Scar 3D
Scar 3D
jonbly liked the film... but the 3D really didn't work out.
In particular:
1) the opening scene doesn't work because a) it's a deep shot and b) we're not used to the effect yet. It needs to start with a simple scene.
2) dark shots result in a lot of reflections and artifacts... so this process probably isn't suited to horror!
3) rapid movement didn't work well either.
Some scenes worked well... say, the giant trout scene looked good (with less variation in depth, and strong light).
In particular:
1) the opening scene doesn't work because a) it's a deep shot and b) we're not used to the effect yet. It needs to start with a simple scene.
2) dark shots result in a lot of reflections and artifacts... so this process probably isn't suited to horror!
3) rapid movement didn't work well either.
Some scenes worked well... say, the giant trout scene looked good (with less variation in depth, and strong light).
I'd have to 2nd, 3rd and 4th these comments
Do feel the problem at present with 3D is that fast movement becomes all a blur, something that will hopefully improve soon (at least by the time of Camerons Avatar next year).
Don't think Scar really utilised the "gimmick" of 3D to the full. It could have been a huge crowdpleaser of a movie, as it was it was enjoyable but nothing special.
Do feel the problem at present with 3D is that fast movement becomes all a blur, something that will hopefully improve soon (at least by the time of Camerons Avatar next year).
Don't think Scar really utilised the "gimmick" of 3D to the full. It could have been a huge crowdpleaser of a movie, as it was it was enjoyable but nothing special.
live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse
-
- Walking Dead
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 12:29 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Quite enjoyed this, liked the whole feel of the movie.
Was a shame about the severe 'ghosting' at times. Heard Alan say before it that there wouldn't be any ghosting due to the way it was being projected so wondering if there was some sort of error in it's projection on the night?
Picked me up a little after being so disappointed with the previous film.
Was a shame about the severe 'ghosting' at times. Heard Alan say before it that there wouldn't be any ghosting due to the way it was being projected so wondering if there was some sort of error in it's projection on the night?
Picked me up a little after being so disappointed with the previous film.
I didn't like the 3D that much (it made my eyes hurt! hock: ) but there were some really nice moments with shots of trees and mist which looked really good. As a film it was ok but sadly it was probably the one I liked the least. The story just seemed to be lacking and I was expecting some more character development with the mental army dad, which didn't happen.
-
- Frightfest Hardcore
- Posts: 1560
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 5:54 pm
- Location: A hell of my own making
- Contact:
It had to be said that the 3D on view here was not as good as in the other two Real-D movies I've seen, Journey To The Centre Of The Earth (in that very cinema) and Beowulf. I don't remember either of those having any of that double imaging, and makes me wonder if it was the projection that was at fault. Maybe we'll find out in November when it's supposed to get a 3D cinema release.
Unlike Journey, which is twaddle and the only thing it has going for it is the 3D, this was, as a movie, okay as a generic, fairly unremarkable blood-and-guts horror movie for the multiplex audience rather than the discerning connoisseur. Certainly they could have used the 3D much more than they did in the way of poking and waving things into the camera. Even if it had just been in 2D it would have been an acceptable medium-standard direct-to-DVD release; there are hundreds of worse movies cluttering up Blockbusters across the country.
Unlike Journey, which is twaddle and the only thing it has going for it is the 3D, this was, as a movie, okay as a generic, fairly unremarkable blood-and-guts horror movie for the multiplex audience rather than the discerning connoisseur. Certainly they could have used the 3D much more than they did in the way of poking and waving things into the camera. Even if it had just been in 2D it would have been an acceptable medium-standard direct-to-DVD release; there are hundreds of worse movies cluttering up Blockbusters across the country.
-
- Undead Horde
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:04 am
-
- Braaaains!
- Posts: 675
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:10 pm
- Location: London
Ugh. What a waste.
3D was hardly used and was oddly ineffective in dark scenes. Angela was great as usual but was totally wasted on this.
You're making a 3D slasher movie...what would you do? Arterial spray? Blades coming out of the screen? Blood on the lens, dripping down? SOMETHING that makes the use of the format worthwhile.
Had this not been 3D I doubt it would have made the shortlist!
3D was hardly used and was oddly ineffective in dark scenes. Angela was great as usual but was totally wasted on this.
You're making a 3D slasher movie...what would you do? Arterial spray? Blades coming out of the screen? Blood on the lens, dripping down? SOMETHING that makes the use of the format worthwhile.
Had this not been 3D I doubt it would have made the shortlist!
The Power of THE RIFF compells me!