There have been a number of bloggers over the past few years who have gone to extensive lengths to proclaim their hatred of 3D. Roger Ebert tends to be one of the loudest. Maybe he was traumatized as a child by a showing of BWANA DEVIL. Maybe he's having flashbacks to the 80s 3D movies like FRIDAY THE 13TH PART III. Or maybe he's just an old fart who can't accept the fact that while it took 80 years of movie history, they finally got it right. Who knows? Nonetheless, Ebert will tell you how terrible 3D is, even while respectable directors like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorcesse, and Peter Jackson make movies in 3D.
Ebert's not alone, of course, Go to IMDB and read the posts of people who rage at the idea of movies being made in 3D. Christopher Nolan rejects the very notion of 3D every chance he gets. And most recently, a blogger for a site called THE VERGE wrote an article titled "It's Official: 3-D Is Dead". I decided to read this blog for amusement. The blogger's hypothesis is that 3D is everywhere now, you can get it in any TV, but it's not as trumpeted at Consumer Electronics Shows as it was in years past, therefore it is dead. In other words, it's mainstream now so it's dead. Wait, what?
Back in the 1960s, when a TV show was in color, it had a little title card trumpeting that fact. They don't do that anymore, so color is mainstream and therefore dead I guess. Oh, and in the 1980s, a TV show in stereo would have a little subtitle advising you that it was "IN STEREO WHERE AVAILABLE". I haven't seen that subtitle in years, so it's mainstream and therefore dead. That's if you're following the logic of this guy Vlad.
Not everybody is going to like 3D. I'm about the only member of my family who actually likes it, in fact. Not everybody can even see it. About 10% of the world is stereo blind. But, just because you declare you don't like something doesn't mean that it's dead or that the people who do like it are morons for liking it. This, by the way, appears to be the attitude of many of the haters when supporters speak up. Unfortunately for those haters, I don't care much about their opinion of me. Sorry, guys. I've been a 3D fan since 1982 and remain unashamed about it. Besides, how can one take seriously the opinions of people who don't even know when something is truly dead?
This is technically 3D's fifth run at the movies. There was a very minor run in the 1920s which was quickly displaced by experimentation in sound. Mind you, sound also displaced experimentation over widescreen processes around the same time frame.
The first big run, often referred to as The Golden Age by enthusiasts, was from 1952-1955. 50 features and numerous shorts were put out during that time frame. As fast as it started, however, it was over. Some have blamed the popularity of CinemaScope as the death of 3D, and while that technology may have played a part, an equally reasonable explanation was the incompetence of various projectionists. In the 1950s, 3D required two projectors running in perfect synchronization as well as a silver screen. There are numerous horror stories of projectionists letting the synchronization go out, causing retinal rivalry (where one eye sees a completely different image than the other) which in turn caused headaches, nauseua, etc. CinemaScope and other widescreen processes like VistaVision didn't have this requirement and therefore stuck around.
A single strip system came up in the 1960s. This system put both images on a single strip of film which was then projected through a special box. The theory was that this would eliminate the projection problems. This was the system in use from the 60s through the 80s. Starting around 1969, there was something of a boom, but the majority of these titles were porn and by the mid-late 1970s, 3D was out again. In 1981, the 3D movie COMIN' AT YA! came out and kick started another round of 3D movies. But by the time of AMITYVILLE 3D in October, 1983, audiences (and Hollywood) had lost interest again. While a few more titles limped out over the next two years, 3D in the mainstream was effectively done. The reason it went away is probably because of the sheer awfulness of the movies, though incompetent projectionists also likely did their part. I've seen the single strip method improperly projected and it's pretty painful.
There were a couple of experiments in the 1990s, but only one got a really wide release: FREDDY'S DEAD: THE FINAL NIGHTMARE, which had it's last 14 minutes in anaglyphic 3D. The current run, however, started up in 2003 with SPY KIDS 3-D: GAME OVER and GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS. Though SPY KIDS 3-D was in anaglyph, as was it's 2005 follow up THE ADVENTURES OF SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL, the cameras used on them were the cameras being used on other modern 3D movies. The popularity of SPY KIDS 3-D, which was the first 3-D movie to make over $100 million at the box office, led to the Digital 3D that has been in the theaters since CHICKEN LITTLE came out in 2005. And this time, the projection really is projectionist proof. The movies are basically digital files. A special filter is placed in front of the projector which slows down one component of the light wave slightly and allows a linear polarized image to be converted into a circular polarized image. This method pretty much eliminates the possibility of misprojection. This may explain why modern 3D has lasted so long.
What's the point of this history lesson, you may be asking yourself. The point is that in the past when 3D died, they simply stopped making and announcing 3D movies. Not one 3D movie was announced for 1984 back then. As I say, a couple came out, but they were low budget affairs. After AMITYVILLE 3D, 3D movies in the 1980s were done. There's over 3 dozen 3D movies being released in 2013 alone, including such major films as OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL, IRON MAN 3, MAN OF STEEL, THE HOBBIT 2, THOR 2, and SIN CITY: A DAME TO DIE FOR. 3D Blu Ray is still going strong with a number of titles coming up in the next few months including LIFE OF PI and WRECK-IT-RALPH as well as Warner's release of HOUSE OF WAX this fall.
If 3D were as dead as the nay-sayers claim--make that want--I wouldn't have a 3D Blu of HOUSE OF WAX to look forward to. I wouldn't have OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL or THOR 2 to look forward to. It would be 1984 all over again. Instead, there's a number of 3D products still coming. Am I going to see them all? Of course not. Years ago I decided I didn't need to see every 3D film ever (specifically, I decided that after my first 3D porn). But I still dig 3D and am kinda happy to be living in the era I am where I have a 3D TV that shows a great 3D image, a bunch of 3D blu rays, and plenty of 3D movies to see in the theater if I so choose.
One reasons the haters give is the belief that Hollywood will force them to watch 3D. Actually, one thing that make this era different from previous eras is the simultaneous 2D and 3D releases of the movies. Wanna see THE HOBBIT in 3D? You can. Want to see it regular? Good news for you, you don't have to wait for the video. You can go straight to the theater and see it normal. Back in the 1980s, if you went to the movies to see JAWS 3-D, you could only see it in 3D. Not the case now. This insanity extends to 3D TVs. People are under the impression that if they buy a 3D TV, they will have to watch everything in 3D. Umm...I have a 3D TV. And the only stuff I watch in 3D is 3D Blu Rays or 3D On Demand. I don't watch HOT IN CLEVELAND in 3D. Nor would I have to. So, you don't have to watch 3D anymore than you have to watch anything you don't like. I don't like gory horror films. Ergo, I don't watch them.
I think that's one of the big things the haters miss. Nobody is forcing them to watch anything. 3D is ultimately like anything else. Just because it exists doesn't mean you have to subject yourself. I don't care for porn. Porn flourishes all over the internet. But just because porn is on the internet doesn't keep me from going on the internet. I just choose not to go to porn sites on the internet. I also don't like Rap music. And guess what? I don't listen to it, nor do I listen to stations that play it. Now, there's a lot of people who like porn and Rap music. I say good for them. They're entitled. I'm not going to declare Rap music and porn dead just because I don't like them, either. That would just make me look silly to the people who do like it.
Look, all you who hate 3D: we who like it get it. You don't like it. Fine. We don't even care why you don't like it. You're entitled to dislike it as much as we are entitled to like it. And for those of us who have been long time 3D fans, we'll know when it's dead again without you telling us. The signs will be self-evident. But it's not dead. Not yet. If anything, it's become a bit more mainstream. This run has legs, which makes us fans happy. To paraphrase Yukon Cornelius, "you like what you like and I'll like what I like". And we'll all live happily ever after. Strange concept, I know, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Let the Sky Fall...Thoughts on 50 years of James Bond
Skyfall, the 23rd official James Bond movie, was released yesterday. As with every Bond movie since Goldeneye, I chose to see it on opening night. I admit it. I'm a James Bond nut. Have been since I saw my first one at age 8 (The Spy Who Loved Me on HBO). I have not only the official 22 films, but the 67 spoof version of Casino Royale and 1983's Never Say Never Again. I even transferred the uncut version of the 1954 Casino Royale to DVD-R (the version included on the DVD of the 67 version is missing the end of the show). So, after Friday night's showing, I knew what my next blog would be. Take note that this isn't a spoiler-free blog, though I did put the spoilers in a different text (highlight to see them at your own risk).
Skyfall is currently being hailed as one of the best of the series. While I think it's a pretty damn good movie, I won't quite put it up there with the absolute best. It's not quite as good as the 2006 Casino Royale or the one that most people consider the very best (Goldfinger). It's far better than Quantum of Solace, but then again that one is a bottom five Bond for me anyhow. The opening action scene is terrific, a few familiar elements are re-introduced to the movie, and Javier Bardem's villainous Silva is probably the mos personable Bond villain ever. So what's wrong with the movie? To understand that, let's start with the re-introduction of Q. No spoiler here, since he's in the trailer.
