HUGO - Scorsese Makes Magic - Perhaps one of the Greatest Films about Film Ever

[Lucas Wilson]

Hugo was shot on Alexa with CAMERON | PACE Group providing the 3D Acquisition technology. Out of respect for Reduser, I will not go into great length about the workflow or technology for the feature. Please contact me offlist at lwilson (at) cameronpace.com with any specific questions.

I will say to the people on this thread who say that they will go see it in 2D to "really enjoy the story."...

I'm sorry, but what a load of crap. This movie was created from the ground up by Bob and Marty as a 3D movie. It is an intrinsic part of how they created the feature, and was part of how the wove the emotional tapestry of the story. It's sort of like saying you don't enjoy Surround Sound, so you're going to go see Gladiator in mono (preferably through Auratones) so you don't get distracted by all those pesky speakers and unnecessary frequencies.

You don't like 3D - we get it, thanks. But with this feature in particular - the problem is you, not 3D.

Lucas

 

[Kegan Sant]

And the above post by Lucas, has sold me on a hopeful future for 3D filmmaking. I'll see it in 3D and post my thoughts this week.

Kegan

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

First 3D movie ever that I forgot I had glasses on... what makes it work is all the gadgetry of filmmaking...

Incredible story made me forget... my vote for BEST PICTURE - this is a Masterpiece

 

[Dan Kanes]

I enjoyed the film.

I would have enjoyed it more Without the 3D.

Honestly.

I don't need someone insulting me to tell me that something is wrong with me.

Probably some of the least obnoxious 3D I've ever seen, but still I wish I saw it in 2D.

I saw it on an Imax Screen in 3D.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

I would have enjoyed it more Without the 3D. Honestly. I don't need someone insulting me to tell me that something is wrong with me.

I don't like 1st person shooter games. They make me seasick. I am apparently in the minority there, but I am not denigrating the genre because my personal reaction is nausea. I still recognize that it's an incredible way to play a game - it just doesn't work for me.

When people say they don't like 3D - I'm fine with that. But turning a personal dislike of 3D into a blanket condemnation pisses me off, and that happens constantly. Hugo is a game-changer in my opinion. It is not a 2D film that looks good in 3D, but a real 3D film, where the Director and DP integrated 3D into the creative process the same way they did sets and lights and lenses. When I read statements like "You can be sure that I will be seeing Hugo again but this time in glorious 2D which is a much more accurate representation of the natural world," it's not an opinion, but rather a ding against Scorsese, Cameron, Jackson, Luhrman, Scott, and many other creative giants who are not doing this because it's a gimmick, but because it is a tool they are using to further reach out to audiences. And more than one major Director has said they aren't going back to 2D...

I love 3D, my livelihood is tied to it, and I'm passionate about it. Hope that clarifies the emotions behind my statement a bit.

Best,

Lucas

 

[Kristin Stewart]

3D... Is that the thing where you have to wear glasses ?

Glasses, huh ? And how are lovers kissing themselves with glasses ? I'm going to watch it in 2D, then ;-)

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

It would be nice if this thread didn't devolve into a referendum for or against 3D, folks.

It was one storytelling device employed by the team. One of many. An important one, as I've tried to argue. I think people who can tolerate it, should give it a chance. Those that are highly resistant - don't bother. But just understand that you are missing, in my opinion, an opportunity to participate in a very special historical moment in the evolution of 3D - if that's not important to you, or if that opportunity is trumped by your physical and visceral response to the medium, then don't bother. Just understand what is being relinquished by that choice, and understand that it will inflect your experience of the film.

This isn't KUNG FU PANDA. This 3D isn't "for fun," it is a deliberate effort to maximize the artistic possibilities for 3D filmmaking.

I am very excited by recent innovations in cinema. Buying and shooting RED cameras, to me -- a trained film historian before I became a filmmaker -- is like taking part in a living, breathing revolution. I feel the same sense of excitement while viewing HUGO. Scorsese has advanced a filmmaking form, right before my very eyes - and he has done it by telling a story about the redemptive power of cinema, from a place of love and respect for his art.

