12/18-20 Weekend BoxOffice
Juan F. Lara
Information taken from Brandon Gray's
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
2 1 The Princess and the Frog $12,185,949 -49.7% 3,475 +41 $3,507 $44,717,721
7 5 A Christmas Carol $3,443,464 -49.6% 2,070 -332 $1,664 $130,813,354
15 12 Planet 51 $810,137 -64.3% 1,349 -1,221 $601 $38,496,770
18 14 The Fantastic Mr. Fox $598,941 -57.1% 540 -728 $1,109 $17,385,916
32 38 Astro Boy $80,148 +81.2% 252 +130 $318 $19,168,663
35 35 The Polar Express (IMAX) $75,143 -2.0% 17 +1 $4,420 $368,889
I don't think any of the movies currently out in theaters will have North
American boxoffices that will cover their reported budgets. But then again,
there's also Non-NA boxoffices, not to mention DVD sales. So while every
movie listed above looks like disappoint to flop if you just go by the weekend
chart, it's probably no big deal.
"The Princess and the Frog", Disney's movie about a young girl who learns
if it's harder to be green or black in this country, had a first wide release
week opening of $24 Million, which was actually a record for an animated
feature in December. It also performed well with critics.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1196003-princess_and_the_frog/
But since then its froglegs have been weak. There's an awful lot of
competition for family audiences, from "Christmas Carol" to "Avatar" to now
"the Squeakquel". I think the marketing campaign's heavy emphasis on it being
a "princess movie" made audiences assume it has no crossover appeal at all. So
it might be that ONLY parents with little girls are going to this movie, and
then it can't make the boxoffices that Pixar movies and the best Disney movies
of long ago could make. I doubt that it will reach the reported $105M budget
on NA boxoffice alone.
"A Christmas Carol" is the movie that's looking the best on the chart.
That movie performed well in the weeks after its initial release, and now it's
survived all the way up to the actual Christmas season. But its budget is
huge. I don't think that it's going to reach the $200M mark either.
I thought that "Planet 51"'s boxoffice was actually O.K. for what I
assumed was a cheap movie. But then I saw its reported budget of $70M. $70M
for THIS? And I did see the movie a couple of days ago; that only made me more
astonished. This film is sure to fall short of that mark.
I'm most shocked though at the boxoffice fiasco of "The Fantastic Mr.
Fox". In previous weeks I noted its outstanding performance with critics.
During its first two weeks in limited release it had tremendous per theater
averages. So I fully expected it to ride into a strong wide release, only to
see the opposite happen. It's already disappearing from theaters fast, but I
was able to catch it. I think this movie was killed by its terrible trailer,
which made the production values look abysmal. The movie actually turned out
to be an engaging story, where the character movement was smooth and the
visual humor was inventive, but you'd never guess from its cheap looking
trailer. At the very least its budget was a small $40M, but it's still going
to fall far short of that. But I do hope audiences rediscover this movie on
DVD.
- Juan F. Lara
Paul S. Person
No, not only parents with little girls. But perhaps primarily parents
with little girls.
I wonder how many people aren't going because it isn't in psuedo-3D?
> "A Christmas Carol" is the movie that's looking the best on the chart.
>That movie performed well in the weeks after its initial release, and now it's
>survived all the way up to the actual Christmas season. But its budget is
>huge. I don't think that it's going to reach the $200M mark either.
It played in my vicinity, IIRC, four weeks in pseudo-3D, then two
weeks in normal projection, and its been gone now for several weeks. I
never did see it, those two weeks coincided with the release of other
films I wanted to see and I expected it to be around until Christmas.
> I thought that "Planet 51"'s boxoffice was actually O.K. for what I
>assumed was a cheap movie. But then I saw its reported budget of $70M. $70M
>for THIS? And I did see the movie a couple of days ago; that only made me more
>astonished. This film is sure to fall short of that mark.
Maybe so, but I still liked it and plan to buy it on DVD.
> I'm most shocked though at the boxoffice fiasco of "The Fantastic Mr.
