Mull-over Monday: The Use of 3D in Film

Hey Guys,

Welcome to Mull Over Monday, This is the day where I pick something that people discuss and have different opinions about. These things will normally be to do with film or writing or something that obviously affects my life directly.

So this week we are going to discuss the use of 3D in films. Is there any difference between a normal 2D film and its 3D version?

Well I still remember the first thing I ever saw in 3D, it was not a big blockbuster film or anything you would watch at a regular cinema. Instead it was a documentary on at an art/theatre gallery.

This 3D documentary was about fish, and the depth of the oceans. It informed of creatures far in the undiscovered parts.

Now this documentary was probably one of the most realistic, most Three Dimensional film I have ever seen. The creatures and fish seemed to swim, float and glide out of the screen towards the audience.

In places this film even shocked and scared the audience when certain fish and creatures’ jaws splashed out of the screen.

Ever since seeing this realistic 3D documentary/film I have struggled to find 3D entertaining or realistic. Either Directors don’t use enough of it, or they only use it in certain places.

I find that some ‘3D’ films just do not reach the expectation. Certain films say that they are 3D, but instead they have a few minor scenes with depth of perception and not much else going for them.

Think about it this way, why pay around £8, plus your expensive cinema food, for a 3D film which has one pathetic 3D moment in it? That is quite a lot of money for something that doesn’t come out of the screen.

When 3D is done right though, it can be amazing. A lot of people and reviews enjoyed the 3D spectacular Avatar (2009) by James Cameron. Now my own view: The story line; not the best, The Idea: Great, The imagery: Amazing.

Another film where I thought the 3D was great was The Final Destination (2009) by David R. Ellis. Even though once again the story was the same as the rest, just in a different location and with different characters, the objects that killed the characters did actually seem like they flew out of the screen in certain scenes.

So 3D is not always a waste of time and money. Some films are great and spectacular, but I don’t think we are all the way there yet. We need to focus on impressing the audience and making the feel as if everything is flying towards you, Instead of just having the depth of perception.

If you have any opinions of 3D films that were great or others that were not worth the ticket price then please comment below and discuss your views on the growing trend of Three Dimension Films.

Stay safe,

Matt

| Follow | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | GoodReads |

Film Thursday: Batman: The Dark Knight Rises - Review

Hey Guys,

This is Film Thursday.

Here’s the part of the week where I will either review a film or talk about how film can affect us in certain ways. Each week I will ask you what you feel should review next or what area of film I should look into.

This week we are going to review the new Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises (2012) directed by Christopher Nolan.

This is the third; and final, film in The Dark Knight trilogy. It is the last film that both Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale will both work on, but Nolan has left it open ended for other people to take up the chance.

The story is that Eight years have passed since the last film, The Dark Knight (2008), and everything is quiet, safe and calm. Yet as they say, ‘all is quiet before the storm’.

This storm starts when a new terrorist leader, Bane, overwhelms Gotham, and the Dark Knight is forced to resurface to protect the city that branded him as the enemy.

I did enjoy this film a lot and there was somewhat a wait between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. However for some reason, unknown, I felt that maybe something was missing.

For a start, I wish they would have explained how Selina was Catwoman, and referred to her more that way.

I also thought that, in parts, it was very slow to get into and a few unnecessary scene. In other parts it was very crammed up and too much seemed to be happening. Maybe they could have separated the film up into two?

The performances of Anne Hathaway (Selina), Tom Hardy (Bain), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Blake), and Marion Cotillard (Miranda) were all at the top end. A few times there were certain things Hardy, Bain, said that were lost, but that may have been down to speakers in cinema instead of performance?

I thought that it could have been a little bit darker than it was also. As The Dark Knight seemed very dark, maybe due to it being released after Heath Ledger’s death, but in this one, even though still quite dark, did not seem as it should have been.

With all these things in mind and the fact that I liked The Dark Knight better I would still highly recommend going to see this film. Just for the pure fact that it is Batman. You can’t go wrong with a good comic book film.

