Perhaps more so than any other creative endeavor, moviemaking is in a codependent relationship with technology. The milestone advances in film technology over time – color, Kodachrome, stereoscoping, analog special effects (rear screen projection, etc.), THX/Dolby, CGI, "bullet time" (a modern version of the old time-slice photography trick), and now plug-and-play 3D rigs like RealD – have unavoidably changed movies by altering what is possible.
buy zovirax online www.lifefoodstorage.store/wp-content/languages/new/prescription/zovirax.html no prescription
They are part of the numerator in the fraction of a director/producer's vision that makes it onto the screen. Each leap forward has provided us with stunning new films taking advantage of technology to do things that have never been done before…and each has also been an annoying fad in the hands of hacks who don't know what to do with new sounds or special effects except to lay them on thick to overstimulate the audience. Loud noises! Bright colors! Epic battles! Unfortunately a shit movie with incredible technology behind it is still a shit movie (see: every summer blockbuster action movie of the past 10 years).
We all remember the first films to use these tricks to memorable effect: The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (and to a much less deserved extent, Gone With the Wind) for color, Return of the Jedi for THX/surround sound, King Kong for stop-motion and rear screen projection, Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 for CGI, The Matrix for a whole shitcan of audio-visual indulgence, and…as best I can tell, there hasn't really been such a movie for 3D yet. The post-2008 resurgence in 3D has been, in my view, a big scam desperately trying to make crappy movies interesting (Green Hornet, The Last Airbender) and to extract more per-ticket revenue from audiences, justifying an upcharge with claims of added value in the final product. 3D seems to have potential in the right hands, but it does not appear to have found them yet. Compare what George Lucas did with CGI in the christ-awful Star Wars prequels to, say, what Peter Jackson has done with it; unless I've missed something, 3D is still waiting for its Peter Jackson/Lord of the Rings moment.
I must admit that I am incredibly biased and heavily predisposed to like this film from the outset, but I have high hopes that Prometheus might be that movie. Reviews, which have criticized the predictability of the script (Charlize Theron appears to be little more than Paul Reiser's character from Aliens but with boobs, for example) have universally praised two things: Michael Fassbender's android performance and Ridley Scott's use of 3D. By using it mostly to enhance the depth of scenery and backgrounds as opposed to using it to make things explode out toward the audience every 10 seconds, the critics seem to believe that Scott has finally managed to use 3D to make a film better and more compelling than it could have been without the technology. I don't know if this is true, but I've read it consistently enough from reviews of varying tone to believe that it might be. I'll find out on Friday evening.
buy stromectol online www.lifefoodstorage.store/wp-content/languages/new/prescription/stromectol.html no prescription
On a side note, I rarely get excited about movies. In the past year I've probably been to the theater twice. The last movie I couldn't wait to see (to the point of distraction) was The Watchmen, and that was simply because I liked the book so much. But I have had Prometheus-related ants in my pants for weeks now. I was a late bloomer who did not come to appreciate the Alien franchise until I was in my twenties, but I really appreciate it (at least the first two installments) now. The ability of the directors to create fear – not horror, but actual fear – and suspense is remarkable. Anything built up to this extent is bound to be a little disappointing, but I'm really looking forward to seeing if 3D can finally add something to a movie other than nausea and $5.
Joseph Nobles says:
Not sure if you saw Hugo in 3-D or not. The 3-D there wasn't all about the cheese.
Lord Corwin says:
First! People said exactly the same thing about Pixar's *Up*–that 3D was used subtly and to enhance. And it was fine, by which I mean it added nothing. At its best, 3D does nothing! What an endorsement!
Daniel says:
I find it odd that you didn't mention Nolan's use of IMAX technology for a major motion picture. Wouldn't you say that improved the product?
FMguru says:
AVATAR gets a lot of abuse (much of it deserved), but it's the only 3D movie to date that looks like the director seemed to understand how to use 3D to enhance the storytelling, making the world more immersive and filling the background with lots of interesting detail.
The LORD OF THE RINGS movies were great in their use of CGI because a lot of the effects are not CGI, they're old-school movie techniques like using forced perspective and lots of exotic locations and enormous miniatures and matte paintings. The CGI is used only sparingly, and it's pretty well integrated into a world that's already been solidly constructed and presented to the audience, which makes it a tremendous contrast (as you note) to the Star Wars prequels, where all the CGI aliens and sets were overly shiny and seemed slightly out-of-phase compared to the handful of human actors.
