harry Knowles.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-05-2004, 10:09 PM:
 
This may be the best animated movie I have ever seen!

The sound mix was, well... Incredible!

My ONLY complaint was the 5 or 6 gigantic CRAP codes that popped into the middle of the frame at various points in the film.

5 outta 5! Definitely gonna catch this again!

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2004, 12:20 AM:
 
Due to popular demand, I have written a review for this brand new movie. Please stop calling and e-mailing begging for my amazing opinion.

Story: 9/10
This sure has a different feeling than most Pixar movies, but that's probably because that John Asshatter guy (or whatever his name is) did not direct this movie. It was also a bit more mature, as it had lots of real death (female superheroes getting grinded up in jet turbine engines) and even a rotted corpse. Corpses are cool. In fact corpses are so cool that I guess in Britian or somewhere like that they are gonna show a human corpse rotting on TV! For real. How cool is THAT?! All movies should have at least one rotting or rotted corpse as mandated by the MPAA. Anyway, I guess stuff like that is what got it the PG rating. It could have used a few cuss words to make it better, though. Cuss words enhance any situation and are highly encouraged by everyone on the planet without exception. Great movie and highly entertaining.

Graphics: 7/10
The graphics in this movie were pretty good, but not as sharp as Toy Story 2, etc. I noticed aliasing in quite a few scenes. One of the scenes which it is easy to notice is towards the beginning of the film when Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl meet onscreen for the first time. She has just knocked the robber out and he gets back up and says some jive like "Hey man she got me first..." She punches him again. Watch the top of her arm as she punches him. ALIASING! There is also horrible aliasing at some other parts in the movie I can't quite remember off the top of my head. And yes, I was watching the movie on 35mm film, sitting near the very back of the 550+ seat auditorium. But hell, even the Sega Dreamcast video game system could do full scene anti-aliasing in the hardware. The picture was dim as well so I had to subtract a few points.

Sound: 4/10
I watched this movie at an AMC theater. Therefore the sound was extremely poor, but that shouldn't be surprising. Finding an AMC theater with good sound is as rare as siamese quintuplets sharing a single heart and brain. If I ever made a movie, AMC would not be allowed to play it. Yes, it was echo-city. AMC really does not deserve to be in business. What a horrible, horrible theater chain. As always, the sound will be much better on DVD. I just hope they include a discrete 6.1 DTS-ES track on it. Make it happen, Brad Bird! Also I want to be mentioned in the commentary.

Overall: 9/10
I'm sure that in a good theater without a crappy Torus screen and a decently designed sound system, this movie would kick all ass. I wish directors like Brad Bird were around when I was a projectionist (but now I have outpriced myself from the job since I am the best in Colorado, no holds barred, I'll take on anyone. I am also very humble and theaters hate humble employees like me). This movie is highly recommended and like I said, it'll look and sound great at Brad Miller's theaters, but probably not too many other places, unfortunately.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-06-2004, 04:40 AM:
 
24 hours.
5 1/2 Times.

I would have got more in, but I had to work tonight.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2004, 05:30 AM:
 
You suck. I saw it 4 times in 9 hours. Though I was paid.

Anyway, your review please, Mike.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-06-2004, 07:00 AM:
 
Good show. A bit different than some of the older Pixar films, but just as good. I do think that the first half of this could have been edited a bit more "tightly," but that's a nitpick complaint.
Go see this (and then go see Sky Captain--the second-best film of this year). The "Boundin'" short was great, too.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-06-2004, 02:03 PM:
 
Scott, what a terrible thing to say? Spy Craptain ranks on the top 10 worst of 2004 right up there with Anchorman!
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-06-2004, 02:21 PM:
 
I can't say that I cared for Boundin'. It seemed almost too preachily allegorical with respect to race, and didn't really seem all that funny.

I think I need a special grading system for shorts. There are live action shorts that are so terrible and painfully it's not funny (there seem to be a lot of these). There are live action shorts that are run-of-the-mill and OK, as well as those that some people like and other people hate (like the 40min Accountant), or the Checkov's Bear short (both recent Academy nominees a few years back). Then there are really cute and funny live action shorts that approach the humor of most animated shorts; an example is Gravity. Then mildly amusing animated shorts, and then really fun and cute ones, like For The Birds.

I'd put Boundin' somewhere at the low end of "mildly amusing."

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-06-2004, 07:41 PM:
 
THE INCREDIBLES was a disapointment for me. I felt that the animation was outstanding but the pacing and overall storyline were not to my taste. This movie seems too long, slow at times -- most of the first 90 mins -- and the drama is just a bit overwrought with not as much comedy as I had been led to expect. It's hard to imagine young children being able to truly enjoy this movie.

I never thought I would say this but there is simply too much character development at work here. Or maybe I'm just becoming somewhat bored with Pixar's habit of making movies about "broken" heroes. This movie needs a therapist. Tedious.