At any rate, Q shows up and hands Bond a new Walther PPK and a radio transmitter. Bond comments "not exactly Christmas." Q's response was "What were you expecting? An exploding pen? We don't really go in for that sort of thing anymore."
Yes, it's a somewhat funny line, but it also dismisses one of the things that makes OO7 what he is. To get a better explanation of that, Bond producer Barbara Broccoli was quoted as saying that 9/11 happened while they were making Die Another Day and after the events of 9/11, they felt Bond shouldn't be so fantastical. But saying that misses the point of Bond.
James Bond is a fantasy figure, same as Doctor Who, Sinbad the Sailor, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, and the various characters who populate the Marvel Cinematic Universe. OO7 was a fantasy figure from day one. Some Fleming purists might want to argue this, but even Fleming's creation had the touch of fantasy about him. Sure, most of Fleming's books were Bond versus SMERSH, cold war thrillers with plots that became somewhat dated and mundane over time. But Goldfinger in the novel still plans to attack Fort Knox, Dr. No still topples American missles, and Blofeld still steals a nuclear missle and plans to conquer the world. The books weren't totally grounded in reality, even if they didn't go as far as some of the movies went. Fleming still gave us megalomaniacs and Bond still had sex up the wazoo. Even in Fleming's novels, Bond was the type of guy women wanted and men wanted to be. The movies blew up those elements even more, and they did them right from the start.
It is true that Dr. No, the first of the movies, has no gadgets. But other hallmarks are there right from the start: the banter with Moneypenny, the numerous beautiful women Bond seduces, the larger than life villains, the even more larger than life bases, the plot to take over the world, the witty remarks after a cold blooded death. From Russia, With Love, the second entry in the film series (and the book that preceded the nove of Dr. No ironically), introduced Q (called Major Boothroyd) and the first of the gadgets--Bond's briefcase. Goldfinger followed a year later and cemented the blueprint for the series: the big henchman who gives Bond a hard time, the wilder gagdgets--including the iconic Aston Martin DB-5, the bona-fide sense of humor of the series. Goldfinger was funny, sexy, and thrilling and it ended up being a smash hit in 1964. By the end of the decade, other familiar scenes would show up (such as the skiing chase in On Her Majesty's Secret Service) and the audience ate it up. And there were gadget-less thrillers still done from time to time. The aforementioned OHMSS has no gadgets. Ditto Roger Moore's For Your Eyes Only. But both of those still had their fantasy elements in place. And Bond himself is still the character that we recognize from the other movies.
At the risk of pushing a point, sex has always been a big part of the series and it's appeal. Straight back to Dr. No, the Bond movies have always had a bevy of beautiful women in them. And in almost every single one up to the Craig era, the movies have ended with Bond and his leading lady in a clinch--usually with Q and M inadvertantly spotting this. Yes, some of the puns that accompany such a scene are usually groaners, but we love them for being groaners. It's part of the fun of the series. None of the three Craig films end like this. Come to it, Craig's Bond has sex with four women in three films and none of them survive. When did James Bond become a slasher series where sex with Bond was an automatic death sentence? I like Craig's Bond, but the man seriously needs better luck with the women.
Skyfall reintroduces other elements into the series, including Moneypenny. But now that the reboot is finally done, it's time for the series to make a return to what made it run for so long in the first place. The producers need to bring a little more fantasy in. Raise the stakes. Silva's plot--revenge on M and the destruction of MI-6 was pretty good. Certainly it was better than stealing the water supply of Brazil. But Bond should go back to saving the world. After all, even under Fleming he did that. I'm not saying we need to go as far out as Die Another Day did. Even I'll admit that film was too much. But give us a villain with a major plot going on. One of my biggest gripes with Quantum of Solace is the fact that they set up such a great SPECTRE-like organization and then give them such a humdrum plot. That would be almost forgivable if they got a bigger plot in the next film, but they seem to have been jettisoned. That's a pity because Bond needs a SPECTRE. Most great heroes have an equally great villain. Batman has the Joker, Sherlock Holmes has Moriarity, Bond had SPECTRE. One of the many rumors surrounding Skyfall was that Ralph Fiennes was going to play Blofeld in it. He doesn't, which is a bit of a pity. Fiennes would have made for an awesome Blofeld. Audiences may like who Fiennes ends up playing in the film but he isn't Blofeld.
Oh, and can we please stop the string of "this time it's personal" stories for Bond? Every single Bond film since Licence to Kill has had Bond taking it personally. In that one, it was Bond's best friend Felix Leiter getting munched on by sharks and Bond seeking revenge. In Goldeneye, Bond's best British friend turns on him. In Tommorow Never Dies, the villain kills an ex-girlfriend of Bond's. In The World Is Not Enough, M is kidnapped. In Die Another Day he's betrayed by an insider and seeks revenge. Casino Royale has Bond's lover revealed to be a traitor. Quantum of Solace, he's seeking revenge on the organization that made her a traitor! And in Skyfall, M gets targeted again. That's 8 out of 23 films where Bond goes on a personal vendetta. 8 films in a row. Enough! Let the man go back to just plain out saving the world. Leave the baggage out of the next one and let's have a good old-fashioned adventure already.
At least the producers have gone back to real stunts performed by real stuntmen. The CGI Bond parasailing away from a tidal wave in Die Another Day was not only ridiculously stupid, it was a smack in the face to the rest of the series with it's insane stunt work. So the stunts is one thing the Craig era has right. And Sam Mendes lets us see what's going on in the action scenes, unlike Quantum's director Marc Foster. That, too, is a step in the right direction.The hectic editing that doesn't allow you to see who is doing what to whom might work for Batman, but it's as out of place for Bond as the aforementioned CGI. The series was built on a foundation of real stunts done by real stunt people that we could consistently see and enjoy. They were impressive and grin-inducing fun. When Bond runs across the heads of the crocodiles in Live and Let Die, it's a real stunt man running across real croc heads. It's a real stunt man skiing off a mountain, freefalling for a bit, and opening an Union Jack parachute in The Spy Who Loved Me. If you want to know what's wrong with Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace, just watch the opening chase through the construction site in Casino Royale. That's a terrific sequence and it highlights the faults of the two films that surround it. Skyfall does bring that sensibility back with it's opening chase and train fight.
Like I say, Skyfall is a good movie and it moves the series back in a proper direction. It corrects many (but not all) of the blunders of Quantum of Solace and it feels like the reboot is complete. Good. So, let's stop rebooting and give us THE James Bond. There is no reason Daniel Craig couldn't go on to be the best Bond of all time--even better than Connery. Give him his Goldfinger and see what he does with it. Trust me, Babs Broccoli, your father knew what he was doing for over 30 years. Trust the formula. Audiences still love it.
Oh, and quit putting the gunbarrel logo at the end of the movie!
Skyfall is currently being hailed as one of the best of the series. While I think it's a pretty damn good movie, I won't quite put it up there with the absolute best. It's not quite as good as the 2006 Casino Royale or the one that most people consider the very best (Goldfinger). It's far better than Quantum of Solace, but then again that one is a bottom five Bond for me anyhow. The opening action scene is terrific, a few familiar elements are re-introduced to the movie, and Javier Bardem's villainous Silva is probably the mos personable Bond villain ever. So what's wrong with the movie? To understand that, let's start with the re-introduction of Q. No spoiler here, since he's in the trailer.
At any rate, Q shows up and hands Bond a new Walther PPK and a radio transmitter. Bond comments "not exactly Christmas." Q's response was "What were you expecting? An exploding pen? We don't really go in for that sort of thing anymore."
Yes, it's a somewhat funny line, but it also dismisses one of the things that makes OO7 what he is. To get a better explanation of that, Bond producer Barbara Broccoli was quoted as saying that 9/11 happened while they were making Die Another Day and after the events of 9/11, they felt Bond shouldn't be so fantastical. But saying that misses the point of Bond.
James Bond is a fantasy figure, same as Doctor Who, Sinbad the Sailor, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, and the various characters who populate the Marvel Cinematic Universe. OO7 was a fantasy figure from day one. Some Fleming purists might want to argue this, but even Fleming's creation had the touch of fantasy about him. Sure, most of Fleming's books were Bond versus SMERSH, cold war thrillers with plots that became somewhat dated and mundane over time. But Goldfinger in the novel still plans to attack Fort Knox, Dr. No still topples American missles, and Blofeld still steals a nuclear missle and plans to conquer the world. The books weren't totally grounded in reality, even if they didn't go as far as some of the movies went. Fleming still gave us megalomaniacs and Bond still had sex up the wazoo. Even in Fleming's novels, Bond was the type of guy women wanted and men wanted to be. The movies blew up those elements even more, and they did them right from the start.