Seriously, watch the first 30 minutes of FELLOWSHIP again and note how all the Gandalf/Hobbit scenes are full of forced perspective and cheap camera tricks and body doubles and composite shots and Ian MacKellan on stilts, it's actually pretty funny and glaring if you look for it.
I saw the 3D trailer for PROMETHEUS before the AVENGERS (another movie whose 3D version was a complete waste of money), and the effects and 3D intergration looked spectacular. I can't wait for Friday night.
WATCHMEN was an interesting failure – I've never seen a film made by a such a bad, hackish director who nevertheless desperately wanted to do right by the source material that he obviously adored. It's a fascinating hackwork labor of love.
wetcasements says:
Watchmen was an incredibly under-rated film.
Discuss.
Jeff says:
Prometheus is easily the best use of 3D I've ever seen. Just don't expect the film to answer many questions.
Watchmen is awesome, especially the extended version. I can't imagine a better comic adaption.
chris says:
i thought Caroline was a pretty good use of 3d. It wasn't earth-shattering but it had some great moments, and never felt like something that stood iut in a bad way.
c u n d gulag says:
I think 3D should be used sparingly.
In some respects, film is great because it IS two dimensional.
3D is like real life.
2D, because it's NOT real, has a certain dreamlike, or nightmare, quality to it – or can.
3D = real. 2D = surreal
I think it's easier to suspend disbelief in 2D than in 3D. You know that in real life, that there are no Superheroes, and, to me, it's easier to believe a movie about one in 2D, because of that surreal dream/nightmare quality,
And now-a-day's, the only thing I see in ads for most movies, is all of that terrific technology – and no GREAT NEW stories.
Hard economic times in the 30's gave us great movies with great stories – drama's, comedy's, farces, etc.
All we do now, is take old comic books stories of superhero's, or secret agent's and spies, and blow the scenery and bad guys up more and bigger with each film.
And not screwball comedies, like way back when – just screwy comedies.
Broadway's mostly the same – rehashes of classic theatrical productions, or real-live 3D remakes of animated films – both the ones that succeeded, or failed.
"Book of Mormon" might have been an exception. I heard it was very good. But I don't know, I can't afford the tickets.
The last movie I went to see in the theater was "Good Night, And Good Luck," which was terrific.
I'll stick to the classics, thank you.
Yeah, I know – "Hey you kids! GET OFF MY FECKIN' LAWN!!!"
corcra says:
The terrible science in Prometheus rendered it rather difficult to enjoy for me. No comments about the use of 3D; I watched it in 2D. Maybe the alleged PhDs were applying critical thought in the dimension I couldn't see.
grumpygradstudent says:
Seeing Avatar in 3D on an IMAX was pretty mindblowing for me. I actually loved that movie. Yes, because it looked pretty and the 3D was cool, and the story was adequately compelling to keep me from getting distracted away from my ooing and awing.
Since then, I haven't seen anything that sticks out as a good use of 3D. I'm not sure if that's a result of not seeing them in the IMAX, or of directors doing as Ed said: polishing their turn of a movie for some quick extra bucks.
I go to the 2D version now unless there's some overwhelmingly compelling reason to see the 3D, or if that's the only show time I can make.
grumpygradstudent says:
*turd
mining city guy says:
I watched the Avengers in 3D and liked the movie just fine, perhaps because I was such a big Marvel Comic Books fan when I was growing up. But I found the 3D technology to be annoying and as big a ripoff as movie popcorn.
anotherbozo says:
"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex?" Egad! I think of myself as a film buff and I can't remember what technical innovations it used.
Anyone enlighten or remind me?
3-D: the Germans have put it arguably to good use. Werner Herzog's "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" used it to explore a newly discovered cave (which was to be closed to camera crews forever after) to make the remarkable frieze of prehistoric paintings and reliefs more vivid and comprehensible. Wim Wenders' dance film about Pina Bausch ("Pina 3D") brought the camera a bit more into the middle of the action.
Still, wearing those clunky glasses (the germs!! my wife complains) is hard to justify.
john says:
I'll second Joseph's comment above. Hugo was the first movie I've seen in 3d that I was actually glad to have paid the extra few bucks. The effect wasn't necessarily subtle, but was used to add depth and perspective to the world the story took place in. I thought it was very well done.
Sock or Muffin? says:
+2 for Coraline. A very beautifully done 3D film. Maybe it helped because it was ALL animated and not just pretty backdrops with 'real' actors like Avatar, etc. I was awed pretty much throughout… but I'm also a Gaiman fan.
acer says:
@wetcasements:
The hype hurt it more than its attributes. Aside from that god-awful sex scene, it wasn't anything to be ashamed of.