Best moments in the whole movie:

"No capes!"

"That was totally wicked!"
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-07-2004, 12:10 AM:
 
I watched it again last night with a nearly full house, and it was as expected: A near-constant stream of kids heading up and down the aisles, bored. Have not seen that with the other Pixar films.

What really struck me also was the lack of the usual Pixar originality here. Huge chunks of this movie are lifted wholesale from other movies. The villian/robot is awful similar to Doc Ock from Spider-Man 2. The kids are right out of the Spy Kids movies. The ending battle in the city has bits of Superman 2 in it. Even the flying cars leading up to the "Underminer" sequence seem lifted from The Day After Tomorrow. And the obvious James Bond references. And so on.

The other thing that bugged me is that "power" that Syndrome had of being able to simply point at people or objects and suspend them in the air. Hmm, earlier in the movie (when he's younger) he says he doesn't HAVE superpowers. So there's a continuity problem there. But then, that whole finger-pointing/suspending thing is lifted from Superman 2, anyway.

I wish I could have the same raving enthusiasm for this as some of you guys do -- because I really like the Pixar movies. But they missed the mark a bit this time. Toy Story 1 and Finding Nemo are still the best of the bunch.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-07-2004, 11:54 AM:
 
The finger-pointing/suspension is technological, and is not a superpower.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-07-2004, 03:05 PM:
 
First half of the movie, 2 out of 7, second half, 6.9 out of 8. The best part was the guys getting drunk in the security van!! I hope my kids try that, because kids try anything they see in movies!!

Got Mike and Joe beat.... saw it 12 times in 3 1/2 hours.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-08-2004, 12:29 AM:
 
Jeremy, pirating it and then watching it on 12 computer monitors simultaneously doesn't count.

Joe, I can't post a review because I'm far to busy watching the greatest movie ever made over and over again.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-08-2004, 12:46 AM:
 
I really liked "The Incredibles." It rates a solid 3.5 out of 4 stars. I watched it this evening at the Carmike 8, screen #5, DTS (it is a THX screen, though not officially certified).

First, for those who make the gripe about little kids being bored by the movie, this is not a movie for little kids. It is very much a movie for kids at least bicycle riding age or older (as well as us adults who still enjoy things we found very cool as adolescents). There's a lot of humor in this that only adults would appreciate. Please note the PG rating. Kids who liked "Star Wars" should enjoy this movie --well, at least if they don't think computer animated cartoons are only for babies.

My only complaints with the film: the identity of the bad guy is obviously telegraphed in the story. Thankfully they cut to the chase without the narrative collapsing into idiot plot. Also, a few of the segments in the movie seemed to look a tad bit soft. Quite shocking to me, the final render of this film was done on an Intel-based render farm. Gasp! Did Sun's Scott McNealy do something to piss off Steve Jobs?

I loved everything else. Having heard it, I agree with Brad. This is the best audio mix I've heard this year. Nice, aggressive moments and some pretty original sounds. The sound guys even took risks with placing vocals into the surrounds.

I enjoyed the domestic humor of super heroes trying to live as everyday people. Kudos for Pixar in skewering sue-happy lawyers and greedy insurance companies (both subjects are very worsening problems today).

The action sequences were very entertaining. The chase sequence on the island had some great moments (pretty funny ones too at that). I disagree with the Doctor Octopus and Spiderman 2 comparisons. Of note, this movie was probably well along in development and even production before the script of Spiderman 2 was finalized. The big bowling ball robot in this film has its origins derived from more retro sources. The film is very much a send up of both the classic James Bond movies and old comic book serials.

I also enjoyed this film for reasons few can appreciate. The character design and production design of this movie was flat out awesome. Pixar went the correct route in crafting characters more based on style of caricature rather than making them boringly realistic looking. Pixar also stuck well to the visual theme of early 1960's design.

It's obvious these guys poured over everything from architecure books of Frank Lloyd Wright to exaggerated fashion drawings and graphic design of that day to come up with the look for this movie. Pixar even stayed accurate in terms of type design, keeping that relevant for the period. Most films rarely, if ever, do that. If you watch "The Incredibles" again, please check out the trailers before this feature. Nearly every damned one I saw (including the SW EpIII teaser) used Trajan. Lame! Someone needs to fire some of these movie marketing guys for sleepwalking so badly! With that glaring problem noted, I really appreciated it when Pixar chose Microgramma for that giant password screen. They did their homework! The guys at Pixar are real artists. They are into art and design, not just computer programming. It is inspiring to me to see those people go to that extra effort instead of doing that usual good enough to get by shit so many others do. Hell, I want to see the movie again just for the great end title sequence. Bravo, Pixar!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-2004, 01:41 AM:
 
So is there any way to find out what resolution this movie was rendered at? It was definitely very, very low compared to other Pixar movies. I saw lots of hardcore aliasing. Manny suggested that they might have just rendered it at the pathetic resolution offered by digital cinema (which is not even HD resolution) and just transferred that to film. I am inclined to agree.

