3D movies

See Avatar in 3D if you can. Yes it's a very familiar story but it's a real spectacle. I've not seen Alice but the alien jungle and wildlife in Avatar is beyond belief.

Go and see Alice.

Queenie is a babe.

I was planning on seeing Avatar, the friend I went to Alice with told me the same thing, the jungle and creatures were very interesting in Avatar. He said the director made it so that when you came upon a new scene he'd slow down and let it settle in visually, Burton raced thru everything so you kinda felt beat up from a shorter movie. But I still think it was an amazing tale, of course the source material was a real classic.

Avatar is a visual feast, not just because of the 3D, but because a lot of the effects are really quite subtle. Sure, there's a lot that isn't subtle but for me the really clever bits were the subtleties. The story is fairly predictable so the movie relies quite a bit on the way it's told. It's definitely worth seeing once. Also, I've noticed that having seen the clips in 2D on ads and trailers, it doesn't have half the visual impact, so it really is worth watching in 3D.

I saw Alice at the weekend. I thought it was lovely. If anything there's a lot more going on visually in Avatar so you may find Avatar more wearing. Alice was fab, though i couldn't see why Burton was pushing so hard for it not to be shown in 2D, but maybe I just missed the subtlety and actually enjoyed it because so much was happening.

Queenie - bonkers mad woman and explains why Burton's movies are the way they are.

Both are excellent and make going to the cinema a special event all over again!

Stuart

I must be the only one but I'm honestly not that excited about 3d tbh

Nothing can substitute for a great plot, screen play, and great acting.

All these effects laden films seem to fall at the first hurdle, let alone the second or third!

The last film I watched was the old David Lean film with Alec Guiness [as Fagin] of Dickens' story, "Oliver Twist."

I suspect that this is likely to around long after most of these modern and effects dependant films have been totally forgotten.

The "3D" thing is simply a money making scam of seemingly little artistic signoficance [sp far at least], all IMHO, of course.

ATB from George

Hi George,

Don't agree with you on this on.

I DO agree that plot etc are central to any good film, but 3D is not a scam.

Personally I wasn't overly impressed by Avatar, but it was a technical tour de force. Cameron used the 3D effects to add an extra layer, not to add stupid cheap tricks.

Bottom line is that 3D can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but it does add something extra.

Unfortunately I have seen three 3D films, none of which has really rocked for me, but Alice in Wonderland is probably the best that I have seen to date.

I wouldn't pay extra for 3D.

What I have really appreciated at my local multiplex is digital projection, the colours are far more vibrant, and no nicks and scratches from 2nd hand film stock.

M

I like monochrome films better than most colour ones. I prefer mono recordings to most stereo ...

Why?

Because there is no pretence that the art is not artificial. I have [and willing done so] suspended disbelieve in the medium if it is so far from realistic as to be clearly an artwork rather than an attempt to give a pretence of reality. But the pretence of approaching realisty is just that - a pretence - colour is always wrong and adjusted, and stereo is the producer's ear interpretation, and both are smoke and mirrors but pretending to be true. Bogus to the nth. degree. I see "3D" as being the visual equivalent to stereo, a distraction from the essense. An actual serious artistic impediment. A real problem which will hamper the quality of future film production. A terrible blight.

I saw Avatar! Not in any way my cup of tea. Like the Starwars stuff I went to sleep within five minutes. Not compelling at all. Not a chance I would do that with something like Lean's "Oliver Twist."

We are all different, so each to their own, but to pretent that the "3D" is really significant for everyone, or even most people is to put the messenger before the message, and as I said that is for me in the plot, the screen play, and the acting. Of course David Lean's wonderfull attention to the infinite subtleties of monochrome help as well!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

I see "3D" as being the visual equivalent to stereo

Surely Colour is the visual equivalent to stereo and 3D is the visual equivalent to surround.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

I saw Avatar!

Why would you do this?

quote:

Originally posted by Bananahead:

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

I see "3D" as being the visual equivalent to stereo

Surely Colour is the visual equivalent to stereo and 3D is the visual equivalent to surround.

Colour is the equivalent of Full Frequency sound recording, and came in at much the same time in films.

"3D" is the equivalent of the preudo-three dimensionality of sound that come with stereo, and soround sound has yet to be present with a visual effect, which would 360 degree panoramic images, where you could choose where to look ...
{:¬)

ATB from George

What next George, trade the car for a horse and cart?

Dear Rackkit,

Not a horse and cart, but a bicycle! Currently I am in the transition stage. I drove the car yesterday for the first time since February! {:¬)

Dear Bananahead,

You wrote [of my seeing Avatar], "Why would you do this?" The answer is that I was asked to go with friends. They found my sleeping the cause of some amusement. They watched it and said I had the best of it! {:¬)

ATB from George

George why don't you just move back to the 19th century, sounds like you'd be happier there?

