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.

[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.

[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

[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!

[skiehawk.livejournal.com]

3D sucks :P

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.