Najemikon
Posts: 107
Joined: 14/12/2005
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: clarkkent
3D won't work on this, not at all. The 3D always darkens a film's look, which means the first film's look won't translate well at all, on top of it all, who wants to see all that lens flare, all those whip pans and shaky cam in 3D?
Do you know how true that comment is? :( Abrams is inspired by Spielberg and I thought before Tintin that his style wouldn't suit the format either and I think I was right. Tintin felt strangely flattened and I really look forward to seeing it on Blu-Ray. The announcement that Star Trek 2 will be filmed in 3D is particularly depressing, because for me Abrams was the director who could make the gimmick die just a little bit faster. Star Trek was massive, he was in control of the franchise and if he refused to do it in 3D, it would really put the producers on the back foot. And back in January, that seemed to be exactly what he was going to do. You hit the nail right on the head clarkkent...
From http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/01/jj_abrams_1.html
quote:
Has Paramount asked you to consider doing the next Trek in 3-D?
Yup. And?
I have nothing against 3-D in theory. But I've also never run to the movies because something's in 3-D. [As for Trek], as soon as I read the script, if it says, "Somebody pushes a weapon toward the camera in a menacing way," and we think, "That'd be better in 3-D!"... I dunno. What do you wanna see? 2-D or 3D? I don't care.
I'm a big fan of whip pans, which is very hard to do in 3-D. You know, when I was in New York fifteen years ago, and I sort of had the flu, I remember turning the TV on. There were these kids in a very dark, kind of muddy movie that was on a local channel, talking about making out. Then you cut to them walking in the forest, and somebody had a paddleball, and they were doing it right to the camera. It was like this weird, experimental Fellini movie. I was like, "What the fuck is this movie?" And it was Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D — without sex, violence, or 3-D! It was genius.
The point was particularly ironic because at the time, he hadn't even agreed to do the sequel at all. The fact Paramount had gone straight for "do it in 3D" before he'd even considered a plot, was an indictment of the whole sorry obsession. I hoped he'd stick to his guns. Dammit.
< Message edited by Najemikon -- 24/11/2011 8:45:19 PM >
|
Printable Version
Star Trek 2 Warps In On May 17, 2013 - 
bring. it. on.
.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread