Travis Meacham wrote:
I think in order for 3D to be taken seriously the movies need to stop winking at the audience. Just tell your story and process the film into 3D afterward.
3D movies absolutely must be produced with two native left eye/right eye camera views
during production.
The faux-3D post processing techniques used on 2D movies like
Superman Returns and
The Nightmare Before Christmas are expensive and labor intensive. The end results are not very good.
The process looked sort of OK on
The Nightmare Before Christmas since depth of field was tightly focused throughout the frame, making all the edge detail on objects sharp and easier to artificially "lift" into 3D space. The results looked
terrible on
Superman Returns. The 3D effect was fleeting at best. Many shots in the few IMAX-3D sequences had low depth of field with lots of objects out of focus. That appearance is routine for any live action movie. That aspect of image quality makes it very difficult, if not outright impossible to post-process an existing 2D live action movie into convincing looking 3D. George Lucas has apparently abandoned efforts to create a digital 3D version of the original
Star Wars movie.
I've seen
Beowulf twice in the digital Real D format. Aside from the obvious 3D sight gags of arrows, spears, dripping blood and spewing sea monster guts all shooting at the viewer, the 3D in this movie was far far better than anything I've seen in any faux-3D post processed kind of flick.
Ahead of the movie, 3D trailers were shown for
U23D,
Coraline and
Journey to the Center of the Earth. I can't wait to see
U23D. That looks really cool. If the show is good enough I may watch it first in Real D at the regular theater and then check it out in IMAX-3D in Tulsa.
Regarding the animation in
Beowulf, I disagree with Robert Zemeckis' efforts of trying to create photo-realistic CGI humans in movies. I don't see much point in going to all that trouble from an artistic point of view. Just shoot live action 3D. It's more interesting when virtual CGI characters are modeled in more abstract and even cartoonish form. It's one of the things that make the movies from
Pixar more interesting. Also, there is so many subtle things going on in the human face that it is exceedingly difficult to maintain the actor's likeness much less make his CGI character look alive and as if it has some personality. I will give Zemeckis points for improving the technique on this movie. This time the results were hit and miss. In
The Polar Express the CGI people looked like dead mannequins all throughout the movie.
As for the movie itself, I thought it was pretty decent. A few departures were made from the original 3000 line epic Old English poem. But this movie is certainly better than a lot of the junk Hollywood usually sticks into movie theaters.