8mm Forum: Ice Age 3 -3D

This is topic Ice Age 3 -3D in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001342

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 06, 2009, 08:51 AM:

Just goes to show that 3D cannot save a dull film. I liked Ice Age 1 and 2, but this one just did not have the charm of the first two, and I found the Manny character annoying this time around. Unfortunately, the film was also marred by the insertion of some crude adult humor. This may have gone over the heads of the younger kids, but it degrades any film aimed at the kid market. Why do they do it? Walt Disney films never resorted to crude humor just to get a cheap laugh, and Disney films were in fact aimed at audiences of all ages.
The 3D effect was good, but did nothing to save this film.
Incidentally, the previews before the film reminded me of why today's cinema is so hard to enjoy. It was like entering a war zone! All those totally overworked explosion effects for just about every scene cut in all the trailers - just noise, noise, noise! My brain was rattling after six trailers. Is this what today's generation likes? If so count me out! Thank God for Super 8, DVD and classic films!

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 06, 2009, 02:19 PM:

I totally agree, Paul ....

... but sadly, Hollywood, as any other business that wants to make a profit these days, uses the same demographics and charts to market and that market is largely, it is the teen group.

teens like fart jokes and lots of naughty "skin" bouncing about. That is what settles for comedy and humor in our day and age.

Disney has been getting progressively naughtier for decades. The first obvious slide downhill was in "The Black Hole" interestingly enough.

There's the scene where Maximillian and Vincent (the robots) are battling near the end, and there is first, a shot
of the mid-section of Maximillian. The next shot is of something that resembles, to a tee, and erect form of the "Male anatomy" (in fact, I remember Disney got a little flack for that
back then).

Now, trust me, I'm no prude, and I noticed it from the first time I watched the film. I thought I was nuts however, until I had my Grandma over and we watched some films (this was back in the late 1980's) and I showed "The Black Hole"

Grandma was annoyed after that reel ended. I had forgotten about that little scene and I asked her why she was so upset.

" I didn't like that penis on that robot. "

What embarrassment! Even Grandma noticed, and I know she isn't the type to go out of her way to look for that.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on July 07, 2009, 06:48 AM:

You know, this is the 2nd 3D CGI movie I have seen recently that half way through I thought, oh yes, it is in 3D!

Now I am a 3D fan, but I think the gimmick is wearing off again. I think cinemas will start to find a resistance building for the extra admission for the 3D when it is showing in the theatre next to it in 2D but for a few dollars less.

Until you see 3D without glasses, it will not be the real thing.

David

Posted by Paul Tivy (Member # 836) on July 09, 2009, 05:26 PM:

Saw this one myself yesterday and I agree with you Paul. It was certainly underwhelming. I went with a fellow 3D enthusiast who is of the opinion that 3D is the future. I made the point that the current boom will continue only as long as the films are making a profit and it will only take a few major flops to bring the whole thing crashing down. This one was decidely average and made no effective use of the process whatsoever. I wanted to like it, but I found myself looking at my watch and wondering why I was watching an extended trailer for the inevitable video game.

Incidentally, I keep seeing reports in the press that one reason Hollywood is so keen on 3D films at the moment is that they are 'impossible' to pirate. Oh yes? What's to stop anybody from making a pair of filters from the glasses they readily give you, slipping them over the lenses of two camcorders and happily bootlegging away in the traditional manner to their hearts content. The only surprise is that nobody (apparently) has done it yet.

Tiv

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 09, 2009, 07:25 PM:

The whole history of 3D movies seems to be that they go in 15 or 20 year cycles, where they are a popular novelty for a short period of time, but people eventually get fed up with them. I think this is because 3D never seems to be used for really major dramatic motion pictures, but are relegated to kids and teen movies.
The present system, 'Real D - 3D', uses circularly polarized glasses, and is unquestionably the best commercial system yet with superb 3D effect. It definately has a lot of potential, but unless it is used effectively on a big blockbuster movie, it will probably remain as a novelty.

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on July 11, 2009, 12:09 PM:

There are three or four different 3D systems on the market nowadays. The circular one, from Master Image, is giving really good results. The Xpand system (with active LCD glasses) is good when it's running correctly, otherwise, it's a technical nightmare.

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on July 11, 2009, 04:11 PM:

Paul

I think I know what the problem is. Why you do not like Manny. He's animated, so he could be a cousin to Roger Rabbit.

Had to say it. [Big Grin]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2