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

[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.