3D isn't exactly new. I'm waiting for Hollywood's panic and creative bankruptcy to get so bad that it brings back smell-o-vision.
Still, I'm excited for Prometheus, too. And Charlize Theron has a knack for classing up underwritten roles.
Hank says:
The problem I have with 3D movies is the lack of immersion they have. While watching a 2D movie our brains fill in the third dimension. In a 3D movie there is no need to do this, but from time to time an effect happens that makes me think "Hey! 3D!" and it pulls me out of the story and makes me remember that I'm sitting a theater and not in the middle of a battle with scary space aliens or whatever. Even watching the 2D version of a 3D movie does this since I get jarred by intermittent observations that some effect was supposed to be sticking out into the theater.
Greg says:
I was surprised to find that spielberg's Tintin was actually pretty fun in 3-d. I was actually surprised to like it at all, since I grew up reading the books. My wife, who did not, enjoyed it too, though. The 3-d was great at deepening immersion, and fun details extruded. Mostly, though, it was good at making the action sequences seem wittier than they might otherwise have been. Seriously, I loathe Spielberg for hacking up good things with shit endings and deadening performances, but Tintin was both. Enjoyable and improved by 3-d.
lofgren says:
I agree with Hank. The rigid plastic glasses pinching the end of my nose so that they don't interfere with the glasses I use to see the real 3d world don't help. And the blurriness of motion is really distracting. I watched Thor in 3d and I think my brain processed about a quarter of the action sequences. The rest was just digital fuzz. After that I swore I wouldn't be duped by 3d again. I'm going to see Prometheus tonight and there's no way I'm paying to see it in 3d. If I wanted to pay extra to ruin a movie, I would just bring my two-year old.
anadromy says:
Avatar had a pretty shit script (though I'm guessing from the reviews, probably not a lot worse that Prometheus, sadly) but it wasn't as bad as a lot of people like to say it was and its use of 3D as a visual enhancer was pretty mind-blowing. I actually enjoyed the movie because of it.
Also, to echo above: Herzog's use of 3D in Cave of Forgotten Dreams was probably the first time 3D has been integral to the themes of a movie. You really needed it to get the effect he was going for and the story he was telling.
Major Kong says:
I thought Monsters vs Aliens was good in 3D.
I don't know how much the 3D really added, since it was a good story to begin with.
Jaime says:
Didn't catch the Herzog or Wenders in the theatre. I gotta agree with the poster who said the best 3D is 'subtle enhancement' = 'then why the fuck bother?'. For whatever reason, the best use of 3D for me was CORALINE. It really gave the feel of looking INTO a an enclosed little world with depth and dimension – like peering into one of those hollow Easter eggs.
Jon says:
I've heard it said, "CGI is to storytelling what an amplifier is to guitar playing." If you can't tell a story, no amount of CGI or 3D is going to save you.
lofgren says:
There was a competing 3d technology for a couple of years. I think it was used in the Harry Potter films. Rather than going for an immersive experience, it made the images appear almost like a diorama, with many different layers of two dimensional images with 3dimensional spaces between them. It was generally despised but I personally really liked the effect. Probably not right for all or even most movies, but something about it just clicked with my brain.
Chicagojon says:
I thought Monsters vs. Aliens used 3D well.
At this stage of its development 3D fits best with Animated films be they for kids or adults or everyone. The problem with 3D for 'real' films is that they have to be shot and laid out to work in 2D & 3D throughout and require a lot more cost in equipment. This of course leads to the inevitable shitty-directors-who-make-blockbusters making the 3D movies and instead of innovation we get shitty-blockbuster-3D-movie techniques. The other problem stopping a '3D moment' is that CGI is CGI. The 2D CGI battles, robots, explosions, etc. are already so amazing it's hard to imagine why a 3D CGI battle would be better.
What we need is a story where 3D is essential and engrossing and a director that understands how to use that 3D for immersion beyond what's possible for 2D (if that's even achievable). My vote for this is Ender's Game and a director not named Jackson, Cameron, Spielburg, and god-forbid Lucas. 3D's cool. It's the shitty Hollywood directors that are the problem.
Full disclosure: I go to maybe 2 movies a year and am an early 3D adopter (TV/PS3) that I got to watch the World Cup in 2010. I'm prepared to admit without shame that 3D at home pretty much sucks.
Chicagojon says:
Aaaaaand IMDB tells me that Ender's Game is in filming and slated for 2013 with the kid from Hugo and the kid from Little Miss Sunshine. Got the most famous/successful kids they could find – that might work.
