THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA will be post-converted into 3D: set phasers to “rage”
Jul 15
This comes straight from the bad news department: Marvel Studios is planning on converting two of its biggest 2011 films into 3D in post-production, Thor and Captain America (annoyingly subtitled The First Avenger). This bodes ill for people who don’t like 3D, people who specifically didn’t like the 3D in Alice In Wonderland or Clash Of The Titans, and people who are obsessed with continuity, who will inevitably bemoan the sudden addition of an extra dimension halfway through the Avengers intro film series (The Incredible Hulk and the Iron Man films were in regular-D, remember?).
Kenneth Branagh — Kenneth fucking Branagh — is quoted as saying “We came to feel that in our case 3D could be the very good friend of story and character for a different kind of experience.” He’s in charge of Thor; what does Captain America director Joe Johnston have to say? He’s more pessimistic on the subject, but he does reckon “pictures that deserve to be in 3D will continue to be [in 3D].” (Go here for full quotes.)
I guess this means Joss Whedon’s Avengers movie will also be in 3D, in which case it already has two strikes against it in my mind.
Thor comes down from Valhalla on 6 May 2011 in the US; Captain America re-starts World War 2 on 22 July 2011; both in delicious / disgusting 3D (depending on your preferences).
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES’ plot synopsis is shockingly unoriginal
Jun 23
Johnny Depp + 3D = $500 million dollars. That’s the only thing on Disney’s mind right now. Johnny Depp + 3D + interesting storyline = $500 million dollars + loyal fans doesn’t seem to have crossed their mind.
In this action-packed tale of truth, betrayal, youth and demise, Captain Jack Sparrow crosses paths with a woman from his past (Penelope Cruz), and he’s not sure if it’s love–or if she’s a ruthless con artist who’s using him to find the fabled Fountain of Youth. When she forces him aboard the Queen Anne’s Revenge, the ship of the formidable pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane), Jack finds himself on an unexpected adventure in which he doesn’t know who to fear more: Blackbeard or the woman from his past.
Let’s break that synopsis down, shall we?
- “Action-packed”: the first Pirates trilogy was nearly sunk under spiralling-out-of-control action set-pieces.
- “Truth, betrayal, youth and demise”: in the original Pirates flicks, Jack Sparrow was the one likely to lie and back-stab his way out of a precarious situation. Turning the tables on this double-dealer might sound good on paper, but it might not make for resonant character development on screen.
- “A woman from his past (Penelope Cruz)”: they will fall in love before the end.
- “Not sure if it’s love”: they will fall in love before the end.
- “Fountain of Youth”: they will fall in love before the end, and Jack Sparrow will probably become immortal, while Penelope Cruz’ character will probably wind up dead and / or estranged.
- “Formidable pirate Blackbeard”: it took something like a million bullets and eight thousand swords to kill Blackbeard in real life. He probably gets his hands on the Fountain of Youth before the end.
- “Ian McShane”: a ray of sunshine in an otherwise bleak synopsis.
- “Unexpected adventure”: Jack Sparrow must suffer catastrophic short-term memory failure if he doesn’t ever expect adventure.
- “Woman from his past”: they will fall in love before the end.
I’m getting thoroughly sick of the Han Solo / Leia Organa style of romantic subplot, with the back-and-forth banter and the scoundrel / princess character archetypes. I saw it most recently in Clash Of The Titans and Prince Of Persia, not to mention in the catatonic writing in video games like Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune; it seems like On Stranger Tides is aiming for the same type of subplot.
The reason that romance plot worked in Star Wars was because a) it hadn’t been done to death in mainstream cinema yet, b) Han and Leia were discrete characters introduced in A New Hope whose romance didn’t blossom until later in the series, and c) because both characters initially denied their attraction to each other. Inventing characters purely to fill the shoes of the Han / Leia archetype smacks of lazy character design and derivative plotting.
Oh wait, we’re talking about Disney, aren’t we? That’s par for the course, then.
Peruse the full On Stranger Tides press release over at Slash, but be warned, it’s a slab of text nearly as long as my arm, with about as much interesting information as you’d fit on the average film ticket (i.e., Johnny Depp + 3D, 20 May 2011).
Louis Leterrier’s GRAVITY project is an insult to science
Jun 18
Louis Leterrier, who directed the average Incredible Hulk and the meh Clash Of The Titans, has lined up his next project. What would that be? you ask. Well, it’s about “a father who has to search for his lost child as the world stops spinning and Earth begins to lose its gravity.” It’s described as The Day After Tomorrow meets Taken.
Anyone who went to high school knows that’s bullshit. The Earth’s gravity isn’t affected (much) by the Earth’s rotation. The weight and acceleration of objects would be slightly affected, but not to the extent that the Earth’s gravity would start to disappear altogether.
You see, gravity is actually one of four fundamental interactions of nature, and as such a body as large as the Earth would continue to attract objects to itself regardless of rotation, air resistance, etc. If the Earth did stop turning, people might start to feel a bit lighter, and it might take a little longer to reach terminal velocity; then there’d be the small matter of half the Earth boiling while the other half freezes, because we need diurnal rotation to maintain temperature equilibrium, but that eventuality seems to have been neglected in the filmmakers’ story-building process.
So the synopsis for Gravity is completely fucking stupid. But then again, “mild-mannered scientist becomes angry, turns into giant green monster” isn’t exactly the most plausible of scenarios either. Expect Gravity to be re-titled sooner or later (so as not to clash with the Robert Downey Jr. / Alfonso Cuaron project of the same name), and expect it to be in 3D, too.
