You may have missed we're in total agreement on this one.
Let's take shakycam on pure aesthetic grounds - after decades of trying to craft a good way of dealing with sweeping cameras, from SUNRISE to the development of the steadicam in the 70s, we similarly had those that went away from the conventions guiding "proper" camera work and crafted a grungy look. From WOODSTOCK and other mainstream docs to Cassevettes, the handheld shots crept in because of low budgets and other non-aesthetic factors, but quickly became a "look" that even those with all the budget in the world would use to exemplify "edgy".
So, while there are majestically amazing examples of handheld shooting (BREAKING THE WAVES is for me the absolute touchstone, with Robby Krueger helping establish the Dogme look, breaking from the more staid and formalistic forms that Von Trier used so fantastically in EUROPA/ZENTROPA). There are films that are fun (EVIL DEAD) and films entirely dependent on the effect of that look (BLAIR WITCH PROJECT). There are also miserable examples, from GLADIATOR to CLOVERFIELD, the cinematic equivalent of autotune, taking a quirk of technology used sparingly in a few instances to become, only a few years back, a ubiquitous crutch that homogenized through laziness musical output. Look at Michael Bay's inability to shoot a wide shot, forcing CGI giant robots to become little more than streaky messes of motion blur.
So, yeah, in the right hands, any technology can be wonderful, or terrible. What's at stake here is the creeping fold of marketing and expectation, where judgements about how "3D" something is (ie., the more powerful the perceived dimensionality, the more "gotcha" moments, the more the audience feels they got their money's worth) is the determining factor. Thus, these features that call attention to the technology are highlighted, while the more subtle instances are dismissed as not being value for the cash.
So, as this new tech settles in, as we see more creative artists make flailing attempts at crafting this new form of presentation using contemporary tools, we'll see some absolutely miserable examples of the form. We should celebrate those that seem to get it right, discourage those that don't, yet feel hopeful that in the hands of good directors with a team of capable technicians will see 3D 2.0 not succumb to the same forces that relegated the 50s-70s era of extra-dimensional presentations.
So, my judgement of CWACOMB isn't on the positive nature of the 3D presentation (I have no reason to thing it isn't excellent), it's just that in the very brief clips I've seen, the film is framed (shot?) to emphasize this dimensionality (LOTS of shots straight down, nose in frame with tiny feet, wideshots from particularly low angles.) Contrast this with TANGLED, or UP, and you'll see 3D that doesn't (often) call attention to itself, yet remains, I believe, fine representations of the form. CWACOMB is meant to be a silly, exaggerated film, I'm not knocking its choices at all. I am saying, from a very small sampling I admit, that it was clear they were shooting not to make a particularly graceful or pleasing composition, but to highlight the distance between those things closeup in frame and those further away. In other words, the shots are gamed to emphasize the 3D experience,
potentially
at the expense of pleasing (or in the case of a Michael Bay film, comprehensible) framing.
I remain, as always, entirely optimistic that this "fad" of 3D cinema will be embraced successfully by artists, and not just the CGI animated/action film variety. Woody Allen's unlikely to shoot in this fashion, but the fact that Wenders has crafted a narrative film in 3D certainly has me interested (unfortunately, his films for the last two decades have been one disappointment after another.) I've gone on record here that I thought Herzog's CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS derives a huge part of its power from the 3D presentation, shaky-handicams and imprecise stereo capturing and all.
So, no, I don't think I prefer a more narrow depth budget per se, I prefer that these decisions are done with the more nebulous of concepts, "taste". I stand by the fact that one of the more elegant uses of 3D in this renaissance, far surpassing I thought the often overwraught compositions of AVATAR, was the film that played MOMA to what I understand was a quite appreciative crowd.
And, yeah, when JACKASS 3D is my touchstone of 3D done right, even if it did actually have me physically wretching as a man took a swig of a vile, vile liquid, well, yeah, I remain open for anything in this brave new world.
But, in the end, let's try to avoid this, k?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u4tTFEF_XE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man
Well shark, you’re talking aesthetics now and it’s obvious you prefer a narrow depth budget with your 3D. That’s all personal preference like one preferring crisp, razor sharp unfiltered Ultra Prime captured images in 2D motion pictures vs. those with soft lighting, Cooke zooms and diffusion filters or nets. 
But, if you’re trying to tell me that ‘distraction’ equates to ‘eye-discomfort’ in the case of Meatballs, then you definitely fall outside the bell-shaped curve based upon internal testing as well as feedback from public venues in Vegas like this...
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/116148
I consider things like a cardboard cut-out effect, poor depth blending, lack of good character roundness, etc. to be real issues with the quality of 3D production (problems which, by the way, can be avoided or corrected), not personal preferences as to how conservative or radical one’s tastes are for the depth of focus…as long as, I said before, the motion picture stays within the normal comfort zone for the vast majority of viewers, which CWaCoMeatballs definitely does.
In other words, and I’m not referring to a lot of *in your face shots* per se but, the philosophy of most experienced (and successful) stereographers is to take advantage of the spatiality of 3D, not throttle it. |
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
You have access to the archival or dupe HD masters of the Blu-rays for Seasons 1 and 2? 
Linear Mode
