Flatland: The Movie - Official Trailer

FLATLAND 2: SPHERELAND now available at store.flatlandt...
The official trailer for the new animated adventure - Flatland: The Movie. Adapted from the beloved classic by Edwin A. Abbott. Featuring the voices of Martin Sheen, Kristen Bell, Tony Hale, Joe Estevez and Michael York.
Available on DVD at store.flatlandt...
Official site:
www.flatlandthe...
©2007 Flat World Productions, LLC

[@copyright232]

bill cipher theories brought me here

[@LorenzoDoesntExist]

There are two easily understood things that a lot of people are having trouble understanding: 1.Dionys Burger wrote a sequel to Flatland called Sphereland. In that novel, Burger changes a few things; women are not line segments. This series of movies is mainly based on Abott's Flatland, but it still features elements from Dionys' version. 2.There is another film released the same year as this one that is also named Flatland. The one where women ARE line segments. This isn't the trailer for it.

[@hztb9918]

For some reason, My math teacher showed this movie to me and my class...

[@hztb9918]

Chrono105 Yeah I agree.

[@Elsisalittleconcerned]

1. I have no idea what i am doing here. 2. GET TO YOUR SQUARE-ICLE! NOOOOOOOOOWWWWW

[@datisallthat]

1. Females are lines 2. There are no colors (they were banned) these are only the opinions of a ninth grader, but i think they made Flatland much less complicated than in the book

[@nicolachoon8221]

Whaaaaat? I thought women could only be lines in the novel..

[@neuromancer6218]

Yes in the novel they are only lines, but whoever made this changed it so the PC crowd wouldn't have a fit as they can't appreciate the book was written in the 19th century and contains a lot of social commentary about that time

[@PaladinswordSaurfang]

Yeah, they shouldn't recreate a story they aren't willing to stay true to. It's very disrespectful to the author, and the message he was trying to say. May as well take all the guns out of Gallipoli and replace them with balloons and teddy bears. If you need to alter a story to make it family-friendly, the story was not meant to be family-friendly to begin with.

[@Mugruncher]

This was a fantastic project. I have shown it to so many friends, and it's completely changed our half-formed school-taught understanding of 'dimensions'

[@notfred1233]

saw this movie back in 7th grade math and it got me fucked up. shit was trippy af to my young mind. its been 3 years since that and i still cant fully cope. 11/10 movie tho.

[@whade62000]

Is it bad that I teared up watching this trailer? (I'm a 28 year old man.) I can imagine no greater goal or challenge in a movie than this. Looking forward to Sphereland bad :)

[@WouterSmet]

Shame they don't so the perspective of a flatlander, if only for a while :( (you could do it by just making everything stretch all the way from top to bottom of the screen, removing the sense of 'height' of everything)

[@erjuanjojj]

I read the book and I hope to watch the movie but I think there is a big mistake in it: I don't think the square would be able to watch "threedimensionaly" because he comes from a world with only two dimensions. I think that if the square entered in the third dimension, he would see a lot of two dimensions changing. And that's why that if we entered in the fourth dimension we could only watch a lot of three dimensions changing instead of a complete fourth dimension.

[@DarkBraelyn]

"...friend comes closer to us we see his line becomes larger; if he leaves us it becomes smaller: but still he looks like a straight line; be he a Triangle, Square, Pentagon, Hexagon, Circle, what you will - a straight Line he looks and nothing else. You may perhaps ask how under these disadvantageous circumstances we are able to distinguish our friends from one another: but the answer to this very natural question will be more fitly and easily given when I come to describe..." - The Book

[@donthatemebecauseiambeauti7441]

Saw this movie in math today, GET TO YOUR SQUARE-ICLE NOWWW

[@PaladinswordSaurfang]

GET TO YOUR SQUARACLE!!!

[@hztb9918]

NOW!!!!

[@RonT222]

When I was in 7th grade I read the book... then I read Euclid's book on the Elements (a book about geometric proofs)... now I'm getting a degree in mathematics!! After reading this book mathematical books were all I understood.

[@koriosamii584]

I like A Sphere's voice from the first film

[@NenekAtuk89]

5 dimensional theory in Interstellar movie brought me here.....

