Continuing my trend of going in the opposite direction from the prevailing Horrorthon opinion, I have totally got the 3D bug.
What happened? Yesterday I saw The Adventures of Tintin (which, unfortunately, I could not see on an IMAX screen without going to Rochester; I missed my shot at the four Manhattan IMAX theaters) in Digital 3D. The movie was beyond glorious in my opinion (and I'm as die-hard a Tintin fan as you're likely to meet amongst Americans), but, more important, it was the first time I'd had a thoroughly enjoyable (and mind-blowing!) 3D viewing experience.
Actually I haven't seen that many 3D movies; the only recent ones I can think of are Avatar (ugh) and Beowulf, both of which I saw in IMAX and both of which had me less-than-ideally positioned in the theater. Avatar had jarringly intrusive 3D compositions, with Cameron constantly putting objects in the extreme foreground that get clipped by the margins of the screen, which is a disconcerting effect because the screen edges are coming at you like helicopter blades; it's like the dimensional warp in Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 novelization where David Bowman is "looking into" the monolith at the end. (Also, Cameron likes to "stretch" the 3D along the Z-axis by boosting the ocular distance, so that the parallax convergence point is still at the screen surface but everything else appears at an exaggerated depth behind or in front.) Beowulf, on the other hand, used a much more gentle 3D technique, with misty Nordic landscapes moving back into the infinite horizon, but that movie had much cruder modeling and animation than Tintin, and, although Zemeckis did an admirable job of composing with the virtual 3D camera (and inventing both static and moving shots that took advantage of the 3D effects), Zemeckis is no Spielberg.
Before the movie, we were shown the usual string of six or seven trailers, and, to my surprise, they were all in 3D. This is the interesting part: I'd seen the The Hobbit trailer dozens of times, and, when it started in 3D, I was actually kind of underwhelmed. I watched the documentary vlog (which I recommend) in which Peter Jackson explained his Epic-RED-based stereoscopic filming technique, and it's Peter Jackson, so I was expecting the 3D footage to be spectacular, but there seemed to be something wrong with it; the shots had a sort of "View-Master" aspect, as if a bunch of flat card-like figures had been arranged in a really good New Zealand diorama. (It's quite possible that my eyes hadn't yet adjusted to the whole setup.) Then there was a bunch of mediocre-looking DreamWorks animation (that stuff's just always going to look like crap to me) and Pixar's Brave, which (after the brilliance of Up and Wall•E) seemed stylistically retrograde.
But what was most interesting were the trailers for the upcoming conversions of Star Wars Episode I and Titanic, both of which looked absolutely incredible -- my jaw hit the floor. I didn't even know that kind of result was even theoretically possible. Everyone sneers so dismissively at post-3D conversion, which corresponds with my primitive understanding of the challenges involved and the basic fakeness of trying to make flat images into 3D compositions (bad "View-Master" again). But the footage from Phantom Menace (the pod race!) and Titanic (the famous shot of Rose lifting her head at the beginning, revealing Kate Winslet's face beneath her purple hat brim) didn't look fake at all -- they looked better than the Hobbit footage. The Titanic stuff was especially impressive because the source material is so much more conventionally cinematic than anything Lucas was doing two years later (Phantom Menace is mostly bluescreen digital compositions to begin with). If they can make a regular movie look like that (after spending $19 million) then what could they do with The Godfather or Citizen Kane or 2001: A Space Odyssey? I realize at this point you're all throwing up but I really think if you'd seen the Titanic trailer in 3D you'd change your mind. As with so many other things, they get halfway there and you can either get excited about where they're going or bitch about how far they still have to go -- and (as I believe must have happened with "talkies" or color film) it's just better to be excited rather than bitchy, because once they learn how to do it well, the entire game changes.
TINTIN ADDENDUM: It's driving me nuts that so many reviews are saying that Tintin is "voiced by" Jamie Bell or Haddock is "voiced by" Andy Serkis. It's not just the voice, it's the entire physical and facial performance (even more than Gollum, whose face was animated "by hand"). They just don't get it!