It is true that Dr. No, the first of the movies, has no gadgets. But other hallmarks are there right from the start: the banter with Moneypenny, the numerous beautiful women Bond seduces, the larger than life villains, the even more larger than life bases, the plot to take over the world, the witty remarks after a cold blooded death. From Russia, With Love, the second entry in the film series (and the book that preceded the nove of Dr. No ironically), introduced Q (called Major Boothroyd) and the first of the gadgets--Bond's briefcase. Goldfinger followed a year later and cemented the blueprint for the series: the big henchman who gives Bond a hard time, the wilder gagdgets--including the iconic Aston Martin DB-5, the bona-fide sense of humor of the series. Goldfinger was funny, sexy, and thrilling and it ended up being a smash hit in 1964. By the end of the decade, other familiar scenes would show up (such as the skiing chase in On Her Majesty's Secret Service) and the audience ate it up. And there were gadget-less thrillers still done from time to time. The aforementioned OHMSS has no gadgets. Ditto Roger Moore's For Your Eyes Only. But both of those still had their fantasy elements in place. And Bond himself is still the character that we recognize from the other movies.
At the risk of pushing a point, sex has always been a big part of the series and it's appeal. Straight back to Dr. No, the Bond movies have always had a bevy of beautiful women in them. And in almost every single one up to the Craig era, the movies have ended with Bond and his leading lady in a clinch--usually with Q and M inadvertantly spotting this. Yes, some of the puns that accompany such a scene are usually groaners, but we love them for being groaners. It's part of the fun of the series. None of the three Craig films end like this. Come to it, Craig's Bond has sex with four women in three films and none of them survive. When did James Bond become a slasher series where sex with Bond was an automatic death sentence? I like Craig's Bond, but the man seriously needs better luck with the women.
Skyfall reintroduces other elements into the series, including Moneypenny. But now that the reboot is finally done, it's time for the series to make a return to what made it run for so long in the first place. The producers need to bring a little more fantasy in. Raise the stakes. Silva's plot--revenge on M and the destruction of MI-6 was pretty good. Certainly it was better than stealing the water supply of Brazil. But Bond should go back to saving the world. After all, even under Fleming he did that. I'm not saying we need to go as far out as Die Another Day did. Even I'll admit that film was too much. But give us a villain with a major plot going on. One of my biggest gripes with Quantum of Solace is the fact that they set up such a great SPECTRE-like organization and then give them such a humdrum plot. That would be almost forgivable if they got a bigger plot in the next film, but they seem to have been jettisoned. That's a pity because Bond needs a SPECTRE. Most great heroes have an equally great villain. Batman has the Joker, Sherlock Holmes has Moriarity, Bond had SPECTRE. One of the many rumors surrounding Skyfall was that Ralph Fiennes was going to play Blofeld in it. He doesn't, which is a bit of a pity. Fiennes would have made for an awesome Blofeld. Audiences may like who Fiennes ends up playing in the film but he isn't Blofeld.
Oh, and can we please stop the string of "this time it's personal" stories for Bond? Every single Bond film since Licence to Kill has had Bond taking it personally. In that one, it was Bond's best friend Felix Leiter getting munched on by sharks and Bond seeking revenge. In Goldeneye, Bond's best British friend turns on him. In Tommorow Never Dies, the villain kills an ex-girlfriend of Bond's. In The World Is Not Enough, M is kidnapped. In Die Another Day he's betrayed by an insider and seeks revenge. Casino Royale has Bond's lover revealed to be a traitor. Quantum of Solace, he's seeking revenge on the organization that made her a traitor! And in Skyfall, M gets targeted again. That's 8 out of 23 films where Bond goes on a personal vendetta. 8 films in a row. Enough! Let the man go back to just plain out saving the world. Leave the baggage out of the next one and let's have a good old-fashioned adventure already.
At least the producers have gone back to real stunts performed by real stuntmen. The CGI Bond parasailing away from a tidal wave in Die Another Day was not only ridiculously stupid, it was a smack in the face to the rest of the series with it's insane stunt work. So the stunts is one thing the Craig era has right. And Sam Mendes lets us see what's going on in the action scenes, unlike Quantum's director Marc Foster. That, too, is a step in the right direction.The hectic editing that doesn't allow you to see who is doing what to whom might work for Batman, but it's as out of place for Bond as the aforementioned CGI. The series was built on a foundation of real stunts done by real stunt people that we could consistently see and enjoy. They were impressive and grin-inducing fun. When Bond runs across the heads of the crocodiles in Live and Let Die, it's a real stunt man running across real croc heads. It's a real stunt man skiing off a mountain, freefalling for a bit, and opening an Union Jack parachute in The Spy Who Loved Me. If you want to know what's wrong with Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace, just watch the opening chase through the construction site in Casino Royale. That's a terrific sequence and it highlights the faults of the two films that surround it. Skyfall does bring that sensibility back with it's opening chase and train fight.
Like I say, Skyfall is a good movie and it moves the series back in a proper direction. It corrects many (but not all) of the blunders of Quantum of Solace and it feels like the reboot is complete. Good. So, let's stop rebooting and give us THE James Bond. There is no reason Daniel Craig couldn't go on to be the best Bond of all time--even better than Connery. Give him his Goldfinger and see what he does with it. Trust me, Babs Broccoli, your father knew what he was doing for over 30 years. Trust the formula. Audiences still love it.
Oh, and quit putting the gunbarrel logo at the end of the movie!
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Thoughts on Star Wars 7, 8, & 9
So, today it was announced that Disney has bought LucasFilm and will proceed to make Star Wars episodes 7-9, with the first one to be released in 2015. This news has been met with much rejoicing and some questions by fans, the main question being "will Disney release the original cuts of the films on Blu Ray?" Truthfully, that's an irrelevant question. IF it happens, and that's a mighty big if, it won't be for a few years anyway. The questions that should be asked should be asked of this new series that's coming. For instance:
Who is going to direct these films (Lucas said he won't)?
Who is going to be in them?
Most importantly, what the heck are they going to be about anyhow?
I have some worthwhile suggestions for the first question anyhow. Spielberg is the most obvious choice, though I don't see him doing it. The directors of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films are also top suggestions. Anyone who can make a movie like Thor that interesting the way Kenneth Branagh did knows how to blend fantastic worlds and real characters and make it work. Joe Johnston has two very serial-like films under his belt: Captain America and The Rocketeer. And it goes without saying that if Joss Whedon's The Avengers isn't the all time best comic book movie ever, it's in the top five. Frankly, those are the directors you want attached to Star Wars. I think they, better than anyone else, would get it. Hell, they might even get it better than George Lucas himself!
The question of casting ties into the what will it be about question, and both are kinda sticky. As it's 7, 8, and 9 we're talking about, does that mean that Han, Luke, and Leia will be in them? If so, who is going to play them. I may be speaking for myself, but at this point, I don't want to see Harrison Ford, Mark Hammil, and Carrie Fisher reprising those roles. As much as I enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the first shot of Ford as Indy had me thinking "Oh my God! He looks ancient!" That was in 2008. By the time of 2015, Ford will likely look a day older than Moses. Hammil has looked like the Joker for a while now. As for Fisher...while she doesn't look awful, she sure doesn't look like she did in 1983. And while that statement may lead to a "so, like...duh!" comment from the readers, contemplate this: by the time the new Star Wars comes out, Fisher will be almost 60. Show of hands of people who really want to see a 60 year old Princess Leia.
Oddly enough, however, there really isn't anyone in Hollywood right now that I would care to see in these parts. I suppose an argument can be made for Robert Downey, Jr. as Han, Hayley Atwell as Leia, and Chris Evans as Luke, but I'd rather see them in the Iron Man and Captain America films (or The Avengers 2) than in Star Wars.
I suppose the original actors can be brought back in cameos or as the wise old sages and new heroes and villains be introduced. Then again, the wild age difference between Ford and Fisher would really come to light if such a thing were to happen. And I don't want people to think I'm just being mean spirited towards Ford. He's a fine actor--always has been--but hell, even Roger Moore recognized when he was too old to be playing James Bond. Sorry, Mr. Ford, your day as swashbuckling action hero is sadly over.
This brings up what the film will be about. This is perhaps even stickier than who should be in it. After all, if you watch the films now, you can plainly see that the saga goes full circle. Annakin Skywalker meets the Jedis, grows up to try to become a Jedi, loses his mind and goes evil killing little kid Jedi (but no actual adult Jedi...hmmm....), finds his kids, kills the Emperor, and dies doing so theoretically redeeming himself. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the main bad guys are dead and the heroes have triumphed. So what exactly can follow? What can possibly be the story? Is it 30 years later and some far flung remnat of the Empire rises up to cause trouble? Is it right after Jedi and the messy clean up has to happen? That one might make for a better one-off movie, but if it's the previous idea, then the danger becomes that the films just end up repeating themselves. We already kind of had that with Phantom Menace, which borrowed it's climax from all three previous films. Do we want it again? More to the point, do we need it?