>Fox". In previous weeks I noted its outstanding performance with critics.
>During its first two weeks in limited release it had tremendous per theater
>averages. So I fully expected it to ride into a strong wide release, only to
>see the opposite happen. It's already disappearing from theaters fast, but I
>was able to catch it. I think this movie was killed by its terrible trailer,
>which made the production values look abysmal. The movie actually turned out
>to be an engaging story, where the character movement was smooth and the
>visual humor was inventive, but you'd never guess from its cheap looking
>trailer. At the very least its budget was a small $40M, but it's still going
>to fall far short of that. But I do hope audiences rediscover this movie on
>DVD.
The first trailer (or the trailer the first time I saw it) was rather
off-putting, but the second trailer (or the trailer on subsequent
viewings) looked rather better. The movie turned out to be a very
talky George Clooney film -- but without George Clooney being visible.
It was like listening to one film while watching another, and the fact
that the action matched the dialog did not help nearly enough.
I like talky George Clooney films, and I saw another a week ago
yesterday -- /Men Who Stare at Goats/. This time, I was actually
seeing George Clooney, at that made a big difference. I hope that /Up
in the Air/ will eventually appear at a theater I am willing to walk
to so I can see that.
And those critics made the wrong comparison: they compared /Fantastic
Mr Fox/ to a Pixar film. They should have compared it to a (I guess
this is right) Lord & Park film -- specifically, /Chicken Run/,
although the Wallace & Grommit films would do just as well.
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
Juan F. Lara
Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
I forgot to note the three movies that left the boxoffice since the last
time I posted. "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" left in November weeks after
it already came out on DVD. With a North American gross of $196,573,705, it
continued the tradition of "Ice Age" movies failing to break the $200M mark.
But its huge non-NA boxoffice of $687,144,816 helped offset that. :-) "9" left
in December with an NA boxoffice of $31,749,894. Now that domestic boxoffice
did cover the reported production budget, with an extra $10,155,235 non NA
boxoffice to go with it. And "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" left theaters
with a successful boxoffice of $122,650,135. Add a non-NA gross of $72,162,353
to go with it.
>It played in my vicinity, IIRC, four weeks in pseudo-3D
"pseudo" 3D? I don't understand.
About "Planet 51".
>Maybe so, but I still liked it and plan to buy it on DVD.
The trailer made me laugh, and so I had good expectations for this movie.
But it was a real letdown. "Back to the Future ripoff" was what I thought all
throughout this movie. It tried to be a funny take on 50's pop culture. But
the movie rang false. I grew to dislike the characters as the movie dragged
on. Especially Chuck the astronaut. Swell-headedness I can accept, but you'd
think an astronaut would have a better trained reaction to encountering alien
life than running amok and screaming. The rest of the cast were one note
characters whose limited personalities got more irritating as the movie went
on. Grossout gags and gay gags didn't help either.
So "Planet 51" had a funny trailer but turned out a dud. With "The
Fantastic Mr. Fox", the opposite was true.
- Juan F. Lara
lugnut
F. Lara) wrote:
>
> "The Princess and the Frog", Disney's movie about a young girl who learns
>if it's harder to be green or black in this country, had a first wide release
>week opening of $24 Million, which was actually a record for an animated
>feature in December. It also performed well with critics.
>
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1196003-princess_and_the_frog/
>
>But since then its froglegs have been weak. There's an awful lot of
>competition for family audiences, from "Christmas Carol" to "Avatar" to now
>"the Squeakquel". I think the marketing campaign's heavy emphasis on it being
>a "princess movie" made audiences assume it has no crossover appeal at all. So
>it might be that ONLY parents with little girls are going to this movie, and
>then it can't make the boxoffices that Pixar movies and the best Disney movies
>of long ago could make. I doubt that it will reach the reported $105M budget
>on NA boxoffice alone.
