![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Today as a birthday treat I took Husband (47 today) to see Pixar's latest Up at the cinema. And for the first time this century I allowed myself to watch a full length modern feature in 3D*. It cost $39 for the two of us, which was a bit of a shock to the system, and I got a crick in my neck and squashed ears. But I say it was worth it.
I'd been warned to bring tissues, and told that the 3D was used with restraint and for narrative effect. Both things are true. It was very poignant in several places (the miscarriage was handled with amazing sensitivity), and more than a little relevant to our own relationship*sniff*. The 3D elements were introduced smoothly and for the most part behind the screen. You need a 3 second shot to see 3D, so retrofitting sub-second jump cut shots is wasting everyone's time. This was shot for 3D and it showed.
The comedic elements with the bird were handled in classic cartoon style, and I applauded the conceit that allowed dogs to talk and still be dogs. The dog dominance hierarchy and behaviours were beautifully realised. I'd *really* like to see Pixar give cats the same treatment (Pumpkin is available for his casting call).
The baddy was believably bad, and suitably motivated to do evil things. The old man and the child did not start too far apart so their bonding happened naturally.
The film was pretty to look at, and only felt a little long because my neck was getting stiff. One of the great weakness of extended 3D viewing came true there. And the glasses pinched behind my ears a bit as the film went on, but they didn't slide down my nose. Not a great field of vision, but I expect the marketing people wouldn't let the glasses be bigger because they'd look more dorky. Ah, flashbacks to old meetings.
Anywho, I was a bit stiff and woozy by the end, but it was a good quality film and I liked it a lot. Squirrel!
(*) You may be asking yourselves "Why does Steph make such a bloody fuss about 3D? What's her major malfunction?" Or you could be asking yourselves "Where did that rash come from?" or "Why is Troy Buswell still breathing?". I don't know. Suffice to say I worked at Dynamic Digital Depth (DDD) for nearly 5 years, and had all the 3D-is-the-biggest-thing-since-colour my little crossed eyes could ever hope to consume, mostly without glasses. Which I christened "EyeWare" I might add, although today I expect it would be iWare, but back then marketing threw in extra X's and capitalisation to make products look sexy. Anyone remember OpticBOOM eXtreme? No, I didn't think so. I was quite proud of the line "See Outside The Square" but that was after working on the web site for two weeks and I got a little linguistically loopy.
I'd been warned to bring tissues, and told that the 3D was used with restraint and for narrative effect. Both things are true. It was very poignant in several places (the miscarriage was handled with amazing sensitivity), and more than a little relevant to our own relationship*sniff*. The 3D elements were introduced smoothly and for the most part behind the screen. You need a 3 second shot to see 3D, so retrofitting sub-second jump cut shots is wasting everyone's time. This was shot for 3D and it showed.
The comedic elements with the bird were handled in classic cartoon style, and I applauded the conceit that allowed dogs to talk and still be dogs. The dog dominance hierarchy and behaviours were beautifully realised. I'd *really* like to see Pixar give cats the same treatment (Pumpkin is available for his casting call).
The baddy was believably bad, and suitably motivated to do evil things. The old man and the child did not start too far apart so their bonding happened naturally.
The film was pretty to look at, and only felt a little long because my neck was getting stiff. One of the great weakness of extended 3D viewing came true there. And the glasses pinched behind my ears a bit as the film went on, but they didn't slide down my nose. Not a great field of vision, but I expect the marketing people wouldn't let the glasses be bigger because they'd look more dorky. Ah, flashbacks to old meetings.
Anywho, I was a bit stiff and woozy by the end, but it was a good quality film and I liked it a lot. Squirrel!
(*) You may be asking yourselves "Why does Steph make such a bloody fuss about 3D? What's her major malfunction?" Or you could be asking yourselves "Where did that rash come from?" or "Why is Troy Buswell still breathing?". I don't know. Suffice to say I worked at Dynamic Digital Depth (DDD) for nearly 5 years, and had all the 3D-is-the-biggest-thing-since-colour my little crossed eyes could ever hope to consume, mostly without glasses. Which I christened "EyeWare" I might add, although today I expect it would be iWare, but back then marketing threw in extra X's and capitalisation to make products look sexy. Anyone remember OpticBOOM eXtreme? No, I didn't think so. I was quite proud of the line "See Outside The Square" but that was after working on the web site for two weeks and I got a little linguistically loopy.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 11:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-20 05:12 am (UTC)*apologies*
I am *so* going to be quoted out of context one day.
Given that the dogs were all about hierarchy, I think the producers simply dodged a bullet rather than have to decide how to balance who gets to be dominant over whom. The squeaky voice gag for Alpha wouldn't have worked as well on a female voice. I can only imagine the fuss some people would make if the super-submissive Doug character had been female.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-20 05:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-20 06:02 am (UTC)It reminds me of a late night SBS movie where the first 10 minutes had no dialogue of any kind. It started with girl goes out, girl meets boy, girl and boy flirt (silently), boys goes back to her place, boy and girl get it on. The first words are the next morning when she asks what his name is. It was very cleverly done.