I would argue no. When I was a lot younger, I really wanted Indiana Jones four. As I got older, I realized how little such a film was needed. And when it finally came out, while it was fun, I felt no need for a fifth film. I still hope that Spielberg gives up the idea of a fifth Indiana Jones film and just carries on with Tintin or some such. Similarly, now that the prequels are out--and one can argue the necessity of the prequels, too--I don't feel that 7, 8, and 9 are absolute necessities. In fact, I'd rather Disney not make these movies but instead concentrate on the Marvel films. I know they'll make the Marvel movies regardless, but I'm far more excited about those possibilities than anything that will go on in the future Star Wars universe. But, that's just me.
Who is going to direct these films (Lucas said he won't)?
Who is going to be in them?
Most importantly, what the heck are they going to be about anyhow?
I have some worthwhile suggestions for the first question anyhow. Spielberg is the most obvious choice, though I don't see him doing it. The directors of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films are also top suggestions. Anyone who can make a movie like Thor that interesting the way Kenneth Branagh did knows how to blend fantastic worlds and real characters and make it work. Joe Johnston has two very serial-like films under his belt: Captain America and The Rocketeer. And it goes without saying that if Joss Whedon's The Avengers isn't the all time best comic book movie ever, it's in the top five. Frankly, those are the directors you want attached to Star Wars. I think they, better than anyone else, would get it. Hell, they might even get it better than George Lucas himself!
The question of casting ties into the what will it be about question, and both are kinda sticky. As it's 7, 8, and 9 we're talking about, does that mean that Han, Luke, and Leia will be in them? If so, who is going to play them. I may be speaking for myself, but at this point, I don't want to see Harrison Ford, Mark Hammil, and Carrie Fisher reprising those roles. As much as I enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the first shot of Ford as Indy had me thinking "Oh my God! He looks ancient!" That was in 2008. By the time of 2015, Ford will likely look a day older than Moses. Hammil has looked like the Joker for a while now. As for Fisher...while she doesn't look awful, she sure doesn't look like she did in 1983. And while that statement may lead to a "so, like...duh!" comment from the readers, contemplate this: by the time the new Star Wars comes out, Fisher will be almost 60. Show of hands of people who really want to see a 60 year old Princess Leia.
Oddly enough, however, there really isn't anyone in Hollywood right now that I would care to see in these parts. I suppose an argument can be made for Robert Downey, Jr. as Han, Hayley Atwell as Leia, and Chris Evans as Luke, but I'd rather see them in the Iron Man and Captain America films (or The Avengers 2) than in Star Wars.
I suppose the original actors can be brought back in cameos or as the wise old sages and new heroes and villains be introduced. Then again, the wild age difference between Ford and Fisher would really come to light if such a thing were to happen. And I don't want people to think I'm just being mean spirited towards Ford. He's a fine actor--always has been--but hell, even Roger Moore recognized when he was too old to be playing James Bond. Sorry, Mr. Ford, your day as swashbuckling action hero is sadly over.
This brings up what the film will be about. This is perhaps even stickier than who should be in it. After all, if you watch the films now, you can plainly see that the saga goes full circle. Annakin Skywalker meets the Jedis, grows up to try to become a Jedi, loses his mind and goes evil killing little kid Jedi (but no actual adult Jedi...hmmm....), finds his kids, kills the Emperor, and dies doing so theoretically redeeming himself. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the main bad guys are dead and the heroes have triumphed. So what exactly can follow? What can possibly be the story? Is it 30 years later and some far flung remnat of the Empire rises up to cause trouble? Is it right after Jedi and the messy clean up has to happen? That one might make for a better one-off movie, but if it's the previous idea, then the danger becomes that the films just end up repeating themselves. We already kind of had that with Phantom Menace, which borrowed it's climax from all three previous films. Do we want it again? More to the point, do we need it?
I would argue no. When I was a lot younger, I really wanted Indiana Jones four. As I got older, I realized how little such a film was needed. And when it finally came out, while it was fun, I felt no need for a fifth film. I still hope that Spielberg gives up the idea of a fifth Indiana Jones film and just carries on with Tintin or some such. Similarly, now that the prequels are out--and one can argue the necessity of the prequels, too--I don't feel that 7, 8, and 9 are absolute necessities. In fact, I'd rather Disney not make these movies but instead concentrate on the Marvel films. I know they'll make the Marvel movies regardless, but I'm far more excited about those possibilities than anything that will go on in the future Star Wars universe. But, that's just me.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
3D CLASSICS COME TO BLU RAY
This month has seen the release of two classic 3D movies on 3D Blu Ray for the first time--and no, I don't mean AVATAR and THE AVENGERS (which came out last month anyway). Last week Universal released CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON in 3D as part of the UNIVERSAL MONSTERS Blu Ray set and this week Warner gave us Alfred Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER. I've only spot-checked the two discs--ok, I've watched half of DMFM already--but I'm impressed with what I've seen. This is what 3D should look like. Outside of a few titles like HUGO and THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, most modern 3D movies aren't that impressive in terms of depth and/or effect shots. So if you think of THE AVENGERS as the ultimate 3D movie, you've seen nothing.
The 50s films were not shy about either depth or effect shots. This is not to say that those films were like their 80s counterparts throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the audience. They concentrated mostly on depth and keeping things behind the stereo window. However, when there was a gimmick shot, it was usually a memorable one. A perfect example of this is in DIAL M FOR MURDER.
For the better part of the first 45 minutes all of the action takes place behind the screen. All this time we follow along as Ray Milland plots the murder of his wife, peering around lamps as if spying and being a co-conspirator. Then comes the movie's big moment when Anthony Dawson tries strangling Grace Kelly. Kelly desperately reaches out of the screen, almost as if imploring the audience for help. When she reaches it, it's a creepy and effective moment. We go from being in on the plot to being begged for help by the victim and not being able to do anything. It is, perhaps, the ultimate in audience manipulation and something completely lost in 2D showings.
Admittedly, DIAL M is far more subtle than CREATURE in terms of both depth and gimmick shots. But this does not make either film better or worse. CREATURE is a decent movie in it's own right and has an excellent use of 3D, especially in the underwater scenes, which are better than what JAWS 3D pulled off nearly 30 years later. The 3D really pops in this one, with fantastic levels of depth throughout and CREATURE even manages to be deeper than DIAL M. In fairness, Hitchcock confined his film to a Lomdon flat while director Jack Arnold has a jungle/water setting to play with. Arnold also uses more gimmick shots than Hitchcock. But, there's an important thing to bear in mind with Arnold's 3D films: (again) unlike their 80s counterparts, the gimmick shots related to the movie. For those who grew up seeing yo-yos and popcorn being tossed at the audience in FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3, the idea of 3D movies not just tossing any old thing out of the screen may seem like a weird idea, but it's the center of both of these releases. I mean, Jack Arnold decided that a primary 3D effect for CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON should be the Creature himself clutching and clawing at the audience. Who knew? Then again, most modern 3D movies don't bother much with gimmick shots themselves. Then again, all too many of the modern ones are converted from 2D.
This Blu Ray marks the first time CREATURE has been released (officially) on home video in 3D since MCA put out a rotten anaglyphic VHS in 1980. I admit to having loved watching that release for years, but after seeing the Blu Ray, I'm convinced I was on good drugs I didn't even know I was on for all those years. This is the way to see CREATURE, unless you happen to get a chance to see it in dual strip polarized in the theater sometime. I got to see it that way twice myself and it's quite a treat. But this is definitely the next best thing. As for DIAL M, this is the first time since the Japanese VHD Disc in the 1980s that Dial M has gotten a home 3D release. Both look great on 3D Blu Ray, though CREATURE has some vertical misalignment issues. Depending on things, some eyestrain may be had while watching CREATURE. But that's the way the film has always been. It's also worth noting that both of these releases are the first time on home video that either film has been shown in it's original 1:85 aspect ratio.
In both cases, the image detail is beautiful. I noticed for the first time the bruise marks on Grace Kelly's neck the day after the attack. Okay, it was make up to look like bruise marks, but the point is that detail was never noticed by me before. Similarly, details in the shirts Julia Adams wore in CREATURE were made more apparent. Of course, that's the beauty of Blu Ray to begin with--that details you normally wouldn't notice become apparent. Both films look just fine and are well worth getting.
In fact, that's the bottom line. If you have a 3D TV, you seriously need both of these releases. They are truly top of the line films and ones you want to show people to show off your 3D system. The only one I can think of that can compare to them is HUGO, point in fact. And both releases have the promise of future classic 3D movies being brought to Blu Ray. Warners has already announced HOUSE OF WAX and Universal seems to be working on IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and REVENGE OF THE CREATURE. Now if Paramount would only correct their error and put HONDO out on 3D Blu Ray, all would be right with the world. Sort of. Kind of. Not really.