So have there been any conspiracy theories floated yet that perhaps
Disney wants this movie to fail, so they can say to CG's detractors
"See, we were right all along, nobody wants 2D animation anymore"? It
just seemed odd to me that their big return to "classic" Disney
animation has been almost pushed under the rug rather than hyped as an
'event.' I haven't seen even half the ads for "Princess" that I have
for "Squeakquel," and like you said, the few that do exist seem to
market it to a very specific niche audience instead of the "something
for everyone" approach they usually take.
Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, but it almost seems
like they're trying to bury this thing.
-lugnut
Anim8rFSK
lug...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (lugnut) wrote:
> So have there been any conspiracy theories floated yet that perhaps
> Disney wants this movie to fail, so they can say to CG's detractors
> "See, we were right all along, nobody wants 2D animation anymore"? It
> just seemed odd to me that their big return to "classic" Disney
> animation has been almost pushed under the rug rather than hyped as an
> 'event.' I haven't seen even half the ads for "Princess" that I have
> for "Squeakquel,"
Might vary by market. I've seen a ton of ads for "Frog" -- probably too
many in fact -- and I haven't seen an ad, a trailer, a still, a single
frame of "Squeakquel" -- I wouldn't even know it existed if it wasn't
for the box office reports.
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Decade"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Anim8rFSK
lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
> But since then its froglegs have been weak. There's an awful lot of
> competition for family audiences, from "Christmas Carol" to "Avatar"
Okay, I haven't seen Avatar because franky I think the smurfs look
awful, but somebody just tried to tell me that there's no live action in
it at all, that the human stuff is all CGI mocrap. Is that so?
Paul S. Person
F. Lara) wrote:
>In article <f1lcj5tvaft2aus9c...@4ax.com>,
>Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> I forgot to note the three movies that left the boxoffice since the last
>time I posted. "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" left in November weeks after
>it already came out on DVD. With a North American gross of $196,573,705, it
>continued the tradition of "Ice Age" movies failing to break the $200M mark.
>But its huge non-NA boxoffice of $687,144,816 helped offset that. :-) "9" left
>in December with an NA boxoffice of $31,749,894. Now that domestic boxoffice
>did cover the reported production budget, with an extra $10,155,235 non NA
>boxoffice to go with it. And "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" left theaters
>with a successful boxoffice of $122,650,135. Add a non-NA gross of $72,162,353
>to go with it.
>
>>It played in my vicinity, IIRC, four weeks in pseudo-3D
>
> "pseudo" 3D? I don't understand.
The only true 3D projection is a holodeck. Even actual stereoscopy,
where each eye is continuously viewing its own video stream, would not
be true 3D.
Until the holodeck is invented, all "3D" projection is psuedo-3D.
In terms of animation, it is, of course, 3D. Applying "3D" to two
different processes (projection and animation) can only lead to
confusion.
> About "Planet 51".
>
>>Maybe so, but I still liked it and plan to buy it on DVD.
>
> The trailer made me laugh, and so I had good expectations for this movie.
>But it was a real letdown. "Back to the Future ripoff" was what I thought all
>throughout this movie. It tried to be a funny take on 50's pop culture. But
>the movie rang false. I grew to dislike the characters as the movie dragged
>on. Especially Chuck the astronaut. Swell-headedness I can accept, but you'd
>think an astronaut would have a better trained reaction to encountering alien
>life than running amok and screaming. The rest of the cast were one note
>characters whose limited personalities got more irritating as the movie went
>on. Grossout gags and gay gags didn't help either.
Chuck clearly stated that he was selected and groomed for his
appearance, not his skills. And he chastised the robot for only
sending back pictures of rocks and ignoring the people: he didn't
expect to see anyone because the prior reconnaissance had indicated a
barren planet, and so was startled.
I found it nice to be able to understand the alien's (that is,
Chuck's) motivations. Especially at the end: his decision to save the
enemy general is a very natural one, for a human being, and shows
Chuck to be a far better man than he first appears. He also manages to
actually fly his lander, something he stated earlier he never had to
do.
And I thought the "protest group" of what I interpreted as
proto-hippies was hilarious.