All I know is that this movie looked worse than previous Pixar efforts. Maybe Mike Olpin can find out for us. Why does it look like ass, Mike?

PS - Bobby: I can do end credits like that in After Effects all by itself. After Effects can even do Trajan so all the bases are covered!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-08-2004, 08:32 AM:
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the four guys who put together the end title sequence composed it in Adobe After Effects. I've seen AE do much more complicated stuff in its pseudo-3D Photoshop-in-motion environment.

Oh yeah, and you do get Trajan Pro with PhotoshopCS. Woowee! Let's use that font even more so we can hate it as much as Arial!
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-08-2004, 01:48 PM:
 
Ok first of all, great movie, second best of the year, one of the greatest superhero movies of all time.

Ok now to the rendering problem.

I am guessing here, but my guess is that it was in fact rendered as the same resolution as the film burner itself, instead of the normal resolution which is far greater.

If this is the case, then it was done for time constraints. It takes little time to render in standard resolution, where as the normal pixar rendering takes so much longer.

It could also be disney putting its two cents in, or perhaps even pixar themselves getting cheap on the back end of things.

Either way, most didn't notice, and that is the problem. Most need to learn to spot things and say "HEY DAMMIT< THATS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

SO my twobits..

ciao

dave
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-08-2004, 02:26 PM:
 
Considering both Pixar and Dreamworks Animation are both publicly traded companies on the stock marketing, I would not be surprised to see the quality of work infected with the typical M.B.A. 2 cents strategy of "do it cheap and only good enough to get by to maximize profits."

In fact, I expect this very thing to happen eventually. Much of this has already taken place in other areas of the film industry, with visual effects houses being an obvious example. Despite enormous advances in technology, more and more of the effects shots we see in movies are very fake looking. Lots of cost and quality cutting is happening, in spite of studio claims certain films are costing $150 million or more. The show may cost that, but the money isn't getting spent on CG. Most is just going into middleman pockets. There's also a lot more in the way of mediocre graphics talent working in the industry and doing so for far cheaper.

Further, I have to wonder if many film critics have taken stupid pills or something. When they exclaim a film has great visual effects, they obviously must be grading on a curve. For example, a good number of critics made remarks that "Van Helsing" had great visual effects. I thought many of the effects in that movie sucked ass. Many of the same people responsible for that one also did "The Mummy Returns," which also had ass-quality visuals.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-08-2004, 09:45 PM:
 
The method PIXAR uses to record pictures to film has not changed. They are still using their PixarVision recorder. The visual defects may have to do with the compresion (if any) they used on the image/video file. Or we could just blame technicolor. 3 out of my 4 prints have a bizare video effect that occurs in reel one at exactly the part Joe described. 9 of the 24 reels had some kind of lab defect.

About PixarVision
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-08-2004, 11:07 PM:
 
Shenanigans! It's a future-marketing conspiracy from Disney! Sounds like a stretch, but think about it. They botch the 35mm prints that will only be in circulation for 8 weeks or less. Then they deliver some pristene looking DVDs and then a year or so later issue HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, Death Ray or whatever HD medium is en vogue at the time, thus proclaiming "the best presentation of the film anyone has ever seen anywhere!"

Okay. Maybe I'm just smoking too much of that I-44 stuff.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-2004, 11:37 PM:
 
Sorry Mike, I'm still convinced that they rendered it at a lower resolution than normal. They did use Intel processors after all. They may have recorded it onto the film the same way, but that doesn't mean that high resolution is guaranteed. Aliasing cannot be introduced into the picture unless it is digitized again, and these were very real aliasing artifacts. Worse than I see on DVD. The systems that The Incredibles was rendered on was not even as powerful as a Sega Dreamcast! For shame!
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-09-2004, 02:47 AM:
 
Perhaps I'm the one smoking that I-44 stuff. I've seen it a few times aftter you mentioned the aliasing earlier, and I'll be damned if I can find any. It looks extremely crisp and sharp on my 40 ft screen.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-09-2004, 03:06 AM:
 
Maybe, but then again maybe you need that really cool Lasik surgery, as there is no missing the giant bricks (pixels) I see. I really wish I could remember the scene, but it's towards the end when they are in the enemie's factory and something with what appears like a grill on the front of a truck (that's what it looks like, I don't think it is a truck grill) approches the screen slowly. Jag-city! I think they were approaching the rocket or something.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 11-09-2004, 11:13 AM:
 
Ok, to get this REVIEW TOPIC back on track, here's what I thought about The Incredibles.

