all knew that it would be the time to deal with this topic and I want to talk about it in a very carefree without bore you with anaglyph, valves and other similar amenities.
First, take off the belief People who want the cinema as a recent three-dimensional notivà in the film industry: Wrong! The first attempts to obtain three-dimensional images date back to the second half of the nineteenth century with the invention of the stereoscope , to evolve into anaglyph, polarized lenses , etc..
currently in theaters we can find two types of 3D created in the recovery phase and the one created in the process of projection. The first one we find in all those works of animation in which we have become accustomed by Dreamoworks and Pixar, and the second one is the one that was inspired by fashion lately - yes, it's always the old who returns - the glasses. First were those cardboard glasses with red and cyan, and blacks are now the ones with gray polarized lenses, but that does not change enough that the introduction of a small plastic gadget to shell out more to the viewer in the € 3 ticket ' input and a respectable box office.
What I do not go down in all this - and it is here that the article would be based - is that with this sympathetic excuse of Digital 3D, are churning out films that define these sometimes I really hard. Can I speak advisedly, having seen so many different and having accused headache.
the first on which I could lay eyes was Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D , I saw mainly for 3D - and yes, they screwed me too - and because it is an issue that I've always liked from Verne's book, going for his first film version of 1959.
generally was not bad, thanks Josh Hutcherson is also a textbook that has significantly raised the level of the film. Yet he felt already that something was wrong as well as having eyes annoyed at the end of projection, I realized that such a film was not great need for revisiting: previous work albeit made in the late sixties, it makes very good idea that Verne's book wanted to convey.
So I took my thoughts and I kept them with me, with the promise that I started to mull over after the next film I would see three-dimensional.
So after I came back to room to see the famous My Bloody Valentine 3D . To say that we are facing a bad movie could significantly raise the level of the opinion that I did on this film. Although the script is the original of 1981 (presented in Italy under the title The Valentine's Day ) this film has lost its impact. The actors are not up to repeat that fine work and I think the film suffers. Despite this almost all the critics I have read are based solely on the 3D and snubbed at the foot of the "rest" of the film that I found abhorrent, but perhaps because it has always abhorred the remake.
At this point a question was made elbowing off in my head: you see now that abuse of these three dimensions and start to flood the market with bad movies just to earn as much as possible?
For the moment I could not neither to deny nor confirm because almost all of the work is still in 3D animation world domination that, you know, about these little things can live happily without causing any problems.
That's how I feel, unfortunately, facing the current cinematic landscape. I'm afraid that the average level of the films can still get off because of this trick when I see that only as "commercial". I hope to be proven wrong in a hurry, but in the meantime I keep my healthy hesitation and refractoriness in relation to 3D movies, giving more emphasis to some classics of yore ... perhaps even on an old TV set in the same period, just not to lose such a unique atmosphere.
0 comments:
Post a Comment