The 50s films were not shy about either depth or effect shots. This is not to say that those films were like their 80s counterparts throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the audience. They concentrated mostly on depth and keeping things behind the stereo window. However, when there was a gimmick shot, it was usually a memorable one. A perfect example of this is in DIAL M FOR MURDER.
For the better part of the first 45 minutes all of the action takes place behind the screen. All this time we follow along as Ray Milland plots the murder of his wife, peering around lamps as if spying and being a co-conspirator. Then comes the movie's big moment when Anthony Dawson tries strangling Grace Kelly. Kelly desperately reaches out of the screen, almost as if imploring the audience for help. When she reaches it, it's a creepy and effective moment. We go from being in on the plot to being begged for help by the victim and not being able to do anything. It is, perhaps, the ultimate in audience manipulation and something completely lost in 2D showings.
Admittedly, DIAL M is far more subtle than CREATURE in terms of both depth and gimmick shots. But this does not make either film better or worse. CREATURE is a decent movie in it's own right and has an excellent use of 3D, especially in the underwater scenes, which are better than what JAWS 3D pulled off nearly 30 years later. The 3D really pops in this one, with fantastic levels of depth throughout and CREATURE even manages to be deeper than DIAL M. In fairness, Hitchcock confined his film to a Lomdon flat while director Jack Arnold has a jungle/water setting to play with. Arnold also uses more gimmick shots than Hitchcock. But, there's an important thing to bear in mind with Arnold's 3D films: (again) unlike their 80s counterparts, the gimmick shots related to the movie. For those who grew up seeing yo-yos and popcorn being tossed at the audience in FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3, the idea of 3D movies not just tossing any old thing out of the screen may seem like a weird idea, but it's the center of both of these releases. I mean, Jack Arnold decided that a primary 3D effect for CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON should be the Creature himself clutching and clawing at the audience. Who knew? Then again, most modern 3D movies don't bother much with gimmick shots themselves. Then again, all too many of the modern ones are converted from 2D.
This Blu Ray marks the first time CREATURE has been released (officially) on home video in 3D since MCA put out a rotten anaglyphic VHS in 1980. I admit to having loved watching that release for years, but after seeing the Blu Ray, I'm convinced I was on good drugs I didn't even know I was on for all those years. This is the way to see CREATURE, unless you happen to get a chance to see it in dual strip polarized in the theater sometime. I got to see it that way twice myself and it's quite a treat. But this is definitely the next best thing. As for DIAL M, this is the first time since the Japanese VHD Disc in the 1980s that Dial M has gotten a home 3D release. Both look great on 3D Blu Ray, though CREATURE has some vertical misalignment issues. Depending on things, some eyestrain may be had while watching CREATURE. But that's the way the film has always been. It's also worth noting that both of these releases are the first time on home video that either film has been shown in it's original 1:85 aspect ratio.
In both cases, the image detail is beautiful. I noticed for the first time the bruise marks on Grace Kelly's neck the day after the attack. Okay, it was make up to look like bruise marks, but the point is that detail was never noticed by me before. Similarly, details in the shirts Julia Adams wore in CREATURE were made more apparent. Of course, that's the beauty of Blu Ray to begin with--that details you normally wouldn't notice become apparent. Both films look just fine and are well worth getting.
In fact, that's the bottom line. If you have a 3D TV, you seriously need both of these releases. They are truly top of the line films and ones you want to show people to show off your 3D system. The only one I can think of that can compare to them is HUGO, point in fact. And both releases have the promise of future classic 3D movies being brought to Blu Ray. Warners has already announced HOUSE OF WAX and Universal seems to be working on IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and REVENGE OF THE CREATURE. Now if Paramount would only correct their error and put HONDO out on 3D Blu Ray, all would be right with the world. Sort of. Kind of. Not really.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Genuis of Steven Spielberg
I was flipping through channels the other night and stumbled on Schindler's List. It was the scene where Schindler and Stern are actually typing the list. I sat there and watched it for a good few minutest before flipping again--only because I have it on DVD and I'm one of those weird people who'd really rather watch a movie from the beginning. At any rate, the topic of today's blog was decided in those five minutes.
As mentioned before, Spielberg is one of my two favorite directors. He has, in fact, directed my two favorite movies of all time, and directed quite a few others that would make it into my top 50. He is also the guy whose movies ultimately made me want to make movies.
Now, I know a lot of guys say that and certainly a lot of guys want to be Spielberg. I won't cop to that, per say. In my case, Spielberg's making of Raiders of the Lost Ark and talking about how it was inspired by old time movie serials led to eventually watching old time movie serials which led me to making movie serials. But yes, there's a lot of guys who simply want to be Steven Spielberg. His movies have inspired as many imitators as Hitchcock's.
Let's take Raiders as an example. To this day, movies are imitating the adventures of Indiana Jones. Anyone seen The Mummy movies with Brendan Fraser? How about Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? I was really interested in seeing that one when it was out a few years ago. The director, Kerry Conan, even said he was putting chapter breaks in the film and that it was pure, old fashioned serial adventure. Never mind the fact that the actors did the whole thing in front of green screens and the entire world was CGI. But I wanted to see it and gave it a shot. When it was done, I turned to my buddy and said, "it was okay, but it didn't have the wow factor of Raiders."
Come to it, there's only been one imitator of Raiders that ever really worked--Romancing The Stone. And that one is less an imitator and more of a romantic comedy adventure film than any of the others. Well, okay...the first Mummy movie worked to a decent extent, too. Never bothered with the sequels, though I may.
Jaws has been imitated to death as well. Again, even as late as this decade, there's shark attack movies. Most of them are done for TV now since people stopped being suckered into going to the movies for them. But they all make the same fatal mistakes: show the (fake looking) shark to death and just have a high body count. Spielberg's movie did neither which is why it remains a masterpiece.
But like I said earlier, Hitchock is still imitated and he's been dead for nearly 30 years. Disturbia is nothing more than a reworking of Rear Window. And while it was decent enough, Shia LaBeouf is no Jimmy Stewart. This, of course, proves what the average movie buff has known for years: Hollywood is totally out of ideas. But I digress. Back to Spielberg.
There are, of course, two sides to the Spielberg coin: Spielberg the spinner of fantasy and Spielberg the guy who likes to win Academy Awards. The earlier is the type of Spielberg I prefer. It's not that the latter doesn't make good movies--you'd be hard pressed to argue that Munich isn't a good movie--it's that the earlier has a style of movie that is infinitely rewatchable. Of his more serious works, the only one I really care to rewatch is Schindler's List, and that mostly because of the wonderful interaction between Liam Neeson and Ben Kingsley. Saving Private Ryan was extremely well done (and depressing), but I'm not exactly jumping up and down to put it in the DVD player. Ditto Munich.
The problem seems to be that older Spielberg has seem to forgotten that, as Rod Serling once pointed out, you can make as potent a point in fantasy as you can in serious drama and make it in a more entertaining manner. E.T. is perhaps the perfect example. E.T. is practically the template for later Spielberg films. It's also as powerful and well done as those later films, it's just that it's the story of a boy and his alien instead of some "realistic" drama. In fact, it's probably as powerful as film as Private Ryan--I defy anyone to not cry when E.T. dies (I still do and I've seen the film multiple times). But it works better than the later films because it creates a genuine sense of magic and wonder. It's unfortunate he felt the need to monkey with the film in 2002. The removal of the guns does nothing for the story. Thankfully the first version of the DVD had both versions on it.
1993 was a major turning point in the films of Steven Spielberg. That was the year he gave us both Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. JP is perhaps the last really big Spielberg thrill ride. It is on a par with Raiders and Jaws. Next to the 1933 King Kong, it is the best dinosaur movie ever. Like Jaws, it has an excellent cast and makes a point--the debate over cloning and evolution--amidst all it's suspense. And every frame of the movie works. The special effects are amazing. It really looks like the cast is right there with real dinosaurs. It does everything that Spielberg's best does and it does it better than even most of them. I ended up seeing JP in the theaters four times. Only a couple of 3-D movies share that.
Of course, after Schindler, Spielberg announced an intention to stick with more serious fare for the rest of his carreer. Thankfully, he has slowly started to go back to what made him great in the first place in the past couple of years. War of the Worlds proved he still had it even if it wasn't as thrilling as his earlier work. And while Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn't as good as the original trilogy, it didn't completely disappoint me either. But I'd still like to see one more Jurassic Park type thrill ride out of him. I have no doubt that he can still do it.
One thing worth mentioning is that Hitch made essentially the same type of movie for nearly 50 years. And he never really complained about it and--except for a couple of late carreer missteps--never really lost his touch, either. Spielberg for a time was our generation's Hitchcock, a master of suspense and wonder. It would be nice to see him completely go back to being that again.
