CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[perisoft]

OK, here's the thing: my wife generally detests Tim Burton movies. Not because they're bad - they're usually good - but because he takes perfectly good source material and then alters it so much that he might as well have just done his own thing. She fails to see the point: A Tim Burton movie with his own ideas? Bring it on! Tim Burton's alteration of someone else's ideas? Nuh-uh.

I like him from a visual perspective, and I'm a fan of Johnny Depp, so I tend to like his stuff. But I'm not as much of a stickler as Marlo is for hewing close to the source. I don't even really think she cares so much about the source material itself - it's more of a moral thing; why SAY you're using this source if you don't really use it?

Anyway, I'm off topic.

We never saw Avatar, despite everyone saying, zomg, best 3D movie evar, because the plot seemed so horribly saccharine and preachy. But whereas awesome visuals couldn't override my distaste for Avatar's plot failings, they might just do for Mr. Burton's latest remake/alteration/homage.

Has anyone seen the 3D version of Alice, and if so, is it a good demo for the tech, and can the plot be ignored (or rationalized away as not really being based on Alice) enough to enjoy the visuals?

[WanMan]

Has anyone seen either movie in 3D and wear coke-bottle prescription eye-wear?

[greg_mitch]

I hope to god that 3D in its current form dies.

Now if they can get the displays with integrated 3D features out in the mass, I will act like I am starting to care.

[ecrabb]

What do you mean, Greg? Your somewhat-enigmatic post is almost Wanman-like. OK, it's not that bad.

Seriously... So, you hate current 3D... Meaning the passive stereo RealD system in use in most d-Cinema theaters now, and used on Avatar?

And what's particularly interesting about integrated 3D in consumer displays that would make you care more?

SC

[garyfritz]

I'm heavily underwhelmed by the latest 3D tech too. Yes, it's a big step up from some of the older processes, but it's still a PITA. It interferes with picture quality, the depth perception doesn't feel right and makes my eyes a bit wonky, the glasses are uncomfortable on top of my prescription (but not coke-bottle) specs, and I think it's more of a distracting gimmick than an improvement to the movie-viewing experience. I'll probably go see Alice in 2D.

[ecrabb]

Peri,

Interesting take you and your wife have on Tim Burton. I'm a big fan of his work, and I have to say... I completely disagree with your position. Reinterpretation can be a cornerstone in the creative process. Fine art, music, architecture, film... These things can all benefit from reinterpretation... A fresh look, a new twist, a "mod" if you will.

Every writer, director, etc. has their "style". Some more less obvious, and some more blatant. Personally, I love creative reinterpretations of an original story. It's the "dj remix" of motion picture storytelling. So many stories have multiple meanings (literal, metaphorical), emphases, and characters. That's the art of the screen play - turning a written story into something that can be captured on film and retold in 2-hours.

Anyway, back to Alice... I read in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that the movie is just so-so from the storytelling perspective, but a stunning masterpiece visually. The trailers I've seen do indeed look absolutely amazing. It looks like it's worth seeing just for the visuals.

As for 3D... Tough call. I saw Avatar in 3D, and I just wasn't as impressed as so many other seemed to be. I thought the glasses burnt too much brightness, the 3D was neat at times, but to me wasn't worth the loss in brightness and "pop". The 3D gaveth immersion, and the polarized glasses taketh away. I think I got more immersion from the beautifully rendered world in Avatar more than I did the 3D.

Not sure if Alice would be the same way.

SC

[greg_mitch]

[ecrabb]

[Mark_A_W]

Avatar was the greatest thing I have ever seen in my life.


The world, and the 3D was amazing. The movie/plot/etc was good, perhaps not brilliant, but plenty good enough, I really enjoyed it.


I've seen it twice and it holds up fine. If I didn't have kids I would have seen it five times by now. Simply awesome.



However, I've seen the trailer to Alice twice now in 3D, and from the trailer I fear the 3D is going to be jarring and annoying. When I saw the 3D trailer the first time I was scared Avatar was going to be like that, but it wasn't, it was subtle and well done.


Now there are going to be 3 Avatar movies! Sweet, all the best movies are in 3's (Matrix, LOTR, Starwars (3 not 6)).

[ecrabb]

FYI:
http://gizmodo.com/5486765/review-alice-in-wonderland-3d-doesnt-need-the-3d

SC

[WanMan]

I don't hate 3D, I just have never been able to see 3D. I admit I haven't tried in a long time, but this means breaking a +5 year record on not going to the public theaters. BTW, I am told from folks haven't been to plenty of 3D movies of late that Avatar did a wonderful job at the 3D aspect, but AIW not such much.

My negativity comes with the personal perception that I need 3D and its being shoved down our throats in everything from source material and players to displays as if it is the next greatest invention since sliced bread. Sorry, this consumer ain't buying into it. I'll wait and [try to] see it in someone else's 3D home and determine if it might be worth consideration.

[garyfritz]

Yeah, clearly it's just the Next New Thing that You Gotta Have so you'll run out and buy a new display. For sure nobody needs it, and I doubt it will even be all that good in the early editions. But the electronics companies gotta have something to justify their phony-baloney jobs, so this week it's 3D.

And I agree 110% with the guy from Gizmodo: