Shrek: The Final Chapter (And The Rise Of 3D)

[lupestripe]

Definitely the best Shrek installment of the growing franchise (and despite this being The Final Chapter, I still think it will grow as there are many more characters that can be introduced and storylines they can explore). It definitely made up for the disappointment that was Shrek The Turd. The story was original, powerful, moving and well-crafted. Granted, it was rather linear in narrative and adopted the usual techniques but it's a kids' film in part so mustn't grumble. Must admit I cried a few times at the slushy sentimental stuff but then I cry at most things. There were some nice humorous touches, some excellent performances but unlike How To Train Your Dragon, the film really didn't utilise the 3D* technology all that much. Indeed, little would have been lost watching it normally. The film also tied up the series well, making reference to the other three films including the fantastic bit at the start wishing the third one hadn't really existed. Nice satire.

Even better, there were only 7 people in the entire screening, meaning it was nice and quiet, bereft of screaming kids and noisy chomping people. If it's going to be this quiet on a weekday, I may go more often. I am looking forward to Toy Story 3 (and Four Lions) in the coming weeks.

*****************************************************************

* Speaking of 3D, I feel this is fast becoming like the iPhone/iPod/iPad/iSheep products - something that isn't really necessary but an external force is promoting it as the super-duper next big thing, the latest must-have, which is riding a wave of popular opinion yet no one quite knows why or how it got so big. Every movie that's coming out now is available in 3D, a fact demonstrated by every advertisement I saw in the cinema making the point. In movies I can see it working, but TVs? I kinda like my normal 3D reality changing to a 2D televisual one now and again. Reality is real enough, sometimes I like to be suspended from it.

I remember in the Eighties they experimented with 3D and it died a death, what's changed now? You still have to wear silly glasses so is the demand really there? I don't remember anyone expressing a desire for 3D technology before. I can't help but feel this is being pushed upon us by the media and digital development companies. Am I right in thinking this?

The rise of 3D TVs, 3D films etc has all come about over the last year (I am aware IMAX was doing 3D films before this time but these were hardly massive draws). Is there a real public desire for it, or are we being forced into accepting it by powerful marketers who are trying to increase their own profit margins? Am I being cynical? Stay tuned folks...

Comments

[wruf.livejournal.com]

Strange that we both post about the same thing at the same time :) I'm not sold on 3D myself. It's kinda cool but I kept feeling that I'd enjoy it just as much without the 3D effects, glasses hurting the sides of my head and having to put in my contacts and paying more for the privilege.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

Sometimes it just makes me feel giddy. I think if done well, it is an enhancement but every film in 3D is only going to take the gloss off the whole concept. I think certain films (like HTTYD) really benefit from 3D but everything in 3D? I am unsure.

[alexf0x.livejournal.com]

but every film in 3D is only going to take the gloss off the whole concept.

To right this is the killing factor for me as that while films that have been shot intentionally in stereo 3D use it to it's best effect, there are too many at the moment that have just had 3D shoehorned in post production.

The result is just weak FX that won't convince anyone that the concept is good, then there are just genes that wouldn't be good for it at all. I mean when did you see the needed FX shots in a rom com, or a tense drama like "Frost/Nickson"? You don't so 3D as a gimmick isn't needed.

Also another gripe I have with 3D movies, even if they are done well is all of the "forced" shots done by the director to show off the 3D effects. Even in avatar we where treated to lots of silly shots through windows, or behind glass, or through a chain linked fence, or a close up on a flying bullet, done just purposely to show off a 3D effect. It's daft and stupid, and look's terrible when translated back to 2D.

If 3D is to be accepted more than it has to be used a lot better than it is now, with no shoehorning or forced crap.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

To be honest I avoid movies with "good special effects" because it tends to be a synonym for "no plot or decent characterisation". Call me cynical.

Agree with you on things being specifically made for 3D - that's why I thought How To Train Your Dragon worked so well, because it was specifically shot for 3D. I imagine most movies would gain little, and would probably lose a lot (in terms of gravitas and engagement) by being shot in 3D.