> So "Planet 51" had a funny trailer but turned out a dud. With "The
>Fantastic Mr. Fox", the opposite was true.
I would not agree. In terms of entertaining the audience, /Planet 51/
is miles ahead of /TFMF/. For that matter, /Monsters vs. Aliens/ was
more entertaining than /TFMF/.
For what is /TFMF/ about, anyway? The importance of keeping promises?
Or the importance of accepting what you are and building on that
foundation? It has a lot of plot, but does it tell a story? And the
"villains" aren't really villains, they are reacting to being robbed.
Well, overreacting to being robbed, but the Fantastic Mr Fox brought
it on himself. It isn't as if the "villains" woke up one morning and
decided to attack for no reason.
What's interesting is that no one has complimented the creators on the
fur wind effects yet -- the best I have seen since the original /King
Kong/.
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>In article <hh38km$gi$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
> lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
>
>> But since then its froglegs have been weak. There's an awful lot of
>> competition for family audiences, from "Christmas Carol" to "Avatar"
>
>Okay, I haven't seen Avatar because franky I think the smurfs look
>awful, but somebody just tried to tell me that there's no live action in
>it at all, that the human stuff is all CGI mocrap. Is that so?
If I have understood what I have read correctly, then:
1) The scenes with humans are live-action.
2) The scenes with the avatars/natives are animated, and motion
capture is used, but the "mocrap" effect has been overcome.
Then again, most of the reviewers I have read seem to think that
/Titianic/ was a good movie, so they must be held to be unreliable.
I plan to see it if possible, that is, if it plays in 2D in the
afternoon where I can walk to the theater and (since it is no longer a
new release) nothing of higher priority is playing. The trailer
listed, IIRC, five prior films by the same director, and, although one
was /Titanic/, the others were films I like, and four out of five
isn't bad.
Derek Gee
news:jn9fj5934bci12jdr...@4ax.com...
More of this guy's BS, as I've pointed out previously. If it's
stereoscopic, it's real 3D. There's no holodeck coming anytime soon.
Derek
Paul S. Person
I was answering a question. And it is not BS, it is disambiguation.
One of the /Avatar/ reviews I read asked an interesting question: why
does live-action in 2D [that is, normal projection] look more
realistic than live-action in 3D [that is, psuedo-3D]?
We don't have stereoscopic. Each eye is blocked in turn.
Stereoscopic requires a continuous video stream in each eye.
And I am not responsible for the pace of technological development.
Whether a holodeck is coming next week or in 200 years is not
relevant.
ron.b...@gmail.com
> But since then its froglegs have been weak. There's an awful lot of
> competition for family audiences, from "Christmas Carol" to "Avatar" to now
> "the Squeakquel". I think the marketing campaign's heavy emphasis on it being
> a "princess movie" made audiences assume it has no crossover appeal at all.
> So it might be that ONLY parents with little girls are going to this movie, and
> then it can't make the boxoffices that Pixar movies and the best Disney movies
> of long ago could make. I doubt that it will reach the reported $105M budget
> on NA boxoffice alone.
I hadn't gotten around to seeing this because a trailer I saw implied
it had a strong voodoo component, as confirmed by
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/princess-frog-disney-movie-hits-notes/story?id=9386673
"[Film department chair at Vassar College Mia] Mask agreed that the
portrayal of voodoo was probably the most problematic aspect of the
film. [Producer Peter] Del Vecho said the filmmakers took care to
balance the bad voodoo with the good voodoo, practiced by the Mama
Otey character, which is voiced by Oprah Winfrey."
This additional bit makes me even less likely to see it :^(
"[Harvard University cultural anthropologist Michael] Baran agreed.
"Any issues one can find with representations are not really blatant,"
he said. "They were careful to portray African Americans. More than
anything else they make the white folk look ridiculous.""
Ron
Derek Gee
You say potato, I say BS.
> One of the /Avatar/ reviews I read asked an interesting question: why
> does live-action in 2D [that is, normal projection] look more
> realistic than live-action in 3D [that is, ]?