This time I agree with Ebert: 3D sucks
Apr 30
I wrote a few months ago about why I thought 3D movies were crap; but that was before Avatar came out, so I was writing with some degree of optimism. Now that Avatar has come and gone I can safely say that I’m still not on board for 3D. A higher degree of immersion doesn’t negate a boring script or lazy world-building.
If you don’t know who Roger Ebert is, then … you’re missing out on a lot. You could call him a film critic, but you could also call him an unmitigated genius, a pioneer in the technique of criticism. His reviews are often insightful and sincere and leave you feeling like a blind child stumbling through the woods of cinema in comparison.
Ebert recently weighed in on video games, and stirred an absolute storm of controversy in gaming circles by declaring that games aren’t, and never will be, art. In that case I disagreed with him, partly because, for all his powers, I know prescience isn’t one of them, and further, he doesn’t ever seem to have played a game younger than Pac-Man or Space Invaders, so what the hell does he know? My opinion of Ebert suffered a little.
Now, however, my faith is restored. With his usual gentle but powerful rhetoric, he’s gone to great lengths to elaborate on the futility and silliness of the current 3D craze in Hollywood. Specifically, he pinpoints a few key niggles I have with the format: Hollywood seems to be using the 3D projectors mostly for kids’ films (Pixar, Dreamworks, Avatar) or ‘event’ films (Alice In Wonderland, Clash Of The Titans, Avatar), with no consideration for, you know, ‘good’ films (he cites Hurt Locker, Precious, Casablanca, you know, the usual artsy fartsy stuff).
Another niggle he pinpoints is in the business side of 3D. Here in Australia 3D movies only cost a dollar or two more than their 2D counterparts (depending on whether or not you already own the glasses), but Ebert points out that in the US, cinemas are charging $5 – $7.50 extra, which seems borderline criminal (especially if the movie’s Clash Of The Titans). How much of Avatar‘s gross was based solely on the cost of 3D tickets? Not enough to knock it down a peg in the coveted ‘Richest Movie Ever’ runnings, but enough to gouge a few percentage points out and dent the mountain of dosh Jim regularly bathes in.
The final niggle Ebert raises that I find particularly accurate is the overbearing eyestrain caused by 3D. It’s bad enough that we’re all in a dark room with our eyes locked onto a single bright screen for two hours; now you want to shove a centimetre of dark plastic between my face and said screen? Ridiculous. Pile on the fact that the brain has to work overtime to tweak muscles into working to get the 3D right, and 3D seems physiologically implausible as a long-term format overhaul.
Ebert goes on to suggest another alternative: 48 frames-per-second film and projectors. Apparently this quadruples the film image and provides a rock-solid, smooth-as-silk, eye-popping picture. I can’t vouch for this as I’ve never experienced it, but I’m rather attached to 24fps traditional film because it’s, like, filmy, you know? Plus 48fps film would double the reel length of a film and provide untold nightmares for the poor old projectionists running the films.
We’re currently knee-deep in a 3D renaissance; many of the big studios have moved behind the new-old format, and even some ‘good’ directors are trying their hands with the fancy new double-cameras. We still need time to evaluate the impact and merit of 3D cinema, but for now, things look doubtful. Check back with me again in 5 years’ time.
High hopes for A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET reboot
Apr 26
When I think of 80s cinema two things in particular come to mind: science fiction, and adventure films. Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Back To The Future, The Thing, Blade Runner — these are the classics that spring to mind. What I don’t usually think of is the horror franchises spawned in the 80s, like the Friday The 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street or Halloween flicks. I’ve never seen any of them, to be honest — I’m not sure why, but horror as a genre has never really rung my bell.
In fact, the only Friday The 13th film I’ve ever seen was last year’s Platinum Dunes’ reboot — and it was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. Ditto the Halloween reboot — I pressed “Stop” halfway through, with every intention of returning to the DVD after a grilled cheese sandwich, but I just couldn’t bring myself to do it, like the grilled cheese sandwich was a reminder of all the things I could be doing with my life instead of watching this dross.
So when the new A Nightmare On Elm Street trailer unspooled before my viewing of Hot Tub Time Machine last week, I was pleasantly surprised. Having never seen a Nightmare film before, the whole he-gets-you-in-your-dreams thing is actually new and scary to me, and the trailer manages to squeeze small amounts of style into its frames, which doubly impressed me after the lacklustre Friday and Halloween remakes.
Sure, it’s still got teens in peril and it advertises Michael Bay’s involvement like it’s not a bad thing — maybe I’m being overly optimistic here but I reckon this could be the film to break the horror dry spell we’ve been stuck in ever since since torture porn became popular. See for yourself, trailer embedded below.
Apparently, reboot director Samuel Bayer refused to shoot or convert A Nightmare On Elm Street into 3D, resisting direct pressure from Platinum Dunes parent New Line Cinema in the process. Good for him — it’s nice to see filmmakers stick to their guns and avoid another Clash Of The Titans conversion debacle.
This is the first time I’ve enjoyed the trailer to a horror film for — well, as long as I can remember. I hope I don’t end up eating my words when the film’s released.
Nightmare hits US screens on the 30th of this month, while the Aussie release date has been pushed back to the 20th of May (you know, to avoid that little movie you may have heard of, called Iron Man 2); UK release slated for the 7th of May 2010
OPINIONS COUNT