[DVD] Shrek the Third

[karohemd]

Hm, good thing I didn't go to the cinema when it was on. Technically, it was brilliant and because it's all cartoony, the not-quite-natural movements of the characters worked (unlike Beowulf) but content-wise, it was rather lame and tired, I found. Once you're used to the concept, you know what the gags are going to be like. Shame, really, and I hope they'll leave it at that.

Comments

[the-elyan.livejournal.com]

Yes - I read similar reviews at the time, and resisted buying the DVD this week, though it was very cheap (£9 in Asda).

[grokit.livejournal.com]

Shrek is supposed to be a 4 part story according to the producers/makers (this was in an interview on the DVD for Shrek 2 if I remember correctly). I believe they were realistic and were only going to do each consecutive movie if the previous one made enough money. Me personally, I enjoyed them enough that I'd like to see the conclusion.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

I absolutely loved the first one but the second one had already lost some appeal. It could just be me becoming a grumpy old man...

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

Jonathon Ross on Film 2007 last week was talking about the new wave of 3D films (like Beowulf) and mentioned that Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron and Zemeckis were all making, about to make or just made 3D movies (partly as it's something you can't pirate in the cinema and can't currently show on home cinema, so it keeps the cinema industry going ... and partly for the extra dimension it adds to films)

And one that will make karohemd sad is that apparantly "Shrek Goes 4th" is being made in 3D at the moment.

[grokit.livejournal.com]

I saw a thing on that the other day. New tech that uses polarisation instead of different coloured images off sync to each other. They didn't go into detail, but the glasses look like a pair of sunglasses instead of the traditional green and red lenses.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

That technology has existed for quite a while (at least 20 years, I remember being at one of those 3D cinemas at my local fair, I still couldn't see the 3D properly, though), but has probably only now reached the quality needed for big screen cinema.

To me it's alway just been a gimmick and even if I could see 3D properly, I'd be too distracting for me.

[grokit.livejournal.com]

The problem with old stuff was it was done with 2 cameras so your images weren't always nicely in sync. From what was said they're now using a dual camera setup so the images are always from the same relative angles to each other.

[ev1ldonut.livejournal.com]

Nah, it's been cinema quality for the last 20 years, the technology itself has been around even longer than that! The problem is that the industry has been resisting making it mainstream as long as possible, to maximise the impact (milk the old method until it's dry, then dust off the 'new' one). :)

[ev1ldonut.livejournal.com]

Imax were the first to do it on a large commercial scale, quite a long time ago nnow. They use a single camera which has two reels of film, and two lenses that are set at the same distance apart as the (average) pair of human eyes. It's easier with CGI though, as it's all done in the computer, no special cameras are needed! :)

Polarising of images has been around a very long time, and has been used in 3D applications in cinema for at least the last 15 years or so. It's only recently that it's started becoming more mainstream though, as the industry decides it's not making enough money from 'regular' films...

Me, a cynic? ;)

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

*nods* Without the glasses (or me even with), you saw two overlapping pictures.
AFAIK, it's now done by alternating between the two images at a very high frequency.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

Yes indeed, 144 times a second I believe they said.

And I saw Starchaser: The Legend of Orin in polarised 3D in 1985 at the cinema.