but with the addition of cgi, things are changing quickly. the first thing i realized was that in beautiful cgi landscapes, the "camera" pans about and for a moment we catch a lens flare which has been digitally inserted to make the shot more realistic. in actuality, lens flares are called "lens junk" and they are avoided because, again, they prove there is a camera.
the only time a movie would likely try to prove there is a camera is when there is not: such as in cgi movies.
but that's a small issue. to me, the landmark of horribleness in film was titan a.e.-- and not just because they casted mumbly drew barrymore as a voice.
because the lead male (animated character) runs toward the camera and actually jumps over it before the "director" cuts to a shot of him-- from behind-- landing his jump and continuing his run. he jumped over the camera! it was only to prove there was a camera in a cgi world where cameras are not-- thus making it "more realistic."but that was in 2000.
now, 3d gives us reasons to break all forms of rules-- not just the fourth wall-- but cinematic language as a whole. oh, and it's not generally called 3d because 3d reminds us of the old technology-- it's real-d.
anyone who has watched a real-d movie on dvd has likely sat through endless objects thrown at the screen and knows exactly what sort of torture i speak of. the movie no longer makes sense when we are allowed to look past how "cool" it was in real-d.the only real-d films that succeed on the same level as they did in theatre are those that didn't bank on the effects.
and because of this (and the fact even johnny depp throwing a top hat at your face cannot save a plot-less movie), marketers are naturally working on fixing the problem.
to me, "fixing the problem" would mean going back to character-driven stories, but i'm also not a marketer.
"the theater can time-travel?"
"no, the chairs move."
"like, throughout time and space?"
"no, they just move with the movie so you feel like you're in it."
i guess i should've seen that coming: when 2d gets old, make 3d. when 3d gets old, just call it something else-- like real-d. when real-d isn't real enough, make 4d.
and people complain about the iphone.
i find it entirely unacceptable that we are marketing these films as "4d" just because the chairs move. i suppose you could argue that feeling like you're in the movie is quasi-close to time-travel if the movie is a time-piece like gladiator. and then it could be called four-dimensional.
but the only way to truly feel like you're in a movie is by watching a movie that has been well-written, effects aside.
"that would be so fucking annoying. i don't want to be rained on while i watch a movie."
"it's meant to enhance the experience."
this whole thing is an absolute joke. i know the marketers have had their hands in films for decades now, but it's getting a bit ridiculous. do you remember 2007? that was the year they'd actually marketed threes-- spider-man 3, shrek the third, pirates of the caribbean 3: at world's end, and 300. and now, we're at saw 7 and it's not called saw 7 because that would remind you that there are six unnecessary sequels. no, it's called saw 3d the traps come alive. the marketers are actually aware of how ridiculous this is and are trying to counter-market their own mistakes! what the fuck is wrong with us?
whatever, let's just keep watching the twenty shrek flicks, and re-releases of avatar in 3d, and fucking pinkberry the musical.will smith is starring and producing a re-telling of one of the bible's stories-- it's called the legend of cain and his version includes vampires. that is, of course, right after he finishes filming men in black iii.
i give up.
and this whole 4d idea reminds me way too much of waiting for guffman.
except more pathetic because it's not a joke.
No comments:
Post a Comment