As mentioned before, Spielberg is one of my two favorite directors. He has, in fact, directed my two favorite movies of all time, and directed quite a few others that would make it into my top 50. He is also the guy whose movies ultimately made me want to make movies.
Now, I know a lot of guys say that and certainly a lot of guys want to be Spielberg. I won't cop to that, per say. In my case, Spielberg's making of Raiders of the Lost Ark and talking about how it was inspired by old time movie serials led to eventually watching old time movie serials which led me to making movie serials. But yes, there's a lot of guys who simply want to be Steven Spielberg. His movies have inspired as many imitators as Hitchcock's.
Let's take Raiders as an example. To this day, movies are imitating the adventures of Indiana Jones. Anyone seen The Mummy movies with Brendan Fraser? How about Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? I was really interested in seeing that one when it was out a few years ago. The director, Kerry Conan, even said he was putting chapter breaks in the film and that it was pure, old fashioned serial adventure. Never mind the fact that the actors did the whole thing in front of green screens and the entire world was CGI. But I wanted to see it and gave it a shot. When it was done, I turned to my buddy and said, "it was okay, but it didn't have the wow factor of Raiders."
Come to it, there's only been one imitator of Raiders that ever really worked--Romancing The Stone. And that one is less an imitator and more of a romantic comedy adventure film than any of the others. Well, okay...the first Mummy movie worked to a decent extent, too. Never bothered with the sequels, though I may.
Jaws has been imitated to death as well. Again, even as late as this decade, there's shark attack movies. Most of them are done for TV now since people stopped being suckered into going to the movies for them. But they all make the same fatal mistakes: show the (fake looking) shark to death and just have a high body count. Spielberg's movie did neither which is why it remains a masterpiece.
But like I said earlier, Hitchock is still imitated and he's been dead for nearly 30 years. Disturbia is nothing more than a reworking of Rear Window. And while it was decent enough, Shia LaBeouf is no Jimmy Stewart. This, of course, proves what the average movie buff has known for years: Hollywood is totally out of ideas. But I digress. Back to Spielberg.
There are, of course, two sides to the Spielberg coin: Spielberg the spinner of fantasy and Spielberg the guy who likes to win Academy Awards. The earlier is the type of Spielberg I prefer. It's not that the latter doesn't make good movies--you'd be hard pressed to argue that Munich isn't a good movie--it's that the earlier has a style of movie that is infinitely rewatchable. Of his more serious works, the only one I really care to rewatch is Schindler's List, and that mostly because of the wonderful interaction between Liam Neeson and Ben Kingsley. Saving Private Ryan was extremely well done (and depressing), but I'm not exactly jumping up and down to put it in the DVD player. Ditto Munich.
The problem seems to be that older Spielberg has seem to forgotten that, as Rod Serling once pointed out, you can make as potent a point in fantasy as you can in serious drama and make it in a more entertaining manner. E.T. is perhaps the perfect example. E.T. is practically the template for later Spielberg films. It's also as powerful and well done as those later films, it's just that it's the story of a boy and his alien instead of some "realistic" drama. In fact, it's probably as powerful as film as Private Ryan--I defy anyone to not cry when E.T. dies (I still do and I've seen the film multiple times). But it works better than the later films because it creates a genuine sense of magic and wonder. It's unfortunate he felt the need to monkey with the film in 2002. The removal of the guns does nothing for the story. Thankfully the first version of the DVD had both versions on it.
1993 was a major turning point in the films of Steven Spielberg. That was the year he gave us both Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. JP is perhaps the last really big Spielberg thrill ride. It is on a par with Raiders and Jaws. Next to the 1933 King Kong, it is the best dinosaur movie ever. Like Jaws, it has an excellent cast and makes a point--the debate over cloning and evolution--amidst all it's suspense. And every frame of the movie works. The special effects are amazing. It really looks like the cast is right there with real dinosaurs. It does everything that Spielberg's best does and it does it better than even most of them. I ended up seeing JP in the theaters four times. Only a couple of 3-D movies share that.
Of course, after Schindler, Spielberg announced an intention to stick with more serious fare for the rest of his carreer. Thankfully, he has slowly started to go back to what made him great in the first place in the past couple of years. War of the Worlds proved he still had it even if it wasn't as thrilling as his earlier work. And while Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn't as good as the original trilogy, it didn't completely disappoint me either. But I'd still like to see one more Jurassic Park type thrill ride out of him. I have no doubt that he can still do it.
One thing worth mentioning is that Hitch made essentially the same type of movie for nearly 50 years. And he never really complained about it and--except for a couple of late carreer missteps--never really lost his touch, either. Spielberg for a time was our generation's Hitchcock, a master of suspense and wonder. It would be nice to see him completely go back to being that again.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Everything You Wanted to Know About 3-D Movies
Okay, not exactly everything. But a great deal of information at least on how the various technologies work. Being a 3-D filmmaker and buff, I figured I'm at least somewhat qualified to write this blog and maybe even set a few myths straight.
HOW 3-D VISION WORKS
First thing worth mentioning is how we see in 3-D at all. Humans are a rare species of animal as we are one of the few to have two eyes in the front of our face. A large number of animals have their eyes on the sides (such as fish). As a result, we see stereoscopically and they don't. For it takes two eyes in front of the face to see in 3-D. Each eye sees the world slightly differently and our brain tricks us into seeing the image whole.
Here's a little demonstration of the above. Hold your finger up roughly 12 inches in front of your face. Now blink each eye. You'll note that the left and right eye each see a slightly different part of the finger. This is also why when you were a little kid and you used to bring the pencil real close to your eyes, it seem to split into two.
Euclid and Leonardo Da Vinci had various theorems about stereoscopic vision and how our eyes work and there are books and websites all over the place on it, so I'm just going to skip ahead and get into the actual movie technologies of 3-D. One book, if you're interested, available as a free download online, is Foundations of Stereoscopic Cinema by Lenny Lipton. In the early part of the rather lengthy book, Lipton goes into the history of the science of our stereoscopic vision.
In terms of the movies, 3-D movies operate on the same basic principle as our vision. The average movie is shot with a single camera and a single lens, or eye if you will. 3-D movies are shot with either two cameras or a single camera with a special attachment, usually known as a beam splitter. The left and right eye views of each shot look just slightly different from one another and when viewed through the 3-D glasses, our brain tricks us into seeing the two images as one.
In terms of movies and TV there have been four main types of 3-D done throughout the last 90 years. They are anaglyphic, polarized, field sequential, and the pulfrich illusion. Field Sequential and Pulfrich are mostly for TV, so I'm not going to bother with them here. Maybe in a future blog.
ANAGLYPHIC MOVIES
Anaglyphic 3-D is probably the most familiar type of 3-D out there. I once referred to it, in fact, as the stereotype of 3-D. It's the type that has been used not just in movies, but in comic books, magazines, posters, T-shirts, photographs, and just about any other type of print form of 3-D. This is the type that uses opposing colored glasses. Most people say red/green, but actually red/cyan is the more commonly used type for movies and red/blue for comic books. Yellow/blue--which is tradenamed ColorCode--was used for the 3-D Super Bowl commercials and the Chuck episode earlier this year and magenta/green has been used on some recent 3-D DVDs (while others use red/cyan, go figure). This is, in some ways, the projectionist-proof form of 3-D in that no projectionist can screw it up (unlike polarized 3-D). The two images are printed on the same strip of film using the opposing colors. The glasses cancel out their color and our eyes each see the opposing color. We then put things together in our brain for the 3-D image. Pretty simple. Again, no projectionist can screw up the showing and no special screen are necessary. It can even be shown on TV. But, there are plenty of cons associated with this form of 3-D.
For one thing, though no projectionist can screw it up, any printing lab can. The colors have to be printed precisely or else the effect won't work. This goes for the glasses as well. This is also why until recently it has rarely worked on TV. The tubes in the standard CRT based tv vary their colors ever so slightly and therefore almost never match. Computer monitors and modern flat screen TVs have better color control, so 3-D, if printed right, does work on them.
Also, color anaglyph (sometimes called polybiochromatic!) plain out stinks. The glasses weaken the other colors in the film and if you're going to shoot a color anaglpyh film, you have to watch your color scheme (which people rarely do). I'm also not convinced that the depth in the color anaglyph image is as good as it is in the black and white image, but that might just be me.
The other big knock on anaglyphic 3-D is the amount of misinformation that swirls around it. For several years now, no end of so-called experts--just including one Roger Ebert (who must have been traumatized as a child by a 3-D movie since he so passionately hates them)--have posted over the internet and other media that all previously made 3-D movies were in the anaglyphic format. WRONG!
Now, first off, Ebert should know better since him and Siskel were reviewing films like Spacehunter and Jaws 3-D on their TV show in 1983. Come to it, if you look hard enough, their reviews of those movies might even be on Youtube. I still have my Jaws 3-D glasses and they were not red/blue, they were polarized. Beyond that, showings of 3-D movies from past years pop up every so often. The glasses are almost always polarized.