[@rebca_]

Things wrong with this trailer: -The houses are not pentagons, but squares with pointed "roofs", even though they serve no purpose. -Somehow their mouths have an inside. -Speaking of insides, I can't see any flat people guts. -Somehow they are able to look behind themselves. -Women are not lines, or very thin rectangles, which means no peace-cry, though that bosses voice seemed annoying enough. -How exactly did they pave streets? -Chimney -The eyes always stay north -You could get seriously injured on the points of those square buildings And so much more!

[@AdventureMaster18]

Just watch flatland the film instead of the movie. It sounds confusing and its even more confusing when you realize they both came out in 2007.

[@Mugruncher]

It's different from the book, but it's a great movie. It's visually pleasing, and concise so it's hard to get bored and quit watching. Perfect detail isn't the point, the point is that thanks to this movie, lots of people who otherwise couldn't can now grasp an idea of mathematical/natural principles which are hard to explain and absorb. Maybe it's not a perfect recreation of the book, maybe small details of flatland aren't 100% accurate, but they're not relevant to the most important aspects of the project. The point is to gain a greater understanding of the universe thanks to this story.

[@surge123456789]

actually the point on the roof being the north side is to deal with the rain, it rains from north to south and if you go too far north you end up in a outer space or i should say the air becomes way to thin for anyone to breath it and the ocean in WAY to the south.

[@axeleide299]

Actually Ed flatland the film is more accurate

[@TheSentientCloud]

1. Narrator sounds like Morgan Freeman 2. They all have faint Mandelbrot Set designs to them (not to mention other fractals in it) Third dimension would be hard enough for them to comprehend, let alone noninteger dimensions!

[@wisewords7]

I am a maths teacher and I love the concept of Flatland!

[@Chrisander1606]

I can't believe the voice actors are Martin Sheen and Kristen Bell... I wish I would have watched (or known about) this video years ago...

[@timothyarment]

I'm not a mathematician or anything, but lines create dimensions. For 3 dimensions think of a cube (X,Y,Z) For 2 dimensions think of a square (X,Y) For 1 dimension think of a line (X) For 0 dimensions think of a point A single point doesn't have any lines so it doesn't have any dimensions.

[@PetercAW]

yeah, in the book the main character gets put in an asylum for trying to prove the existence of the third dimension to the circles.

[@InMiddletown]

I read the book, and it is freaking awesome.

[@MeepCard]

I watched this Flatland movie today during my 2nd Period Math Enrichment. It was fun. I loved the ending when Circle got served.

[@spiritvisionart]

omg this movie is awesome THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS! i cant wait for sphereland

[@damb263]

Weren't the houses supposed to be in a 5 sided form or larger?

[@sammylynnb225]

My geometry teacher had a spaz attack when she found the movie, she was thrilled.

[@jeralan]

Every time I hear Martin Sheen's voice now, that's who I think of as well!

[@embarandshadowlegend]

Came into seeing this in Large Group thinking "This is going to be SOOOOOOOOOOOO boring." And then it started. I was blown away. We were talking about this movie for the rest of the day. So many questions unanswered! So much to be learned!

[@Gerstein1]

I read the book. It was wonderful in every way possible! Can't wait to see this.

[@batcubed6670]

noooo, the eye is supposed to be the mouth, and on an angle! D: Women are needles, with only two points... So much of this is wrong!

[@batcubed6670]

Not to mention the dialogue is sooooo wrong.

[@batcubed6670]

***** Thanks! :D I put a bit of thought into it, so I appreciate the compliment a lot!

[@jogiff]

Some changes were inevitable for the sake of making the film work as a movie. The book is mostly a narrator describing his day to day life and the history of his world. Most audiences would sit through 70 minutes of that, especially when you consider that it's social commentary from over a century ago. The women being fully formed shapes was probably to avoid accusations of misogyny. There's also a lot of color in this movie despite the fact that the invention of color was a disruptive force that had to be suppressed in the books. And A Square seems to have sympathizers in this film while he was completely alone until the very end when he had one relative who sort of believed him.

[@kaidoclaws216]

Yes yes but WHERE IS THE ILLUMINATI BILL!!?

[@bearnottheblues5222]

You fold 1 dimension then you get 2D world. You fold 2D world and you get 3D world. Now think about folding time, you get combinations of possibilities in different directions just like that in Interstellar.

[@VisayasMindanaoLuzon]

+Mengnan Wei Then the higher dimension beings are angels and the creator. No wonder they keep visiting our puny little world.