[rustyfox.livejournal.com]

Like most unnecessary tech next-big-thing, what they don't tell you is that 3D is not 3D. It's stereoscopic. The image doesn't change when you view it from a different angle, there's just an illusion of depth, and illusion that never alters no matter where you view it from and thus is completely unnatural.

As such, before you even consider the practical hassle of wearing glasses and competing incompatible implementations, it doesn't bring anything of value to the experience. It's still a 2D picture!

So no, nothings changed now. I suspect this has only come about because flat-screen technology was getting so ridiculously cheap, and they needed some other excuse to bump the price back up.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

There is still a perception of 3D though because there is a greater concept of depth. Regardless, it is still a different visual experience. Despite this, I am not all that sold on it. I certainly wouldn't want to see 3D technology as ubiquitous as 2D flatscreen systems are now.

[rustyfox.livejournal.com]

I suspect this time around, exactly that might happen anyway. I suspect it'll sooner or later become just as cheap to manufacturer a 3D panel as a 2D one (indeed, depending on the technology used, there's very little difference already, the rest being down to electronics / software). So it wouldn't make sense to produce a TV without 3D capability for the same or negligible higher cost as a 2D model.

But that doesn't mean we're going to be gagging to get our 3D specs on to sit around the box (er, panel) and watch 3D Eastenders!

To be honest the unnaturalness of Steroscopy makes me feel a bit sick. Why don't we already have 2D books and magazines? Or 3D writing? Why didn't the view-master replace art and photography? It's exactly the same principle as 3D TV. None of this happened of course because it's nonsense, 2D conveys information perfectly well for our eyes and brains to understand. It's been perfectly sufficient since we started drawing shapes in the sand and on the cave walls and hasn't stopped being sufficient overnight.

So, yeah, I predict this time the technology will stick around, but nobody will really care.

[alexf0x.livejournal.com]

My gripe with 3D TV at the moment is that there isn't any content being shot in stereo 3D to make a purchase of a 3D set worthwhile. Even with HD at the moment there is only what a handful of channels currently, and you need a sky virgin or a freesat channel to access them. What's the point of blowing the extra cash when there is nothing to see?

Of course there is the PS3, and special blu rays, but then it's miles too expensive to justify it. Oh and if I want stereo gaming then there is the PC where the systems for are a lot cheaper by comparison (£200 or less for a 120Hz monitor, and £130 or less for the vision kit compared to £1700 for a TV and £280 for a PS3). So 3D TV at the moment is as empty as it gets.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

If there is content to be shot in 3D, what happens then? Will programmes be shot in 2D AND 3D or will technology exist where you can film in 3D but it still shows okay on a 2D screen?

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

But will it become the expected norm and replace 2D television?

[rustyfox.livejournal.com]

I'd be stunned if that ever happened. As I said, did the view-master replace traditional photography? Or holograms replace all printed images?

Just because something is possible doesn't mean everyone wants it. "3D" has always been a gimmick. It doesn't solve any problems and it doesn't add anything of any serious value.

And it makes me and many others feel a bit sick, because it's far more unnatural than a 2D image!

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

I agree about the sickness thing - I also feel the same way about High Definition - it just makes my head hurt.

[enteirah]

I'm sure part of the big push for 3D in cinemas probably stems less from an actual want and more from the profit aspect. As well as being an easy excuse to charge a premium, it has benefits from an anti-piracy point of view (ie its harder for as many people to film the movie on their bog-standard phone), so its in their interests to insist everyone wants it!

As for pushing that through to TV, I suppose they just need something 'new' to market to keep buying premium-priced hardware, and as they've already pushed 3D at the cinema its an easy target to market to the home too. =:P

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

Yep, pretty much how I feel about it.

