Movie News, Reviews, & Reactions 2012

[Sletchman]

Aside from the fact that I physically can not watch live action 3D films, I feel that the problem is that they present a catch 22 suitation to the director.  In The Avengers, because Whedon didn't stoop to the silly shit present in other films (everything flying directly at the camera), people felt it was underutilised.  In films where they use the 3D effects to full advantage, people feel that it's cheap or corny (or overused).  There is no way to win - you either overcharge people for film no different to the 2D release, or you overcharge people for some cheesy garbage.  That's why it fails.

[Krensky]

I've only really found 3D to work for me in an IMAX theater. I can see it I. A normal theater, it just doesn't work for me aestetically without the field of view filling screen.

On top of that, it works for some things better then others. Avatar worked in 3d for me, it seemed superfluous on John Carter.

[Crafty_Pat]

I'm going to be a little black raincloud for a sec: if the 3D trailer on the front of Avengers is any indication, Spider-Man will be the movie that finally kills this overpriced gimmick. Because that trailer in 3D was unwatchable. The movie might be fine. I'll see it in 2D.

But then, I found the 3D in Avengers completely superfluous, and absolutely not worth the extra price of the ticket. I'll ring the gong when this fad ends. I won't watch another 3D film.

3D works for very specific purposes. Sure, there's the schlock "stabbystabby" stuff that was so popular in the 80's, and there's still a (wee) place for that in the market today, but for me it's all about high concept application. Tron: Legacy was great in 3D as they only used it for the Grid scenes (most of the movie, admittedly), and it was a great fit with the CGI.

Spider-Man, though? Never in a million years. Well, unless they put some awesome exclusive in front of it. Probably not even then, though.

[Crafty_Pat]

I'm very much with Roger Ebert on 3D. We already have most of the cues for seeing 3 dimensions in a traditional well-shot "2D" movie; 3D effects feel forced to me and if anything, make me feel less immersed.

Amen, brother. Amen.

[Crafty_Pat]

Prometheus: The Quiet Eye

There's also an aliens featurette out there that I won't be possting (or watching). Word is it's massively spoilery.

[Desertpuma]

I'm very much with Roger Ebert on 3D. We already have most of the cues for seeing 3 dimensions in a traditional well-shot "2D" movie; 3D effects feel forced to me and if anything, make me feel less immersed.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Absolutely!

[MilitiaJim]

I guess I'm the only one who likes a few feet of real depth instead of a flat projection?   

[jameswllorimer]

Because of an eye operation and resultant eye problems, I can only really see the 3D effects in a movie when it is projecting depth "back" from the screen (the drop-off the cliff in Avatar when they are flying springs to mind).

That being said the new Spidey trailer I saw more effects in 3 mins then in a whole movie, so I'll probably be off to see that just to get some more effects goodness.

Overall though I resent having to pay more for a movie in 3D when there's nowhere I can go see the 2D version which I'll pretty much get as much (if not more cos the glasses annoy me) enjoyment out of it. This is Hollywood's latest gimmick to avoid declining audience sales, so why up the price?

[Krensky]

That's not Hollywood, it's the theaters.

Anything other then anaglyph 3d is really, really expensive equipment wise, often involving multiple projectors, an actual silver screen, complicated polarizing filter devices for the projection system, and all those glasses which need to be recycled after one use.

Anagylph is expensive too, but you typically don't need a silver screen or fancy polarizing filters or multiple projectors. But it traditionally doesn't look as good and people associate it with comic books and cheap 3d films even though the last burst of 3d films was primarily polarised 3d, just like it is now.

[Crafty_Pat]

‘Blade Runner’ Scribe Hampton Fancher Returning For Ridley Scott-Directed Sequel

[ThunderMonkey]

Skyfall teaser

'nuff said

[VisualStatic]

Skyfall teaser

'nuff said

Darn it, beat me too it.     I'll say my interest is peaked by this....

[Crafty_Pat]

Skyfall teaser

'nuff said

 

There's also a Duncan Jones biopic about Ian Fleming in the works, based on The Man Behind James Bond by Andrew Lycett, and a "Bond 50" Blu-Ray set scheduled for September. Here's a list of the set features.

[agent oni]

I saw the Spidey trailer before the Avengers movie and I was very disappointed with the actor playing Spidey as well as the one possibly playing Mary Jane.  The Actor looked nothing like Peter Parker.  The Sam Raimi's Spidey was much better.  If that is Mary jane Watson, she is also miscast.  I hope she is Gwen Stacey, Parkers first GF.  The story seems to be following the Ultimate series, what with the mystery surrounding Peter's father.

As for the 3D, after the Superman movie, I decided not to watch anymore 3D films unless they had 3d specifically in mind and not just as an afterthought.  The best example is Avatar.  That movie was made with 3D in mind.  I also tend to watch computer animated films in 3D too.

[Crafty_Pat]

If that is Mary jane Watson, she is also miscast.  I hope she is Gwen Stacey, Parkers first GF. 

Yeah, that's Gwen Stacey, and I think Emma Stone is great for the role.

The story seems to be following the Ultimate series, what with the mystery surrounding Peter's father.

The most interesting thing about that to me is that they're apparently planning to string the mystery along across an entire trilogy.