It is true that the earliest 3-D movies were anaglyphic. I've seen a couple from the 1920s and the three Pete Smith shorts (1936-1941) were all anaglyphic. There were a couple of early 1950s shorts shot that way, too. And post the 1950s, there has been a handful of movies released in anaglyphic format (the most recent being the two from Robert Rodriguez). But, every 3-D feature of both the 1950s and the 1980s, and most of the ones from the 1970s and 1990s, were polarized, not anaglyph. So where did this stupid rumor come from?
Two sources, I think. In the 1960s and 1970s, Columbia and Universal released to the home market on Super 8 and 8mm a couple of titles in anaglyphic 3-D. They were digests of Creature From the Black Lagoon, It Came From Outer Space, The Mad Magician, and the two 3 Stooges shorts. Likewise, in 1972, Universal had an idea to reissue Creature and ICFOS and did so in anaglyphic format. And in the late 1970s, Universal's 16mm rental outfit, Swank, rented anaglyphic prints of Creature, Revenge of the Creature, House of Wax, Dial M For Murder, and ICFOS. Similarly, another outfit called Kit Parker films released The Mad Magician, The Maze, and the two 3 Stooges shorts. This is also around the time the 7 anaglyphic porns made by Stephen Gibson were in circulation (met Steve, once. Nice guy and a 3-D enthusiast, but his choice of subject matter is unfortunate). And in the early 1980s, a company called 3-D Video Corporation--headed by, among other people, Dan Symmes (a 3-D expert)--coverted several 1950s titles to anaglyphic 3-D for broadcast on TV (none of which work, btw). The last of the 1950s films to show up on TV in anaglyph format was John Wayne's Hondo in 1991. So, that could explain where the rumors come from. But they are still wrong.
POLARIZED 3-D
Polarized 3-D is the better version of the format. There's been 3 major variations on it over the years: dual strip polarized, single strip polarized, and digital polarized (which is the modern form).
The 1950s movies were shown in dual strip polarized. This is arguably the best form of 3-D you can find. Each eye is shown through a separate projector. The two projectors are locked together with a mechanism and are (supposed to be) running in perfect synchronisation. The images are each shot through a cross polarized lens onto the screen and the glasses do the rest. The primary benefit to all this is since each image is going through it's own projector, loss of light is minimized. The image is brighter and sharper looking, which also makes for better depth. The primary con is that any lazy projectionist and/or theater owner can (and frequently did) screw it up.
For one thing, polarized 3-D requires an actual silver screen. White screens de-polarize the light which destroys the effect. And the screen needs to be silver and not just silver painted. But there were cheap theater owners who simply applied a paint of silver coat to their screens thinking that would work. It didn't. Also, the projectors, as noted above, needed to be in synchronisation. Projectionists would let them go out of synch and then not bother to fix them. To give you an idea of what that might look like, imagine watching a scene of somebody talking. Now imagine your left eye seeing them with their mouth open or their arm raised and the right eye seeing the arm down and the mouth closed. It's what's called retinal rivalry and it was the leading cause of the infamous 3-D headaches. Not the glasses, but the projection of the image.
In 1966, Arch Oboler, the man who started the 1950s craze with Bwana Devil, thought he had the synchronization problem beat. He developed a system where the two images were printed on the same strip of film (known as single strip polarized!). The images could be printed side by side or over and under (the more common version) and then shot through a special box known as a beam splitter. The beam splitter contained both polarized lenses. Oboler's idea also eliminated the necessity of having an intermission, which every 1950s film had (so the reels could be changed). While Oboler's idea looks good on paper, what he failed to take into consideration is the stupidity of the American projectionist and/or theater owner. If they could screw it up, they would.
For one thing, we were back to needing the silver screens (all polarized 3-D films need silver screens actually). If the theater didn't have one, you knew the effect wasn't going to work. Projectionists would fit the beam splitter on incorrectly in any sort of manner, including reverse 3-D (the background would pop out and the foreground would recede into the screen!). Think that's funny? I've seen it. At a 1996 showing of Dial M For Murder, the first 40 minutes were shown in reverse 3-D. Very aggravating. Also, if the film broke and the projectionist spliced it, if they didn't splice the corresponding left and right images, we were back to non-synched 3-D. Yuck. Combine that with the truly crappy 3-D movies released in the 1970s and 1980s and it's no wonder it didn't last.
Digital polarized might well be idiot--I mean projectionist--proof. The modern form uses a digital projector, a screen set up in front of said projector, and a silver screen along with circular polarized 3-D glasses. The film is made up of jpegs and put on a hard drive. The image alternates 144 times a second--6 times faster than the standard 24 frames per second film projector. Each second is composed of 72 movie images (36 left, 36 right) and 72 black images. The left image is shown, then a black, then a right. The special polarized screen in front of the projector also alternates the 144 times a second, changing the polarizing filter. Persistence of vision and the sheer speed of the projector allow us to see the 3-D image. And with the circular polarized glasses, you can do the one thing no other form of 3-D allows--tilt your head. Again, this seems to be projectionist proof, or maybe I've just lucked out and seen some competent showings. Only time will tell.
Okay, I hope you all took notes. There will be a test later. ;)
Next time I'll sing the praises of Hitchcock and/or Spielberg. See ya at the movies!
HOW 3-D VISION WORKS
First thing worth mentioning is how we see in 3-D at all. Humans are a rare species of animal as we are one of the few to have two eyes in the front of our face. A large number of animals have their eyes on the sides (such as fish). As a result, we see stereoscopically and they don't. For it takes two eyes in front of the face to see in 3-D. Each eye sees the world slightly differently and our brain tricks us into seeing the image whole.
Here's a little demonstration of the above. Hold your finger up roughly 12 inches in front of your face. Now blink each eye. You'll note that the left and right eye each see a slightly different part of the finger. This is also why when you were a little kid and you used to bring the pencil real close to your eyes, it seem to split into two.
Euclid and Leonardo Da Vinci had various theorems about stereoscopic vision and how our eyes work and there are books and websites all over the place on it, so I'm just going to skip ahead and get into the actual movie technologies of 3-D. One book, if you're interested, available as a free download online, is Foundations of Stereoscopic Cinema by Lenny Lipton. In the early part of the rather lengthy book, Lipton goes into the history of the science of our stereoscopic vision.
In terms of the movies, 3-D movies operate on the same basic principle as our vision. The average movie is shot with a single camera and a single lens, or eye if you will. 3-D movies are shot with either two cameras or a single camera with a special attachment, usually known as a beam splitter. The left and right eye views of each shot look just slightly different from one another and when viewed through the 3-D glasses, our brain tricks us into seeing the two images as one.
In terms of movies and TV there have been four main types of 3-D done throughout the last 90 years. They are anaglyphic, polarized, field sequential, and the pulfrich illusion. Field Sequential and Pulfrich are mostly for TV, so I'm not going to bother with them here. Maybe in a future blog.
ANAGLYPHIC MOVIES
Anaglyphic 3-D is probably the most familiar type of 3-D out there. I once referred to it, in fact, as the stereotype of 3-D. It's the type that has been used not just in movies, but in comic books, magazines, posters, T-shirts, photographs, and just about any other type of print form of 3-D. This is the type that uses opposing colored glasses. Most people say red/green, but actually red/cyan is the more commonly used type for movies and red/blue for comic books. Yellow/blue--which is tradenamed ColorCode--was used for the 3-D Super Bowl commercials and the Chuck episode earlier this year and magenta/green has been used on some recent 3-D DVDs (while others use red/cyan, go figure). This is, in some ways, the projectionist-proof form of 3-D in that no projectionist can screw it up (unlike polarized 3-D). The two images are printed on the same strip of film using the opposing colors. The glasses cancel out their color and our eyes each see the opposing color. We then put things together in our brain for the 3-D image. Pretty simple. Again, no projectionist can screw up the showing and no special screen are necessary. It can even be shown on TV. But, there are plenty of cons associated with this form of 3-D.
For one thing, though no projectionist can screw it up, any printing lab can. The colors have to be printed precisely or else the effect won't work. This goes for the glasses as well. This is also why until recently it has rarely worked on TV. The tubes in the standard CRT based tv vary their colors ever so slightly and therefore almost never match. Computer monitors and modern flat screen TVs have better color control, so 3-D, if printed right, does work on them.
Also, color anaglyph (sometimes called polybiochromatic!) plain out stinks. The glasses weaken the other colors in the film and if you're going to shoot a color anaglpyh film, you have to watch your color scheme (which people rarely do). I'm also not convinced that the depth in the color anaglyph image is as good as it is in the black and white image, but that might just be me.