The sound mix on this was awesome!!! I loved it in Dolby Digital at the theatre I went to. I like the plot to a point, it did drag in spots. I laughed alot in this. The detail of the animation was superb. You could see every little hair in Mr Incredible's eyebrow. Very cool

sound: 5/5
movie 3.1459 / 5
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-09-2004, 02:32 PM:
 
OFF of the review topic.. i still say it was rendering for time constraints. According to pixars web site, it takes from six to ninety hours to render each frame. Now if they were to take the resolution that they normally render in down a tad to cut time down, then they can produce the movies much faster, get them in the theater, then render them in the proper resolution for dvd release while the movie is playing in theaters..

just a guess

ciao

dave
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-09-2004, 03:16 PM:
 
60 to 90 hours PER FRAME would be understandable for, say, the original Toy Story. But even though the graphics in Pixar movies have indeed gotten a bit better, the amazing increase in the processors that do the rendering and the bandwidth since then is just staggering. At 4k resolution, I'd imagine it should take less than 6 hours per frame.... unless they only have one CPU working on one frame at any given time.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2004, 05:17 PM:
 
Yeah, the 6 to 60-90 hours per frame thing seems to be a bit extreme, even for a crushing floating-point intensive radiosity rendering.

I'd like to know specifically what types of Intel processors were used in the rendering farm. I suspect dual Pentium IV or Xeon processors in each server blade or CPU case. Maya, SoftImageXSI and Renderman all have native code for those CPUs. It would be surprising if Intel Itanium or Itanium2 64-bit CPUs were used. I don't think there's any cost advantage between those processors and the Sun SPARC-based systems Pixar used in the past for final render.

I'd also like to know the pixel size of each rendered frame. Standard "2K" resolution is 2048 X 1536. But with a 2.39:1 frame there are two ways you can render for it. You can go the high rez route, render at 3672 X 1536 and then apply a 2:1 anamorphic style squeeze to it to get the best possible quality out of 2K. Or you could do the lower quality method, which I suspect. You simply crop into the "Y" value of those 1536 pixels until you wind up with a frame of 2048 X 856 pixels and a 2.39:1 aspect ratio.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-09-2004, 08:18 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

maybe you need that really cool Lasik surgery

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

Enjoyed the story and animation, but was surprised at the "body count" for this PG film.

---

quote: Joshua Waaland

---

Am I the only one here who thought this movie absolutely sucked?

---

quote: Joshua Waaland

---

The trailers were misleading in the storyline.

---

quote: Joshua Waaland

---

In fact I can't believe I have even wasted this much of my time to even talk about it.

---

Your first movie review and this is what you give us!
FEEL THE LOVE BROTHER!!!

No really though, you didn't actually see Shark Tale instead now did you?

Ciao baby

Dave
 

---

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 12-10-2004, 12:59 PM:
 
It was a nice movie. I always enjoy watching Pixar films. It did also strike me that people died in this Pixar movie.

I found the picture somewhat blurred, not sharp... I did take a look at the picture quality in different theatres.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-22-2004, 11:26 PM:
 
When I saw it , the picture looked o.k. on a 15 inch screen. I'm not sure how it will look on the large screen T.V. though. The sound was also at a very low level and I had to crank the laptop all of the way up to hear it!
 

---

Posted by Crosley Carpenter (Member # 1825) on 12-31-2004, 09:33 PM:
 
I love Pixar films as much as the next person, but was quite disappointed with The Incredibles, finding it very slow, way too long and ....not very funny. In fact, I confess to having had trouble staying awake during the first half, and this for a 9.30 am show!
We saw way too much of Mr Incredible in retirement. Less is more, and the inner workings of an insurance company are not interesting to anyone, let alone a PG audience.
There was still much to like: the film looked great and Brad Bird's Edna character was a hoot, but it wasn't enough.
Having said that, I may well come to like it a lot more on subsequent viewings.
It is certainly unusual for me to be out of step with the majority opinion, especially with a Pixar film.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-22-2005, 04:07 PM:
 
I posted here back in November about the sound mix, and how it lacked "oomph". Well, I retract my previous statement after seeing the film on DVD. This is definitely one of the best mixes I've heard in a long time. I can't remember which theatre I saw this in, but either way, my home system kicked its butt! The bass on this disc was, well, incredible.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-22-2005, 05:53 PM:
 
Sad how so many theater sound systems are poorly designed and poorly tuned isn't it? The customer should NOT be able to get a better sound experience at home!
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-23-2005, 11:59 AM:
 
I mean, the experience at the cinema wasn't "bad" per se, but it was not nearly as good. It just seemed as if at home, everything blended so much more seemlessly. I've also noticed in terms of LFE, on many films, our theatre just doesn't seem to give me as much as my home system. Sure, I'm in a smaller space, but I know these theatrical systems have to be capable of more.

AJG
 

---