Tales of the Parodyverse >> View Thread |
Author | ||
Visionary Moderator Member Since: Sat Jan 03, 2004 Posts: 2,131 |
Subject: I highly recommend seeing "Coraline" in 3-D if you have the chance. Posted Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:33:56 pm EST (Viewed 396 times) | |
| ||
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.6 on Windows Vista
I haven't read the book by Neil Gaiman, but I really enjoyed the movie adaptation. The animation is impressive already, but in 3-D it becomes a real experience. They don't do a lot of "poke you in the eye" effects (aside from a needle coming through a cloth at the very beginning, almost to show they *could* do it.) They do, however, take advantage of the depth of spaces, and as a result the rooms the characters inhabit pull you right in with them. Plus, since it's stop-motion, the rooms actually exist (albeit in miniature form). Compared to CGI, it really makes a subtle but interesting difference in the look. All of the previews were for 3-D CGI movies by comparison... they looked cool but slick. (Although the 3-D will really make a difference for Disney/Pixar's "Up", as looking at the flying house with the ground far below you *really* felt the height.) I think I kind of like this new take on an old gimmick in filmmaking. Really stupid looking glasses came with this one though... Giant old man glasses. Make sure your date isn't too judgmental. | ||
Al B. Harper |
Subject: I haven't seen a 3D movie in years! [Re: Visionary] Posted Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:21:11 am EST (Viewed 4 times) | |
| ||
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
I think it was 1988 I saw the last one - at World Expo 88 here in Brisbane - ahh the 80s. It was in the Fujitsu pavilion. Can't remember much more than that - except some old lady trying to reach out and grab things. And really, funny glasses are par for the course aren't they? Al B. | ||
L! Location: Seattle, Washington Member Since: Sun Jan 04, 2004 Posts: 1,038 |
Subject: I think most everyone who will go see it will be in 3D. :) [Re: Visionary] Posted Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:29:35 pm EST (Viewed 295 times) | |
| ||
Posted with Apple Safari 3.2.1 on MacOS X
I might try & go see it. I don't really get out to see Movies in the theaters much. I always found 3D glasses cumbersome since I wear glasses in my every day life I've found it hard to keep the those glasses on my face so the effect has never really worked for me. | ||
Goldeneyed Member Since: Thu Jan 01, 1970 Posts: 83 |
Subject: I'm not sure if we have it in 3-D where I live, but I'm dying to see it one way or the other. [Re: Visionary] Posted Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:58:07 pm EST (Viewed 294 times) | |
| ||
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.6 on MacOS X
| ||
CrazySugarFreakBoy! Member Since: Sun Jan 04, 2004 Posts: 1,235 |
Subject: I shall have to consider seeing this one now. I like Gaiman, but Burton has left me cold lately. [Re: Visionary] Posted Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 01:52:57 pm EST (Viewed 352 times) | |
| ||
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.5 on MacOS X
| ||
Goldeneyed Member Since: Thu Jan 01, 1970 Posts: 83 |
Subject: Common misconception, actually... Coraline and The Nightmare Before Christmas were both directed by Henry Selick, not Tim Burton. Burton was the creator/producer of "Nightmare", but he didn't direct it. (But they way both movies were advertised, it seems like a misconception the studios are almost encouraging.) [Re: CrazySugarFreakBoy!] Posted Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 02:59:56 pm EST (Viewed 384 times) | |
| ||
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.6 on MacOS X
| ||
Visionary Moderator thinks this is Selick's best film. Member Since: Sat Jan 03, 2004 Posts: 2,131 |
Subject: Yep... no Burton involved in Coraline. [Re: Goldeneyed] Posted Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 11:41:36 pm EST (Viewed 378 times) | |
| ||
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.6 on Windows Vista
| ||
HH |
Subject: Conversely, I've read the book. I thought it was good but not brilliant. [Re: Visionary] Posted Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 09:46:48 am EST | |
| ||
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 2000
Quote: I haven't read the book by Neil Gaiman, but I really enjoyed the movie adaptation. The animation is impressive already, but in 3-D it becomes a real experience. They don't do a lot of "poke you in the eye" effects (aside from a needle coming through a cloth at the very beginning, almost to show they *could* do it.) They do, however, take advantage of the depth of spaces, and as a result the rooms the characters inhabit pull you right in with them. Plus, since it's stop-motion, the rooms actually exist (albeit in miniature form). Compared to CGI, it really makes a subtle but interesting difference in the look. All of the previews were for 3-D CGI movies by comparison... they looked cool but slick. (Although the 3-D will really make a difference for Disney/Pixar's "Up", as looking at the flying house with the ground far below you *really* felt the height.) I think I kind of like this new take on an old gimmick in filmmaking. Really stupid looking glasses came with this one though... Giant old man glasses. Make sure your date isn't too judgmental. |
On Topic™ © 2003-2024 Powermad Software |