>
> We don't have stereoscopic. Each eye is blocked in turn.
> Stereoscopic requires a continuous video stream in each eye.
First, not all 3D technology uses a sequential system. The IMAX 3D film
format is continuous, and doesn't have each eye blocked in turn. Both
images are projected at the same time. Second, each eye perceives the
images presented to it as a continuous stream, just like it does for 2D
film. So for systems that DO use a sequential presentation, your eyes/brain
still perceives it as one.
So knock it off with your psuedo-3D BS.
Derek
Juan F. Lara
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>Okay, I haven't seen Avatar because franky I think the smurfs look
>awful, but somebody just tried to tell me that there's no live action in
>it at all, that the human stuff is all CGI mocrap. Is that so?
It's not, but I'd believe that someone could fall for that idea. :-) On
Saturday Morning and on Cartoon Network and Disney XD there are tons of
"Avatar" ads pitched specifically at little kids. Not to mention the
McDonald's "Avatar" ads. I didn't expect this movie to have such a big
marketing campaign aimed at children.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <4b3792d2....@news.netins.net>,
> lug...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (lugnut) wrote:
>
>> So have there been any conspiracy theories floated yet that perhaps
>> Disney wants this movie to fail, so they can say to CG's detractors
>> "See, we were right all along, nobody wants 2D animation anymore"?
I really doubt they'd want something that cost them a reported $105M to
fail.
>Might vary by market. I've seen a ton of ads for "Frog" -- probably too
>many in fact
But like I said, the ads to me seem so focused on the little girl
demographic that no one expects this movie to have crossover appeal.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
ron.b...@gmail.com <ron.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I hadn't gotten around to seeing this because a trailer I saw implied
>it had a strong voodoo component
I don't understand your reasoning. Forget what you see in movies,
including "Princess" probably. Voodoo is just another religious tradition,
evolved from West African traditional beliefs. It might actually be an
interesting study to learn about the real thing. There's a rich culture in
Benin, Ghana, Haiti, and their expatriate cultures.
- Juan F. Lara
Anim8rFSK
lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
I have told you that I worked on the Disney Esmerelda Voodoo website? :)
Terrence Briggs
> In article <hh38km$g...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
> lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
>
> > But since then its froglegs have been weak. There's an awful lot of
> > competition for family audiences, from "Christmas Carol" to "Avatar"
>
> Okay, I haven't seen Avatar because franky I think the smurfs look
> awful,
There are no Smurfs; only lanky blue Thundercats.
BTW, I've seen the movie in 3D and 2D.
> but somebody just tried to tell me that there's no live action in
> it at all, that the human stuff is all CGI mocrap. Is that so?
No, it is not so.
The effects are similar to the Star Wars prequels: live-action humans
mingling in CGI sets with CGI creatures.
Andrew Jones (Final Fantasy:TSW and Flight of the Osiris) co-directed
the animation, and has officially achieved photorealism. When the
Na'vi faces appear in close-ups, they look like humans in blue
makeup. The facial movements and textures are uncanny. The valley
has been crossed. The conversation is over.
Some long shots feature suspect animation. Some of the early shots
with humans piloting robots are pretty crumby. The rest of the film
is a monumental technical achievement.
Terrence Briggs
Peace to you...
Anim8rFSK
<183cd00c-60af-41d9...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Terrence Briggs <mrman1...@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27 2009, 12:48�pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <hh38km$g...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
> > �lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
> >
> > > But since then its froglegs have been weak. �There's an awful lot of
> > > competition for family audiences, from "Christmas Carol" to "Avatar"
> >
> > Okay, I haven't seen Avatar because franky I think the smurfs look
> > awful,
>
> There are no Smurfs; only lanky blue Thundercats.
>
> BTW, I've seen the movie in 3D and 2D.
>
> > but somebody just tried to tell me that there's no live action in
> > it at all, that the human stuff is all CGI mocrap. �Is that so?