[@nodezsh]

No, that's not right. You have to fold the three dimensions, time is not a dimension.

[@saerain]

@QwertyTSecond Indeed, the book is much less about describing how life could operate in two dimensions and much more about priming the reader to think in two dimensions, how to perceive three dimensions from two, and thereby how to begin imagining moving from three to four and so on.

[@mytimetravellingdog]

@asyo22 well they see line segments. the ways they recognise each other is covered extensively in the original book this film seems to deviate immensely and not really have much resemblance to the book apart from certain core concepts like a flatland and the desire to educate about the concept of higher dimensions.

[@TenebrousLyke]

I'm reading Flatland, and I think it's neat and interesting; however, it's taking me a long time to finish it because it puts me to sleep. I didn't know they had movie! That's exciting!

[@cpnlogan]

So by "adapted from the beloved classic", you mean "expanded on the dimentional aspects of the book (which is great) but left out the social commentary on gender"... I hope that there is still the stuff in there about how "more sides are better".

[@Tabbimura]

They have books? But books can't exist in flatland. Books needs landscape to be written and flatlanders are part of their landscape.

[@98Zai]

Yeah, but in the book all women are very slim rectangles, they can turn invisible and accidentally kill other shapes if they just rotate. That combined with the fact that your shape dictates your social status in Flatland makes it a rather large part of the story to cut out o.o

[@ChrisBrownellmath]

flatterland by Ian Stewart is a great sequel to flatland. The contents reflect what has happened in geometry over the last 200 or so years. Euclid is only partially correct.

[@JAdouble6]

I watched this in my Geometry class. I really enjoyed it.

[@Fournier46]

If there was a third dimension someone would have told me by now. Debunked!

[@Maarttttt]

It's awesome that Martin Sheen is in this

[@Gravidtron]

In the book it's explained that women are actually very thin parallelograms. They tend to round your number of sides up or down in common speech, so women are called 'straight lines' and any man with more than 20 sides is just called a 'circle.' The book itself is actually satirizing a lot of the issues of female oppression of the day. The movie I can't comment on, apart from that it seems to have removed the shapes vs. straight lines issue... and looks very cool.

[@DylanGalvinMusic]

Holy shit I want this for my birthday!

[@Hasharu]

I saw this movie in geometry today. I wish they would make one about the 4D

[@Bismuth83X]

Get to your squaricle, NOW!

[@Sgt_Glory]

@piechocolatethedos The book was meant not just to teach geometry, but as a scathing stab at the very classism and sexism so prevalent in Victorian society. I guess the movie went the pure education route because most people who watch it wouldn't be so acutely aware of those societal issues. If they covered that, it'd probably be 2 hrs long not 1/2.

[@automats1]

Practically in world can't exist 0, 1, 2, dimensions. everything we see everything has space. This film is not about some silly geometry its about our perception of space we live.

[@teemo8247]

I want to see the fourth dimension :( but nobody would know how it looks like

[@BeatrixRighto]

They changed some of the things. Women in Flatland cannot be anything but a line. Yet there was a female circle.

[@98Zai]

I think the original story was a bit too violent for the intended audience of today. I can't really see them portraying so much murder in a film aimed at a younger crowd, including the the fact that women can eat themselves and stab other shapes by accident. I haven't seen it though, but it seems a lot cuter than the original story o.o

[@hmphargh]

Awesome! I love the look of this...way better than the book :)

[@PecanCrayon]

I watched this in my math class yesterday... it kinda reminded me of the movie Felidae for some reason!

[@gamingchinchilla7323]

can I watch this.... on mah 3D TV?

[@missspacegirl9907]

Spherius is the one true god.

[@jasminecanfly]

THIS IS THE COOLEST MOVIE EVER!!! I wanna see it in IMAX

[@CyndiNoName]

They should have kept the women as lines. I wouldve loved to see scary ass lines humming a peace song and moving side to side.

[@MenkoDany]

Thumbs up if you watched this on your own because you were curious about the novel and dimensions.

[@s29382820]

there are two blue squares in it, one is Arhtur Square (Martin Sheen), the another one is Abbott Square (Joe Estavez ).

[@erjuanjojj]

Have you seen the movie? It has another mistake in the end... We can keep in touch by email if you want! ;)

[@PowerMetalEuphonist]

Lineland for the win.