Directed by Gavin Hood who did X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Well crap.
JohnR says:
Interesting. In no particular order; I liked the Watchmen graphic thingies, but found the movie a bit lacking – like a frosted bagel that you think is going to be a donut. The only movie so far that I actually thought the 3D made some net positive difference in was Toy Story 3. I don't watch too many movies, and the 3D was pretty headachy in it, but The Avengers was the best summer blockbuster I've seen since Star Wars. I watched it again in 2D, found it just as good, the lack of 3D was no net loss, and even in 2D, it had moments where sections of the screen went out of focus for a bit. I don't know whether it was projection problems, screen problems, or filming problems, but I still enjoyed the "surprise!" scenes, even knowing what was coming. That hasn't happened since Shrek. Of course, my needs are simple, my wants are few and my taste is execrable, so your mmv
lofgren says:
The thing about the Wolverine movie is that films like that are often already so bad by the time the director is picked that you almost can't blame him for throwing his hands in the air and saying "fuck it." On a project like that there is more incentive to come in on time and under budget so that he can get tapped for bigger and better things, hopefully with more artistic control, than to deliver a movie that is actually good in any sense except profits. (There was even some speculation that the movie was leaked to the internet before release deliberately in order to give the filmmakers an "out" when it didn't make any money, although I don't believe any of it was ever proven.) So here's hoping that Hood does better by Ender's Game than the 4th entry in a series of comic book movies already due for a reboot.
Ender's game would definitely provide an opportunity to use 3d effectively. I'm thinking of the scene where he stands on the precipice and tells his team "The enemy's goal is down."
But I'm not sure what 3d really brings to a movie that 2d can't already provide. I guess this is why I'm not a visionary. I have more hope for the higher frame rates of the Hobbit changing filmmaking than anything in 3d.
Bruce Partington says:
I would echo the folks above on Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams. Though it's the only 3D film I've seen (of this century's crop), I in no way felt overcharged, and the extra dimension was integral to the experience.
John says:
3D will never add anything to a film until that film is designed specifically with 3D in mind, to the point that it cannot be viewed WITHOUT 3D.
Movies and 3D have the same problem that video games and physics had, and are working towards the same ultimate conclusion: A grand idea at the start, full of promise and potential, but ultimately hampered by the cold, hard facts of economics. In order to be financially viable as a major product, you have to have mass-market appeal, and you can't have mass-market appeal if your product requires a technology that only a very small piece of your audience has.
People who played video games had access to physics accelerator cards that would enable games that were chock-full of completely destructible environments and clever environmental physics puzzles/concepts. But since very few people had one of them, games that included physics had to also be playable and complete for people who DIDN'T have the cards. And so physics were just a cosmetic tack-on, so much scenery fluff, such that their absence would not substantially hurt the product.
People who watch movies also have access to 3D-capable televisions, but very few actually DO own one. And since all movies eventually release on home video, they have to work, as movies, without the 3D since most people won't be able to make use of the feature. And so 3D is relegated to a base cosmetic tack-on, so much fluff, such that its absence will not substantially hurt the product.
grendelkhan says:
grendelkhan says:
(Sorry for the double-post; WordPress barfed on a Unicode dash.)
Exactly! It was like a puppet show, which worked beautifully with the movie's themes. It remains the only 3D movie I've seen where I appreciated the 3D… except for the few points where they shoved things 'out' toward the audience. Apparently 3D doesn't really count unless you can poke people in the eye.
No, I think there's plenty to be ashamed of with the whole Mighty Whitey "Dances With Wolves IN SPACE" "this is OUR LAND" thing.
ConcernedCitizen says:
Ender's Game, eh? Part of me hopes the movie is done really well and pays tribute to the book. The other part of me suspects that no movie ever can, so any movie made – no matter how well done – will be a disappointment for me.
Don't get me wrong, seeing Battle School on the big screen would be pretty cool. However, contrary to most people's impression, Ender's Game is about way more than Battle School. OSC develops some pretty powerful ideas about military indoctrination and xenophobia in that book, but they only really coalesce at the end (and are explored more in the "sequel," Speaker For The Dead.) Can a movie hit those themes and make them resonate with the audience rather than focus on cool space scenes and the typical adolescent ascent? I'm skeptical.
Jason says:
I'll add How to Train Your Dragon. I've seen a bunch of the CG animated films, and it's the only one that was truly enhanced by the 3-D. The flying scenes in particular were incredible, as good as any simulation ride at amusement parks.
Whatever Cameron's flaws as a writer (and they are huge), I think he "gets" 3D. He composed Avatar, as others have said, more like a window you were pulled into rather than throwing stuff toward the viewer.