13 comments:
This is the second post you’ve made suggesting that you hold a differing opinion about a topic among Horrorthonners. I don’t recall a lot of anti-3D chatter here. My only beef with 3D is the cost, which is why I kept my Avatar glasses and use them to sneak into 3D movies. I know you hated Avatar but I thought it was by far the best 3D I’ve ever seen and I believe the criticism of 3D is that a number of post-Avatar 3D films didn’t measure up to Avatar’s excellence (the only other time I’ve seen such good 3D is at Disney World). It’s true that Avatar isn’t much to watch if you don’t see it on 3D IMAX, but boy it was a treat to see it in that manner. I don’t doubt that the Star Wars 1 3D is great but I’m pretty sure I won’t ever be able to sit through Phantom Menace again. I thought the 3D in TRON was a huge letdown. That should’ve been a slam dunk.
the 3d in tintin was the best i've seen too, and i thought both the movie and the 3d way better than avatar. mr. ac was so immersed in tintin that at times he actually forgot it was animated.
The "anti-3D chatter" mostly comes from Octopunk, with whom I had a conversation last night concerning Tintin and 3D, and with whom I have cordially "agreed to disagree." Octo feels that 3D is (I want to make sure I'm paraphrasing him correctly) nearly always an unnecessary element in the movie, to the extent that he oftentimes forgets he's watching a 3D movie until it gets (literally) in his face, and, in many instances, has a deleterious effect because it will strobe or give him a headache. There's also a general sense of "3D backlash" on the web in general but that's not a Horrorthon thing, I agree.
I find 3D to be great with some films, like Avatar, the film is just lame without it and just plain distracting in others, like Fright Night, totally unnecessary.
You know, I still totally don't get the Avatar thing. I get the Titanic thing; I get the Aliens thing; I even get the Abyss thing. But Avatar...I rented the Blu-ray and couldn't get five minutes into it without turning it off.
I don't get the Avatar hate. It was a fun movie that has fantastic 3D. I could never sit through Titanic again, bleeech.
It's the difference between Leonardo DiCaprio and Sam Rockwell. It's the difference between the true-life misfortune of a 1912 shipwreck and an extended riff on "The Lorax."
Avatar as a whole is nothing special, its just "Fern Gully" an old kids animated movie promoting environmental awareness, with better fx. Seeing Avatar in 3D is a whole different experience, you are transported into the film with little things floating around you and such, you feel like you are there. If you haven't experienced it in 3D on the big screen then I totally understand your reaction Jordan.
I saw it in IMAX 3D, with an audience so reverent I felt like I was in church, and I didn't like it at all.
I loved the Avatar 3D experience but I feel no need to ever watch the movie again. I'm not entirely sold on the 3D phenomenon. The only other 3D movies I've seen are Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans, both of which were god awful.
I watched Phantom Menace a couple of months ago for the first time in years and I gotta say - I no longer consider it an utter abomination. I now file it in the "so bad it's good" department. I must have slapped my forehead (a la the schoolboy Woody Allen kid in Annie Hall) about 20 times and much to my Crystal's dismay I started incorporating "meesa" and "yousa" into my regular lexicon. My new favorite line in the movie is when the scene between Amidala and Little Fuckface begins mid-sentence: "... but I wouldn't have made it that far if I wasn't so good at building things."
"Seven and three is nine."
[Alvy Singer slaps forehead]
The dubbed-in extra-loud slap makes the joke.
Johnny, see Tintin. Tell them I sent you. It's mind-blowing.
Also, I can dig the prequel trilogy (especially on blu-ray).
Ok, I'll see Tintin on your recommendation but I'm not sure if I'll be able to catch the 3D version. It looks visually amazing but I don't recall much about the character other than the bits and pieces of memories from my high school French class.
Post a Comment