[@Jakattack1212]

Wow, is it some sort of law that movies can't follow the books they were based on..... It must be if they managed to mess us flatland....THE WOMAN ARE LINES NOT SHAPES

[@cali115]

I just saw this in my math class yesterday. I thought it was going to be another lame movie, but when it started it was really interesting. That why I came on youtube, because I'm trying to find a copy of the movie that I thought I would hate. LOL

[@QwertyTSecond]

Call it artistic licence. Ultimately, life couldn't exist in just two dimensions, as anything such as capillaries or a trachea would result in the organism being sliced in half. This book and film are more about creativity, and a very good way of explaining higher dimensions to our 3D minds.

[@osnapitzrj]

@AEigner you have a great point, this isnt just another math book teaching some plain, old, boring equation or lesson. it is multiple lessons all rolled up into one. but may i point out something mathy? "...it wouldn't be so ACUTELY aware..." LOL :P

[@nirvrock77]

Wow...can anyone think of a movie in which the ideas from the book are not stupified beyond recognition?

[@RizaFlame]

I love this movie, it was cute!

[@aurielle112]

okay, let me just explain it like this ------ the 3rd dimension CONTAINS 0, 1, and 2 dimension. You can see right or left PLUS up and down.

[@stlmxc]

A singular point. No up, no down, no left, no right.

[@yahjyeable]

where can i buy this cd?

[@aurielle112]

I thought the 0th dimension is a point, and the 1st dimension is a line, the second has width and length...the third one has height.

[@fobitbswo]

Dude. How do they see each other though? Mind blown.

[@aurielle112]

dimensions 0,1, and 2 is what made the 3rd one. You can see 0,1, and 2D, but you never notice it because they formed 3D. (Never mind about the second sentence, i dont know how you explain it...)

[@Deviousperson]

And to believe, that man in the 1800s made a book called flatland, in which this movie is based off of.

[@HeiHolaHello]

I like how they use the mandelbrot fractal everywhere; but I still don't know why...

[@Mithruiel]

There are three dimensions: length (left to right; x), width (up and down; y), and depth (upwards and downwards; z). They can see in front of them because this is length. They themselves are not 3D, so technically nothing is in front of anything else, just beside it.

[@Aktof]

dude women were totally lines in the novella... and it was explained as if x and y were width and depth as looked upon a horizontal plane...

[@dmx100088]

can i get flatlands on itunes?

[@VoidHalo]

This movie just looks awful. They modernized the hell out of it to the point where it's barely recognizable. I have no interest in seeing this, despite wanting to see a film adaptation of the book. There is however a short film which is said to be really good. It would be worth checking out.

[@RYAN57HEINZ]

I watched this movie in math like 3 days ago, it was so cool and really made me think

[@marclarell]

yes, as it says in the trailer, by Edwin A. Abbott

[@awsgames]

My math teacher showed us this movie today, itn was awesome.

[@TalkernateHistory]

Oh snap, Joe Estavez is the blue square in this movie.

[@madgang201]

Same here. I thought it was all interesting, but everyone's critizism ruined it.

[@recurveninja]

The Square shouldn't have been talking to the Hexagon. Totally different classes.

[@star4galaxy]

I wached this movie in my math class - it is really good

[@hyperacti]

How did I miss this?

[@SuperMamaLlama1234]

Where can I buy the book?

[@s29382820]

Ladd Ehlinger, right?

[@AlexanderFuchs64]

It's available for free on project Gutenberg

[@TheCowellable]

@miktruk , well I think it's AMAZING! The producer and both directors singed the book!

[@krinbkrini6560]

that "big circle-boss" sounds like winston churchill...sure, because we conservatives are all flat-earthers....):

[@Richard079]

Think it through, how could they identify a square from a circle? What would happen to the 'line' that they see when the creature, say a square, rotates?

[@ehkoin]

My math teacher met the guy that produced/directed this. BTW, its on Amazon for $10.

[@Deviousperson]

Ah, I think the briefcase opens up at an angle outwards, not upwards, and tablets with information comes out. Thats my guess, after reading the book.

[@The30115]

i wish it was Cubeland (3d to 4d)

[@erjuanjojj]

If you have seen the movie you may realise another mistake in the end? Do you know which I'm talking about? =)

[@abhishekrdesai]

i dont understand! if it is flatland means 0 hight then how could u see the thing in front of u?