The other big knock on anaglyphic 3-D is the amount of misinformation that swirls around it. For several years now, no end of so-called experts--just including one Roger Ebert (who must have been traumatized as a child by a 3-D movie since he so passionately hates them)--have posted over the internet and other media that all previously made 3-D movies were in the anaglyphic format. WRONG!
Now, first off, Ebert should know better since him and Siskel were reviewing films like Spacehunter and Jaws 3-D on their TV show in 1983. Come to it, if you look hard enough, their reviews of those movies might even be on Youtube. I still have my Jaws 3-D glasses and they were not red/blue, they were polarized. Beyond that, showings of 3-D movies from past years pop up every so often. The glasses are almost always polarized.
It is true that the earliest 3-D movies were anaglyphic. I've seen a couple from the 1920s and the three Pete Smith shorts (1936-1941) were all anaglyphic. There were a couple of early 1950s shorts shot that way, too. And post the 1950s, there has been a handful of movies released in anaglyphic format (the most recent being the two from Robert Rodriguez). But, every 3-D feature of both the 1950s and the 1980s, and most of the ones from the 1970s and 1990s, were polarized, not anaglyph. So where did this stupid rumor come from?
Two sources, I think. In the 1960s and 1970s, Columbia and Universal released to the home market on Super 8 and 8mm a couple of titles in anaglyphic 3-D. They were digests of Creature From the Black Lagoon, It Came From Outer Space, The Mad Magician, and the two 3 Stooges shorts. Likewise, in 1972, Universal had an idea to reissue Creature and ICFOS and did so in anaglyphic format. And in the late 1970s, Universal's 16mm rental outfit, Swank, rented anaglyphic prints of Creature, Revenge of the Creature, House of Wax, Dial M For Murder, and ICFOS. Similarly, another outfit called Kit Parker films released The Mad Magician, The Maze, and the two 3 Stooges shorts. This is also around the time the 7 anaglyphic porns made by Stephen Gibson were in circulation (met Steve, once. Nice guy and a 3-D enthusiast, but his choice of subject matter is unfortunate). And in the early 1980s, a company called 3-D Video Corporation--headed by, among other people, Dan Symmes (a 3-D expert)--coverted several 1950s titles to anaglyphic 3-D for broadcast on TV (none of which work, btw). The last of the 1950s films to show up on TV in anaglyph format was John Wayne's Hondo in 1991. So, that could explain where the rumors come from. But they are still wrong.
POLARIZED 3-D
Polarized 3-D is the better version of the format. There's been 3 major variations on it over the years: dual strip polarized, single strip polarized, and digital polarized (which is the modern form).
The 1950s movies were shown in dual strip polarized. This is arguably the best form of 3-D you can find. Each eye is shown through a separate projector. The two projectors are locked together with a mechanism and are (supposed to be) running in perfect synchronisation. The images are each shot through a cross polarized lens onto the screen and the glasses do the rest. The primary benefit to all this is since each image is going through it's own projector, loss of light is minimized. The image is brighter and sharper looking, which also makes for better depth. The primary con is that any lazy projectionist and/or theater owner can (and frequently did) screw it up.
For one thing, polarized 3-D requires an actual silver screen. White screens de-polarize the light which destroys the effect. And the screen needs to be silver and not just silver painted. But there were cheap theater owners who simply applied a paint of silver coat to their screens thinking that would work. It didn't. Also, the projectors, as noted above, needed to be in synchronisation. Projectionists would let them go out of synch and then not bother to fix them. To give you an idea of what that might look like, imagine watching a scene of somebody talking. Now imagine your left eye seeing them with their mouth open or their arm raised and the right eye seeing the arm down and the mouth closed. It's what's called retinal rivalry and it was the leading cause of the infamous 3-D headaches. Not the glasses, but the projection of the image.
In 1966, Arch Oboler, the man who started the 1950s craze with Bwana Devil, thought he had the synchronization problem beat. He developed a system where the two images were printed on the same strip of film (known as single strip polarized!). The images could be printed side by side or over and under (the more common version) and then shot through a special box known as a beam splitter. The beam splitter contained both polarized lenses. Oboler's idea also eliminated the necessity of having an intermission, which every 1950s film had (so the reels could be changed). While Oboler's idea looks good on paper, what he failed to take into consideration is the stupidity of the American projectionist and/or theater owner. If they could screw it up, they would.
For one thing, we were back to needing the silver screens (all polarized 3-D films need silver screens actually). If the theater didn't have one, you knew the effect wasn't going to work. Projectionists would fit the beam splitter on incorrectly in any sort of manner, including reverse 3-D (the background would pop out and the foreground would recede into the screen!). Think that's funny? I've seen it. At a 1996 showing of Dial M For Murder, the first 40 minutes were shown in reverse 3-D. Very aggravating. Also, if the film broke and the projectionist spliced it, if they didn't splice the corresponding left and right images, we were back to non-synched 3-D. Yuck. Combine that with the truly crappy 3-D movies released in the 1970s and 1980s and it's no wonder it didn't last.
Digital polarized might well be idiot--I mean projectionist--proof. The modern form uses a digital projector, a screen set up in front of said projector, and a silver screen along with circular polarized 3-D glasses. The film is made up of jpegs and put on a hard drive. The image alternates 144 times a second--6 times faster than the standard 24 frames per second film projector. Each second is composed of 72 movie images (36 left, 36 right) and 72 black images. The left image is shown, then a black, then a right. The special polarized screen in front of the projector also alternates the 144 times a second, changing the polarizing filter. Persistence of vision and the sheer speed of the projector allow us to see the 3-D image. And with the circular polarized glasses, you can do the one thing no other form of 3-D allows--tilt your head. Again, this seems to be projectionist proof, or maybe I've just lucked out and seen some competent showings. Only time will tell.
Okay, I hope you all took notes. There will be a test later. ;)
Next time I'll sing the praises of Hitchcock and/or Spielberg. See ya at the movies!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
My Mostly Useless Blog of Information About Me
It seems fair to start the ball rolling by discussing exactly what my movie passions are. I know this probably isn't useful to the vast majority of you, but it should at least give you a taste of what's to come in future blogs.
First off, if you couldn't tell from the title, I'm a 3-D nut. Have been since my first 3-D movie in 1982. I've seen well over 100 3-D films, shorts, music videos, and TV shows and even made 2 shorts in 3-D.
Beyond that, I'm a huge fan of old time cliffhanger serials. Again, I've made 2--actually 3, but I haven't got around to editing the 3rd one yet. I've also seen nearly 200 serials so far. It's a fun genre, though it seems to inspire some of the nastiest of the fandom wars out there (more on that in a future blog).
My two favorite directors are Steven Spielberg (Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie of all time) and Alfred Hitchcock. Favorite comedy director, however, is Mel Brooks. My favorite actors and actresses are tough to call, but breaking it up I'd have to say Jimmy Stewart or Steve McQueen for classic actors and either Harrison Ford or George Clooney for modern with Ingrid Bergman for favorite classic actress and possibly Gwyneth Paltrow for modern. As previously stated, Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie with Jaws as number two and Creature From the Black Lagoon number three (yes, I'm serious about that). I prefer action movies over modern comedies and traditional animation over CG animation. Besides Indiana Jones, James Bond is my favorite movie series with Star Wars not far behind. In terms of TV, Columbo is my favorite show, I don't watch Reality TV, and I'm gonna miss Monk when it's done.
Well, that's probably enough for now. My next update (and first real topic) will be on 3-D movies and that, I assure you, will be more interesting than today's topic! See ya at the movies!
First off, if you couldn't tell from the title, I'm a 3-D nut. Have been since my first 3-D movie in 1982. I've seen well over 100 3-D films, shorts, music videos, and TV shows and even made 2 shorts in 3-D.
Beyond that, I'm a huge fan of old time cliffhanger serials. Again, I've made 2--actually 3, but I haven't got around to editing the 3rd one yet. I've also seen nearly 200 serials so far. It's a fun genre, though it seems to inspire some of the nastiest of the fandom wars out there (more on that in a future blog).
My two favorite directors are Steven Spielberg (Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie of all time) and Alfred Hitchcock. Favorite comedy director, however, is Mel Brooks. My favorite actors and actresses are tough to call, but breaking it up I'd have to say Jimmy Stewart or Steve McQueen for classic actors and either Harrison Ford or George Clooney for modern with Ingrid Bergman for favorite classic actress and possibly Gwyneth Paltrow for modern. As previously stated, Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie with Jaws as number two and Creature From the Black Lagoon number three (yes, I'm serious about that). I prefer action movies over modern comedies and traditional animation over CG animation. Besides Indiana Jones, James Bond is my favorite movie series with Star Wars not far behind. In terms of TV, Columbo is my favorite show, I don't watch Reality TV, and I'm gonna miss Monk when it's done.
Well, that's probably enough for now. My next update (and first real topic) will be on 3-D movies and that, I assure you, will be more interesting than today's topic! See ya at the movies!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)