Cowboy Bebop live action...oh dear...

Sole Man · Post by **Sole Man** » 20 Dec 2008 09:39

*Insert Jew Joke here*

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 20 Dec 2008 11:52

Sole Man wrote:*Insert Jew Joke here*

DuneFishUK · Post by **DuneFishUK** » 20 Dec 2008 11:59

SandChigger wrote:unless the 3D is made essential by something in the story being told, to me it's just a gimmick.

Like colour?

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 20 Dec 2008 12:08

Yeah, like color.

Robspierre · Post by **Robspierre** » 20 Dec 2008 13:09

SandChigger wrote:Thanks for the explanation, Rob, but unless the 3D is made essential by something in the story being told, to me it's just a gimmick.

Have any of these new 3D flicks made it to home market DVD release yet? What do they do for those?

The Journey to the Center of the Earth made use of 3D to add to the experience. That is the only live action movie we have shown, all the others have been animated movies.

Not sure how they plan on porting to home viewing.

Rob

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 20 Dec 2008 13:42

Seraphan
Smith is, and has been for most of the new millenium, the shit in Hollywood right now. He's the world's biggest superstar, so he'll pump out movies like Ford, De Niro, Pacino, Cruise and Pitt did at the height of their output. Some will be good, most will not. At Smith's level, maintaining superstardom is almost as big a job as actually acting. He has to pump out a movie every 3-6 months just to remain in the short memory of the fickle mainstream film-going public.

As for the remake of Oldboy, we can only pray it dies in development hell

SandChigger wrote:Yeah, like color.

Now, now, don't be sour. Your fellow technophobes (Hi, Bri Bri!) will still send you their love

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 20 Dec 2008 18:28

I wonder if that $100,000-plus donation he's rumored to have made to the "Church" of $cientology recently figures into all that.

Must be nice to have that kind of money to just ... throw away.

Anyway, as for this other thing...

Actually, 3D is nothing like color. I don't have to don special equipment to enjoy a color feature. And except in certain cases (e.g. when black and white might be used in a memory flashback), color extends throughout the movie; it's background. Is the 3D effect going to be relevant throughout a movie in the same way?

If 3D is the next big thing, why aren't ALL (or even more) movies being filmed in it now and all the theaters putting in the projectors for them? (Or are they?)

I'm being fussy because of what I perceive as largely unnecessary inconvenience and, as Rob pointed out, extra expense to the viewer. While this may have something to do with me gradually becoming an old fuddy-duddy, it has nothing to do with my being a technophobe. But please, dismiss my objections as you please.

(Rob...the Journey to the Center of the Earth remake, eh? Sounds gimmicky.

)

DuneFishUK · Post by **DuneFishUK** » 20 Dec 2008 19:51

SandChigger wrote:If 3D is the next big thing, why aren't ALL (or even more) movies being filmed in it now and all the theaters putting in the projectors for them? (Or are they?)

What with DVDs cinemas don't make the money they used to and they are currently investing silly huge amounts of money into 2d digital projectors. I would guess that the additional expense of 3d kit is beyond the reach of any theatre that won't make it back.

I do think that 3d is the future and not just a gimmick (although whether the current circular polarisation method is that future who knows) - look at the trend: every step makes the cinema more real and immersive: Sound, colour, high-def digital projection. There's nothing stopping directors putting out stylised low-res potato-print animations and CGI can create almost anything you can imagine. Instead, they keep making things more and more "real". 3d is the logical progression, and the current tech is really quite good.

Robspierre · Post by **Robspierre** » 20 Dec 2008 22:05

It was a bit gimmicky but actually was very fun, turn off your brain and enjoy it for the fun type film.

More movies are going to 3D the resistance is on the theatre owners end. A 35MM set up costs 35-40,000$ while a digital projector runs 100,000$. 3D digital is even more, which is why the theatre i work at having one is a big deal, there are only 1000 digital 3D projectors in operation in the US. In the Hollywood area there are 28.

ANother reason theatre owners balk at going to digital projectors vs 35 mm is that they are charged more for the hard drive vs a 35 mm print. Which does not make sense because it is far cheaper to manufacture and ship a hard drive than a 35 mm print. The picture quality of digital is bloody good and they do cut down on the number of staff needed to handle the projectors.

Rob

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 20 Dec 2008 22:34

I guess we'll see then.

The ultimate in "real and immersive" would be putting on a headset and being transported to a completely virtual world. But at that point, who needs movie theaters?

Robspierre · Post by **Robspierre** » 21 Dec 2008 02:13

JTTCOTE was the first digital 3D movie released so it was filmed ot show off the technology and from that stand point I do agree that it was gimmicky. So far there has not been any other live action 3D movie, weve shown Fly me to the Moon, Nightmare Before Christmas 3D, and Bolt 3D. Animation at the moment seems to be the medium that is taking advantage of the 3D to enhance the experience. I know we will show the third Ice Age in 3D but I have no idea what the next live action 3D movie will be.

Rob

Sole Man · Post by **Sole Man** » 21 Dec 2008 10:08

Robspierre wrote: ...the only live action movie we have shown, all the others have been animated movies.

BEOWULF is my response to that.

Tleszer · Post by **Tleszer** » 21 Dec 2008 13:39

Sole Man wrote:
Robspierre wrote: ...the only live action movie we have shown, all the others have been animated movies.
BEOWULF is my response to that.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Beowulf was animated but used mo-cap by the actors, though the performances were more life-like than anything I've seen Keanu Reeves do!

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 21 Dec 2008 15:46

A friend at work loaned me that one weekend and I went into it with no idea that it wasn't a regular live action film. I guess I hadn't heard much about it or just hadn't paid attention. It was bit weird at first, but I soon got into it and quite enjoyed it by the end.

Mo-cap is what it's called? How does that compare, production cost-wise?

DuneFishUK · Post by **DuneFishUK** » 21 Dec 2008 16:27

Full on mocap is probably more expensive than digital-backlot-with-live-action stuff like Sin City or 300 - The data/animation needs a lot of manual tweaking. But the lack of sets or anything like that would make it a lot quicker to film the movie - so you'd save actor costs (esp well-known-actor costs) there.

The main thing would probably be the freedom it give the director to tinker with impossible camera moves, along with integrating the characters (who don't have to look like the actors) directly into all the cool visual stuff you can can do with CGI.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 21 Dec 2008 18:54

Cheers.

DuneFishUK · Post by **DuneFishUK** » 21 Dec 2008 20:05

After 3 years of near-as-dammit living with a digital animator at uni... I can't help it

J A C U R U T U

Cowboy Bebop live action...oh dear...

on the fact of BERG

Re: on and on and on

on 3D movies

Re: on 3D movies