You could complain about the amount of noise the kids are making cleaning your chimneys, etc.

Modern life sounds like it's a bit too much for you.

I am doing fine thanks, dear Howard. {:¬)

Indeed the times we live in allow us so many benefits not known to previous generations, but people are getting increasingly sentimental, and the phenomenon of “Dianafication,” where everything is turned into a personal issue when it is clearly not is something that I deplore, and modern popular culture is definitely in decline!

To be sensible one must plough one's furrow in the soil that fate bequeaths. So I don't fill my head with sentimental clap-trap - wishing for the impossible! On the other hand it is everyone’s prerogative after a while to become a grumpy old son of the dirt and grumble about how certain things are declining.

Best wishes from George

Personally, I think it does add an extra dimension (pun intended), but it doesn't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Then again, I can't imagine falling asleep in the first 5 minutes of Avatar. I thought it was much better than that, even though it was largely predictable. A yarn is still worth watching if well told in my view, and there's little doubt that it was well told in this case.

Alice was also very well told I thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Neill Ferguson:
I must be the only one but I'm honestly not that excited about 3d tbh

You're not the only one. The eye-candy adds to the experience and distracts from the story in varying measure. In the case of Avatar, the story was dire anyway, so the net effect was positive. For a good movie, I think that the effect would be opposite. The 3D would drag the movie down. I can't get excited by it.

I had the misfortune to see a demo of 3D TV (Sony synchronized shutter system) the other day. Bad, very bad indeed. It has a LONG way to go.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by Neill Ferguson:
I must be the only one but I'm honestly not that excited about 3d tbh

You're not the only one. The eye-candy adds to the experience and distracts from the story in varying measure. In the case of Avatar, the story was dire anyway, so the net effect was positive. For a good movie, I think that the effect would be opposite. The 3D would drag the movie down. I can't get excited by it.

I had the misfortune to see a demo of 3D TV (Sony synchronized shutter system) the other day. Bad, very bad indeed. It has a LONG way to go.

Your not the first person I have heard say this. A lot of people seem a bit disappointed with 3d so far. I have read its better to sit back on this one for a few years as a lot of the restrictions/laws are not set yet. I don't know enough about it all I shall have to read up on it.

George,
When you say

quote:

there is no pretence that the art is not artificial

I understand you completely and applaud the sentiment. When you add

quote:

colour is always wrong and adjusted

I also agree - and at the same time, I think this is where you miss the point. Film makers are much more aware than you and I of the artificiality of colour in movies, and manipulate it in various ways, through set design, lighting and using different film stocks and post production treatments to get, for example, 'hyper-real', monochromatic or washed out effects. Colour is a tool - another layer of artifice - and you may find you begin to appreciate some films more if you watch them with this in mind. Similarly, with 3D, someone eventually will work out how to use it to good effect. There are no bad instruments but it can take a while to work out how to play them.

Yrs

David

I just read an interview with the CEO of Sony. He is backing 3D TV (and 3D everything else) to deliver his company from retail purgatory. I sold all my Sony shares immediately .

Oh well, each to his own. I thought Avatar was absolutely breathtaking entertainment and I enjoyed every second.

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:
George,

... When you add

quote:

colour is always wrong and adjusted

I also agree - and at the same time, I think this is where you miss the point. Film makers are much more aware than you and I of the artificiality of colour in movies, and manipulate it in various ways, through set design, lighting and using different film stocks and post production treatments ...

Yrs, David

Dear David,

I do agree that the directors of films, the cameramen, and directors of photography really understand the effect of manipulating colour in films.

If you watch the big Lord Of The Ring films you can see straight away the use of colour manipulation for atmospheric affect. Rather like the "pathetic fallacy" in old literature when the moon is always described as "yellow" [viz: Shelley's Frankenstein's monster"], when some catastrophic event looms into the plot! I appreciate the effort as well as being put off by it! Somehow the use of varying shades of over or under exposure in the monochrome medium [which creates more of less sharp contrast of shade] underline the intended mood with less intrusiveness for me. I suspect that many would struggle to really enjoy monochrome feature films by now. Next up is Schindler's list in a few minutes, which I bought today.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by tonym:
Oh well, each to his own. I thought Avatar was absolutely breathtaking entertainment and I enjoyed every second.

Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar in 3D; But I think it is only that type of eye-candy movie with a simplistic plot that gets any real benefit. For stories with plot and character development, I feel the 3D would be more of a distraction.

And the 3D TV was pretty dire. I think the effect perhaps needs a bigger screen to really work.

3D film is in it's infancy. I have seen 3D TV's Avatar and Alice. An interesting effect but not there yet IMO. I don't covet this for home viewing at all. We are years away from anything compelling. I assume people realise that the film needs to be filmed in 3D and we won't get a back catalogue.... I find it frustrating enough with the limited BR catalogue......

Alice was filmed normally and then converted to 3D in post.