Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Jar Jar Binks, Mar 21, 2011.
OMG! LIKE JAROD, YOU ARE LIKE SO FUCKING CLEVER AND FUNNY! OMG!
What are you talking about? I'm taking about storytelling? Would Wrath of Khan or In the Pale Moonlight (DS9) been any better if they were in HFR of 3D?
No, because the story matters.
Would they be worse in black and white, and mono sound?
The story matters, but so does the whole audio-visual experience. That's why they're not books.
I'd like to say story trumps pretty pictures, but the fact is a film doesn't even need a narrative, let alone a plot to be considered good. Granted, most film that fall into that category are artsy expressionistic films and pretentious film student pieces....or shampoo adverts.
Point is, you can have the best story in the world, but it's not going to reach the audience unless it's presented well. Just like a good book needs good writing, grammar and a narrative flow, a film needs good presentation.
That said, if a person can't watch a film without their eyes hurting, then yes, for them that qualifies as bad presentation and a perfectly legitimate reason to not want to view it in that format.
^ I completely agree.
I also think that we can have clear picture and clear sound, and tell a story well. Aesthetics are part of it. But it seems that filmmakers have overcompensated. Why is there so much detail on superhero and Trek uniforms in recent films? Because this looks better on HD TVs.I guarantee you that this is the reason, but it's not a bad one, but I think there is so much emphasis on crystal clarity, and while that's important, it's also becoming gimmicky. I don't miss the heated debates me and buddies had when we were deciding to go to an HFR showing. It's ridiculous. 3-D is also ridiculous.. only rarely is it used effectively.
Well I went back to Best Buy today and they had three copies of the EE!!! I'm watching it right now!!! And it was still $25!
I liked the additional songs, but the Rankin/Bass versions will always be my favorite version. I would have died if they had reproduced those!
But just as rarely, stuff like color, format and framing is actually used effectively.
To be fair, have you ever seen old movie grade costumes up close? About 14 or 15 years ago I went to a Trek exhibition and among the exhibits were the red movie-era uniforms (Scotty's from the then fairly recent ST:GEN IIRC) and bloody hell did they look shabby. Not just wear and tear, but just barely stitched/pinned together and clearly made of not terribly high quality materials.
Now of course this is all for very practical reasons. Unlike "conventional" films you can't use anything off the rack so it all has to be made from scratch on a budget, they only need to last as long as they're filming and they only need to look as good or as detailed as the camera will pick up. So I can totally understand why they're a lot more careful about that kind of thing now HD is becoming the norm.
There are things you just can't get away with any more.
As for 3D, I personally have no problem with it in principle. It's just a tool like any other and what's important is how it's used. Now I've only ever seen two movies in 3D (Avatar & Tron Legacy) and I thought they were both well suited to the format and it was well executed as far as I could tell.
I think a lot of the ire thrown at 3D really just stems from the number of lazy uses of a new technology as nothing more that a gimmick to sucker audiences. Nothing new there, same thing happened when CG took off (and continues to this day) and way back when colour was the new thing there was a vocal number of Murnau fans who claimed that colour film was garish and denigrated the art form.
So while I don't think 3D has gotten anywhere near maturing and has a long way to go before the technology is suitable for mass exhibition, I think it's here to stray.
So no, I have no problem with 3D or CGI, just like I have no problem with black and white, stereo sound, silent movies and shadow puppets. It's all about the execution.
Another masterful commercial from Air New Zealand
My only issues with 3D are the extra price, and that with the last couple movies I saw in that format (Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness) when ever they got to the big action scenes I seemed to have trouble following the action. I haven't had that problem since I gave up on 3D.
Recently my theater switched to a new 3D system. Now there's cross talk when stuff gets too close. Doesn't look too good now.
Does anyone know if Smaug's lips are going to move when he talks or not? Or is he just going to talk telepathically?
They did motion capture of Benedict Cumberbatch while he was recording the lines, so I'm assuming his lips will move.
That's going to be tricky to pull off from a design standpoint. I don't imagine human lip movements translate well onto a long reptilian mouth. Indeed I think that's why the mouth of the dragon in 'Dragonheart' had an almost simian shape.
Because the shots we've seen of Smaug so far have a very long stiff looking snout...
^That'd be my guess, yeah. They've always said that the design of Smaug will be based on the traditional wyrm aesthetic. I'm pretty sure GMT cited Maleficent as one of the major design touchstones. What little we've seen seems consistent with that.
Minute-long clip of Dale and Thorin with a brief glimpse of Stephen Fry as The Master of Laketown looking especially nasty.
Also, this is a lovely post from Sean Astin.
Time Magazine names The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug 10th best film of 2013
Separate names with a comma.