[pippinbear.livejournal.com]

(a) With circular polarisation and the like, channel separation is about as good as it's going to get for the foreseeable future and stereoscopic imaging doesn't interfere with colour any more, so few people object. (Previous attempts sacrificed colour for depth perception.) (b) It's harder to video in the cinema. (c) They can (eventually) re-sell everyone their whole film libraries again, but this time in "glorious" stereo!

[alexf0x.livejournal.com]

Rehassed films in stereo NO! NO! NO! If clash of the titans (and last Air bender) are anything to go by that is a big DO NOT WANT!

Older games work in stereo (see the Nvidia stereo 3d on the PC), but then the effects in a way where always there. Oh and Nintendo have shown off a stereo system that won't require any glasses (see the news about the new 3DS).

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

I tend to think remastering and the like tends to ruin older films rather than improving them.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

Thanks for filling me in on the technical side of things - I hadn't thought about point b) but of course that is almost certainly the case and a major factor too.

[skiehawk.livejournal.com]

3D sucks :P

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

I am not a fan but then I tend not to be of these things.

[alexf0x.livejournal.com]

3D movies I am not utterly sold on, as at the moment aside from Avatar most of the 3D has been shoehorned in “Clash of the titans” and the forthcoming (and apparently horrible) “Last Airbender” are really notable for this.

That said stereo 3D gaming however is fantastic, and I have tried the Nvidia stereo 3D system with compatible games (Metro 2033 which was fully rigged for the system is amazing, along with Call of duty 4), But I put that down to the fact that games have been in 3D and the system finally helps with the needed depth perception.

Oh and it had a Anaglyph discover mode that costs as little as £6 to get going.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

I don't game so that side of 3D doesn't interest me at all. How To Train Your Dragon was made for 3D and worked in 3D - haven't seen the other films you have mentioned.

[iffriel.livejournal.com]

The new Shrek is terible, it's a mockery of what it used to be! The whole point of Shrek was poking fun at the squeeky clean and cleché that was, and still is especialy with their pseudo christian values, disney in the late ninties and early two-thousands. It turned on it's head the conventions of fairy tales, making the princes into either meglamaniacs or preening dicks, and the fairy god mother into a corporate warmonger. Rumplestiltsskin is a bad character in a fairytale to begin with and is here only because they're scraping the bottem of the barrel for villians that they don't have to think about too much. The plot is exactly the same as the third one in as much as it's Shrek again not wanting to be king which he was supposed to have come to terms with at the end of the last film. It's a knock off piece of shit in my opinion.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

[kandrel.livejournal.com]

I won't be sold on 3D until it's accessible in a form that doesn't include klunky and uncomfortable eye-wear.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

It's the eye-wear that I have the biggest issue with, but ultimately, it's a nice novelty but that's all it should be for me.

[radmoose.livejournal.com]

3D became a way for the cinemas to increase their bottom line.

Yeah, they have to buy equipment, but they usually recoup it with one good movie.

I can't justify going to see SHREK 3D at $20 a person.

Avatar was a bad 2D movie that used post-production 3D. It only helped witht eh box office to make it seem like it did really well.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

It was cheaper here, probably about the equivalent of $15 a person. It was okay, but you would lose little if you saw it in 2D.

[ambeebear.livejournal.com]

Toy Story 3 is awesome! I think you'll really enjoy it. :-) I haven't seen Shrek 3 yet... I'm hoping to soon.

I have bad vision and I find that often the 3D doesn't do much for me over the 2D movies except make my pocketbook lighter. There are a few exceptions but most are the "over the top" "look at my 3-Dishness" that a lot of people think are just gimmicky. I think it's a neat concept but a lot of movies would be just as good in 2D. Actually thinking about it Toy Story 3 wasn't really all that 3D even though it was a 3D movie, not many effects or gimmicks used at all.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

How To Train Your Dragon did work in 3D as some of the sweeping dragon shots were filmed for that format. I don't know how TS3 could do the same. It's released here at the end of this week so hopefully I can check it out soon :)