>
> No, it is not so.
>
> The effects are similar to the Star Wars prequels: live-action humans
> mingling in CGI sets with CGI creatures.
As I thought; thanks.
>
> Andrew Jones (Final Fantasy:TSW and Flight of the Osiris) co-directed
> the animation, and has officially achieved photorealism. When the
> Na'vi faces appear in close-ups, they look like humans in blue
> makeup. The facial movements and textures are uncanny. The valley
> has been crossed. The conversation is over.
Wow. No offense, but you sound like Al Gore, trying to shout down the
opposition because he knows he doesn't have a case otherwise.
Those faces I've seen don't resemble photorealism at all; they virtually
scream "CGI." I'd be fascinated to see the physical maquettes they must
have made side-by-side with the renderings.
>
> Some long shots feature suspect animation. Some of the early shots
> with humans piloting robots are pretty crumby. The rest of the film
> is a monumental technical achievement.
>
> Terrence Briggs
> Peace to you...
--
Terrence Briggs
Let me know what you see when you see the movie. The trailer footage
doesn't include most of the good character bits I remember (growling,
caressing the dangling leaves, etc.). As you state in an earlier
post, the final product is a far better source of evidence than a
trailer.
Calling the Na'Vi "Smurfs" is part of the problem; it doesn't
accurately convey the level of photorealistic detail in the textures
and movements. Others have dismissed the art as "video gamey",
without specifying the names of the video games being referenced.
These blanket dismissals sound like Al Gore, too. My case is based on
two screenings of the finished product on two different screens,
sitting in the center of the front half of the theater. I welcome
differing opinions of the technical aspect of the movie; I just want
the distinction to be made between, say, Final Fantasy: TSW's Steve
Buscemi facsimile and Neytiri.
I guess I'm being pre-emptive about this because Ive read too many
criticisms from others about blue Jar-Jars and Yiff-piling and video
game cutscenes, and they're pretty much dismissing the film for the
sins of worse-looking CGI predecessors.
Anim8rFSK
<b4355b7a-eb59-492f...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Terrence Briggs <mrman1...@lycos.com> wrote:
Well, calling them 'whatever the hell they were called in Earth Final
Conflict' just seemed mean. :)
> accurately convey the level of photorealistic detail in the textures
> and movements. Others have dismissed the art as "video gamey",
> without specifying the names of the video games being referenced.
Ms Pac Man?
> These blanket dismissals sound like Al Gore, too. My case is based on
> two screenings of the finished product on two different screens,
> sitting in the center of the front half of the theater. I welcome
> differing opinions of the technical aspect of the movie; I just want
> the distinction to be made between, say, Final Fantasy: TSW's Steve
> Buscemi facsimile and Neytiri.
>
> I guess I'm being pre-emptive about this because Ive read too many
> criticisms from others about blue Jar-Jars and Yiff-piling and video
> game cutscenes, and they're pretty much dismissing the film for the
> sins of worse-looking CGI predecessors.
>
> Terrence Briggs
> Peace to you...
--
Juan F. Lara
I'd love it if someone would do a full blown "Ava-Smurfs" parody. Not
just the "South Park" ep. Something with decent production values and on model
smurfs.
> BTW, I've seen the movie in 3D and 2D.
I may get around to seeing it in 3D when I have a free weekend. For now,
I've gotten really down on 3D. The only 3D movie I've seen where the 3D seemed
important in the art has been "Coraline". Otherwise I still haven't seen any
movie that used 3D for anything more than throwing things at the camera. It's
to the point that I need some heavy duty convincing that the 3D is important
before I consider the 3D option.
>The effects are similar to the Star Wars prequels: live-action humans
>mingling in CGI sets with CGI creatures.
I think that's the best use of MoCap. When you're blending characters
in a live action world, trying to make them look normal next to actual human
beings. I just went to see "A Christmas Carol". When it's nothing but MoCap
characters movement just looks really strange.
>the animation, and has officially achieved photorealism. When the
>Na'vi faces appear in close-ups, they look like humans in blue
>makeup. The facial movements and textures are uncanny.
Why not use humans in blue makeup then? :-) I'm amused at the arguments
in other newsgroups over how come the Na'vi species wound up so humanlike.
I'm treating the movie as one big "Star Trek" ep as a result. :-)
- Juan F. Lara
Paul S. Person
<mrman1...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Dec 27 2009, 12:48�pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article <hh38km$g...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
>> �lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
>>
>> > But since then its froglegs have been weak. �There's an awful lot of
>> > competition for family audiences, from "Christmas Carol" to "Avatar"
>>
>> Okay, I haven't seen Avatar because franky I think the smurfs look
>> awful,
>
>There are no Smurfs; only lanky blue Thundercats.
>
>BTW, I've seen the movie in 3D and 2D.
In a review I read some time ago, the reviewer asked why live-action
looked more realistic when projected normally than in "3D".
Of course, that is just one individual's opinion.
Did the live-action look either more or less realistic to you when the
film was projected one way than it did when projected the other way?
--
Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses.
Paul S. Person
F. Lara) wrote:
>In article <183cd00c-60af-41d9...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>Terrence Briggs <mrman1...@lycos.com> wrote:
<snippo, the movie is, of course, /Avatar/>
>> BTW, I've seen the movie in 3D and 2D.
>
> I may get around to seeing it in 3D when I have a free weekend. For now,
>I've gotten really down on 3D. The only 3D movie I've seen where the 3D seemed
>important in the art has been "Coraline". Otherwise I still haven't seen any
>movie that used 3D for anything more than throwing things at the camera. It's
>to the point that I need some heavy duty convincing that the 3D is important
>before I consider the 3D option.
The /Coraline/ DVD came with a "3D" side and with four paper glasses
with colored lenses. The "digital 3D" movies I have purchased on DVD
did not have a "3D" side of any sort. From this I infer that "digital
3D" involves glasses that obstruct each eye in turn as each frame is
displayed, while the /Coraline/ system has each eye continually seeing
a different image, selected by the colored lenses.
This being the case, /Coraline/ would be stereoscopic (each eye
viewing its own continuous video stream), while "digital 3D" would not
be. Could that difference also be a reason for your conclusion? That
is to say, is the colored-lens technique inherently superior to the
flicker technique?
If so, how embarassing for those currently striving to introduce the
"digital 3D" technology to the home theater, with specially-priced
TVs, specially-priced BD players and, inevitably, because this is
where the real money is, specially-priced BD discs, all the while
requiring a bit rate that DVD cannot ever match -- while the
colored-lens technique can be done right now with DVD and an ordinary
TV set.
The only "digital 3D" movie I have seen, normally projected (no
special glasses required, thank you very much), that clearly threw
something at the audience was /Monsters vs. Aliens/, at the very
start. The others (/Up/, for example) may have done so, but, if they
did, it was not apparent when the film was projected normally, or when
seen on DVD. But if it was subtle enough, I might not have noticed it.
The one I did notice was pretty obnoxious.
Note how the terms get twisted up here: /Monsters vs. Aliens/ and /Up/
are "digital 3D" movies because they were projected that way, and yet
I saw them in the theater (and, in the case of /Up/) projected
normally. And yet, both are 3D films, however projected, in terms of
animation technique.
Derek Gee
No, No, NO! A thousand times no, you moron. I've already explained to you
three times that there is no difference to your brain whether the depth is
presented as an simultaneous picture (anaglyph or twin polarized projection)
or alternate frame 3D (either film, digital projection, or television).
Your eyes will see alternate frame 3D as a continuous stream due to
persistance of vision. Stop spreading your damned ignorance!
>Could that difference also be a reason for your conclusion? That
> is to say, is the colored-lens technique inherently superior to the
> flicker technique?