@Lofgren- The only Harry Potter movie filmed in 3D was the last one, Deathly Hallows Part 2.
The AV Club did an article called, "Signs of life in the 3rd dimension: 13 recent films that show 3-D shouldn’t die". http://www.avclub.com/articles/signs-of-life-in-the-3rd-dimension-13-recent-films,62216/
jon says:
I am very much looking forward to The Hobbit movies, but not for the 3D or the doubled film speed. I love the plot and characters and actors and the world. The story.
I really hope it doesn't become some sort of technological onanism forced-catharsis director-driven labor of love thing like his King Kong. Just tell the damn story and make it memorable.
Chris "Limey" Lewis says:
In terms of 3D, wasn't "Avatar" considered to be THE 3-D film?
Dave Dell says:
The Watchmen. Seriously? Highly recommended by a trusted friend – someone who said, "Here, read GOOD OMENS". Countless hours of my life to never get back trying to see the merit in that waste of printers ink. Movie version? I couldn't believe anyone would even try unless they needed a massive money loss to offset other income on their tax return. "How could this possibly appeal to enough people to be successful?", I said to my wife when we saw the first preview.
Hazy Davy says:
I don't have stereo vision. Screw 3D movies.
(Avatar and Disneyland's/Michael Jackson's Captain EO were the two examples of 3D that made people say "wow".)
Purple says:
corcra Says:
June 8th, 2012 at 7:01 am
The terrible science in Prometheus rendered it rather difficult to enjoy for me.
———————————————————————————
Perhaps you should have stayed home and watched PBS.
BigHank53 says:
It sounds as though you have the same problem that I–and a substantial chunk of the population–have: watching a 3D movie makes us ill. Avatar gave me a headache that lasted two days. I might have been willing to put with nausea during the film itself, but suffering ain't entertaining. And it certainly isn't worth an extra five bucks.
I have heard that the 3D in Hugo was very well employed.
Nomad says:
@ Purple: Some of us enjoy "science" in our science-fiction and terrible science often means terrible science-fiction.
Ruthie says:
3-D does nothing for me, as I don't have depth perception. Somehow I managed to compensate for this fact, but most 3-D effects just make the movie look "fuzzy."
eau says:
A little late to this party, but…
@ Purple: 'Some of us enjoy "science" in our science-fiction and terrible science often means terrible science-fiction.'
Ah yes, that would be why so many Ted Chiang stories are being optioned for films by no-one, ever.
planb247 says:
Saw it in Imax 3D on Sunday and enjoyed the heck out of the experience, but the movie was just "meh" in my opinion. I didn't feel the fear or tension I felt in either Alien or Aliens. Looks like we're still waiting for an actual good film to be made for 3D.
lofgren says:
I thought Prometheus was a great example of a terrible script that was directed and acted the hell out of until you could stand it. I am not very forgiving of bad scripts, but even I found it difficult to hate this film even though a lot of the dialogue was painfully bad. Hopefully when it is released on DVD somebody will find a good album or create a mix that syncs to it so I can watch it without having to think about how fucking stupid everybody is.
Some other examples of terribly written movies redeemed by good directors would be Blade 2 and the Nolan Batman movies. (Watch the commentary on the DVD to hear a good director describe the experience of working with a terrible writer, and how much more work it is to produce a quality product.) Aside: these three movies have something in common. David S. Goyer. Admittedly that is a rant for a different time, but let's just say that even though I love the Nolan Batman movies everytime somebody opens their mouth I have a strong urge to kick Goyer in the nuts.
tl;dr Prometheus is recommended. Don't bother with 3d, but make sure you see it on a big screen. You should go into the movie assuming it is about an alternate earth where everybody is a complete and utter moron and yet somehow they managed to build space ships.
http://www.rastravel.com/viajes/4/0/0/0/ofertas-a-El-Caribe.html says:
I am extremely impressed along with your writing talents as neatly as with the layout in your weblog. Is this a paid subject or did you customize it your self? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a great weblog like this one today..
Sharee Prellwitz says:
3D movies are simply just the best because it adds more depth to the viewing screen. I always watch 3d movies in each and every way. "***' Best regards food supplements blog
Genia Mcmenimen says:
3D Movies are the best since they add more depth and dramatic effect to the movie. :
<a href="My very own online site
http://www.prettygoddess.com/index.php?board=6.0
personal 3d viewer says:
My friend recommended I may like this web site. He was
personal 3d viewer says:
entirely right. This actually made my day.