It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
After much prodding from my girlfriend and some other Princess and the Frogs fans...Beauty and the Beast.Very lovely movie. Excellent characters and definitely the best songs. Though I still hold the two disney movies as equal.
Yeah, calling it Ferngully is rather mean. Avatar doesn't have a rap-musical number or Tim Curry.
Also, shut your filthy, filthy mouth about Fern Gully and Tim Curry.
Yeah, Fern Gully is really bad.
And I was more thinking the Disney-fied version of Pocahontas.
Rather than using the same old "stuff flying at you" 3-D this movie used it to add depth to scenes.
Ferngully was one of those things that I loved as a child (fairies!) and my mom hated. It was kind of like those Serendipity books. Now I look back and cringe.
Rather than using the same old "stuff flying at you" 3D this movie used it to add depth to scenes.I have a serious gripe with 3D that goes beyond the obvious overuse of "stuff flying at you" dilemma; the use of focus to draw he viewers attention.In photography as well as in cinematography, focus is used in addition to lighting and composition to draw the eye of the audience to the salient parts of a scene. This is a very powerful tool and instrumental to visual storytelling. Now consider a 3-D scene (animated or still). If the scene is rendered "in focus" you can look at any object in the scene and that object will be in focus and in this way will seem quite real. The problem that arises is that one loses the main tool of directing the attention of the viewer. Also, objects out of the focal plane that the viewer is not looking at should be blurry which is not the case.If, instead, focus is used in rendering to draw the viewers eye, there will be 3-D objects in the scene that are rendered out of focus / blurry. This works perfectly and creates a real sense of 3D, avoiding the aforementioned problem, as long as the viewers attention is retained where intended. When it fails the result is that you end up looking at an object, e.g. in the background, that's just a blurry blob when your brain expects it to be in focus (after all you are looking at a 3-D scene).So to bring my rambling back in line with the thread, I recently saw Coraline in 3D and though the movie was really nice, I was pulled out of the immersive experience several times due to this focus issue.
Rather than using the same old "stuff flying at you" 3D this movie used it to add depth to scenes.
Wow, I thought no one was with me on disliking 3D as a gimmick that adds little to film and often takes away from it.
If it's gimmicky 3D, it has no place in the movie. I maintain, however, thatCoralinewas a good use of 3D, adding depth and complexity to the shots in a movie that had an aesthetic which was benefited by additional depth.