>
> If so, how embarassing for those currently striving to introduce the
> "digital 3D" technology to the home theater, with specially-priced
> TVs, specially-priced BD players and, inevitably, because this is
> where the real money is, specially-priced BD discs, all the while
> requiring a bit rate that DVD cannot ever match -- while the
> colored-lens technique can be done right now with DVD and an ordinary
> TV set.
The anaglyph system is not superior in anything except being inexpensive and
patent free. It causes color distortions and often headaches due to the
inability to completely separate the left and right images. If you look
closely you will see ghost images in each eye from the opposite colored
image.
I have seen demos of the current generation Mitsubishi DLP 3D televisions,
and the quality was as good as what you'd experience at the theaters - just
not as large a screen. This year Sony, Panasonic, LG, and Samsung will be
pushing their 3D televisions as well. It's going to be a great year for 3D!
D
Derek Gee
It's possible that reviewer was unable to fuse the two images into 3D.
There are individuals that cannot do it, but they make up less than 5% of
the population. About 12% have problems with their stereo vision, but still
can see the depth to some degree.
D
Paul S. Person
<dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
<snippo>
>No, No, NO! A thousand times no, you moron. I've already explained to you
>three times
When, exactly? This is the first time this particular irrational rant
has been presented.
And why should I care about /your/ opinion? If you actually are the
same person I discussed this with before, you have stated publicly
that you believe that the original /Toy Story/ and the
reworked-for-pseudo-3D version presented last fall are DIFFERENT
FILMS. Nobody asserting that can be considered reliable on any topic.
Plonk!
Terrence Briggs
On Jan 4, 10:19 am, lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
> In article <183cd00c-60af-41d9-9045-af27eb98d...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Terrence Briggs <mrman1mrm...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> >There are no Smurfs; only lanky blue Thundercats.
>
> I'd love it if someone would do a full blown "Ava-Smurfs" parody. Not
> just the "South Park" ep. Something with decent production values and on model
> smurfs.
>
> > BTW, I've seen the movie in 3D and 2D.
>
> I may get around to seeing it in 3D when I have a free weekend. For now,
> I've gotten really down on 3D. The only 3D movie I've seen where the 3D seemed
> important in the art has been "Coraline". Otherwise I still haven't seen any
> movie that used 3D for anything more than throwing things at the camera. It's
> to the point that I need some heavy duty convincing that the 3D is important
> before I consider the 3D option.
If you weren't really jonesing to see the movie, don't pay extra for
the 3D; just see a matinee. The 3D is for hyped-up fanboys like me
who really wanted to see the movie anyway. At least I wasn't
disappointed.
<snip>
> - Juan F. Lara
Terrence Briggs actually paid to see the film in 3D for the first
viewing. I can't imagine doing that with any other director, save
Spielburg.
Peace to you...
Derek Gee
"Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:40:53 -0500, "Derek Gee"
> <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <snippo>
>>No, No, NO! A thousand times no, you moron. I've already explained to
>>you
>>three times
>
> When, exactly? This is the first time this particular irrational rant
> has been presented.
We had this exchange back in November and December.
> And why should I care about /your/ opinion? If you actually are the
> same person I discussed this with before, you have stated publicly
> that you believe that the original /Toy Story/ and the
> reworked-for-pseudo-3D version presented last fall are DIFFERENT
> FILMS. Nobody asserting that can be considered reliable on any topic.
>
> Plonk!
They are different films dipshit, and people react to them differently. The
animation team re-rendered the film for both left and right images. They
made conscious decisions about where characters and items were placed in
stereo space. There's no automatic way to do that. Humans have to be
involved to make the adjustments. Just because they didn't add or delete
any sequences, doesn't mean they're the same film.
And when it comes to stereoscopy, I know what I'm talking about. I've been
a stereo photographer for 25 years, I've won awards in international
competition, and have made my own 3D films and videos. I served as
President of Detroit Stereographic Society for a number of years (as well as
other officer positions). The DSS is the oldest stereo photography club in
the US, having been founded in 1950.
I'd plonk you back, but every time you post this bullshit about pseudo-3D
and continuous streams, I'm going to be there to call you on it.
Derek