Another thing, after my blog on Monday (Mull-Over Monday: Do special effects and CGI, improve films, or make them worse?) I can honestly say that the SFX and CGI in this film were outstanding. Loved the new Batman toy, 'The Bat'.

Finally, without giving spoilers because I know you are all dying to see this, (if you haven’t already, why the hell not?) I can truly say that the end sequence is one of the best cliff-hangers I’ve seen in an action/comic book film. With the fact that they have left the film open-ended, so that if another director to come in and play around with it or even wanted to create something different.

So all in all I do recommend the Dark Knight Rises and think it’s a good film, which contradicts what I’ve said, but what the hell. I think you should all go out and watch it, if you haven’t already.

Stay safe,

Matt

Mull-Over Monday: Do special effects and CGI, improve films, or make them worse?

Hey Guys,

Welcome to Mull Over Monday, This is the day where I pick something that people discuss and have different opinions about. These things will normally be to do with film or writing or something that obviously affects my life directly.

So something to think about and discuss this week is special effects and CGI. Do they improve films or make them worse? How much is too much?

I’m going to view my opinions and obviously, as normal, if you have other views on this topic then let me know underneath.

This may be a very one sided view on special effects and CGI because unfortunately I’m not really the biggest of fans, but I shall try and be as open minded as possible.

This subject has come about due to the fact that lately I’ve been watching a lot of comic-book films, such as The Amazing Spiderman, The Avengers Assemble and The Dark Knight Rises, (which I will be reviewing on Film Thursday blog.)

So first of all what do you class as special effects? Well truthful anything from a simple lighting effect all the way up to your big explosions and CGI creatures are known as special effects, SFX for short.

So in some ways without SFX a film would never work. There would be no light or sound SFX and it would just look extremely boring and unappealing. So SFX are needed to make, and improve a films quality.

The question is: How much SFX and CGI is too much? For me this is simple, when you start creating things that don’t look realistic at all and spoil the film; that is when you know you’ve gone too far. Take King Kong (2005) Directed by Peter Jackson. This remake of an old classic used so much CGI that there was not one shred of truth left by the end of the film, all relationships with characters were uninteresting and 187 minutes of pure CGI just was too much.

Looking through the archives over at TotalFilm.com I looked through what they rated the worst CGI film moments and why, so I thought I would give you a little taster, so you can see what might be a step too far with Computer Generating.

Here’s the link if you want to check out all of the list, or the scenes themselves:

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/the-20-worst-movie-cgi-moments

20: CGI Sharks – Films such as Deep Blue Sea (1999) and Shark Attack 3: Megalodon (2002) have some of the worst CGI shark attacks I’ve probably watched. There is just no realistic sense to them at all.

17: The brawl in The Matrix Reloaded (2003). Total Film gives a note saying ‘The Golden Rule of CGI: Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.’ This is an extremely good rule, and some directors do need to learn this one.

 12: The Scorpion King: The Mummy Returns (2001). When The Rock turns into a half scuttling Scorpion is one of the worst, most unbelievable things I’ve seen. This is when you lose faith in sequels and franchises.

9: The Lions and the Infected: I am Legend (2007). All the street clearing and lighting SFX in the world could not improve these hordes.

6: Troll Attack: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (2001). Just watch a clip of the troll, not only do all the actors look really young in comparison to how they are now, but that troll is just unbelievably unrealistic.

1: Well we’ve mentioned this once before. I had a feeling that King Kong would be in this list. The whole medley of Giant Apes, Stampeding Dinosaurs and other over the top creations. Not only are the badly made, but badly dubbed also with the wrong Sound FX.

Now I’m not saying all CGI is bad, because sometimes there are some great moments created. What I’m saying is, sometimes the SFX teams might take things a little too far, get a little bit carried away and just decide that they will have a children’s drawn troll or way too many bomb explosions.

A film should not be about the action, the CGI and the SFX. It should be about the story and the relationships built between characters and audiences.

If you have any views on this, let me know and keep the discussion going.

Stay safe,

            Matt