I think that gesture is pretty amazing, nuanced, magical, unique and forward-thinking.

The only other film that comes close (in my opinion, others might point to Avatar for a deepening of the medium - I just found those characters a little flat) is James Cameron's GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS, his documentary film about the Titanic which preceded the narrative film about the same subject - GHOSTS had a similar meta-cinematic moment, where Cameron kicks off the film with a kinetoscope- like image placed immediately in front of the eyes of the viewer, a nod to film's own history and an invitation to enter the machinery of filmmaking itself. GHOSTS uses brand new technologies and filmmaking techniques to explore the failure of another titan of technology in its era, the Titanic. From the bottom of the ocean, no less. This is one of the most under-appreciated films in contemporary film history, in my opinion. Very few people have seen it -- and even fewer in the IMAX 3D delivery for which it was intended. But it did something so remarkable and so innovative. It elevated several forms at once.

I see HUGO as the fullest articulation of something being originally examined in GHOSTS -- they are both films that not only tell a story with its own intrinsic integrity. Simultaneously, they consciously place themselves into a certain historical moment in cinema history by drawing the viewer into the mechanism.

This is an amazing film on so many levels that it is a little disappointing to see so much focus on "To 3D or not to 3D" - :beatdeadhorse5:

There's this, for those of you who remain interested: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3642269209/

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

what 3D system is suggested for Hugo ?

Real D (passive glasses) or an active glasses system ? (i guess is the dolby ?)

what should i check about the theater to know if is ring to be the proper 3D ? (i am quite uncomfortable about 3D , and i want to give Huge a Try , but off course i guess i have to see it on a proper 3D projection technology ...

thanks

g

 

[Marc Wielage]

Whenever I see something in 3d that is trying to be more serious, it's more of a distraction than anything else and takes away from enjoying the film. I want to see Hugo, but I think I will just see the 2d version so I can enjoy the story.

Naaaa, you can enjoy the story just fine in 3D. See it at a decent theater and you won't have a problem.

I'll personally refund your money if you hate the movie. It's a beautiful, beautiful film in every way. I'm ready to see it again, and I don't say that very often about recent movies.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

This isn't KUNG FU PANDA. This 3D isn't "for fun," it is a deliberate effort to maximize the artistic possibilities for 3D filmmaking.

/

I will give it a shot, but so far all the 3d I've seen has given me the OPPOSITE opinion of yours. I'd love to see Kung Fu Panda in 3d, especially if it's for fun, and they are going to throw things out the screen and into my face. 3d used like that is effective and it works.

When you use the picture window 3d, it's not fun, and I find it distracting. Not worth the eyestrain, if you're not going to make it fun.

The opening scene in Transformers was great 3d because it was like a roller coaster ride through this giant robot planet. The rest of the 3d in the move sucked, because it was just the picture window stuff I find distracting and an eyestrain.

I saw Immortals in 3d because of the time it was playing, and afterwards I wished I'd see the 2d version instead, would have enjoyed it a lot more.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

And how are lovers kissing themselves with glasses ? I'm going to watch it in 2D, then ;-)

When I'm going to movie theater I actually go there to see the film, not to have extensive kissing session with a date on the back seats. I have a very nice couch for that at home with my big-ass plasma and blu-ray player before it. Guess I'm the wrong one, silly me. BTW I like 3D movies, the ones, which are actually shot in native 3D. Most of my disappointments with screenings was due to very dim projector brightness and heavy XPAND-glasses (often case in theaters here). Waiting for Red 4K Projectors to take over this planet. Until then... oh well.

 

[Roger Viloria]

I experienced today Scorsese's "HUGO" in 3D. The Alexa camera performed very good but not as great as R1 MX/ Epic M in the Moppets movie. I highly recommend this film. It is a wonderful tribute to Cinema.
Cheers!

 

[Mark Allen]

I thought the film was okay. To be honest, I felt it was a little pensive for an adventure movie. I'm a huge Scorcesse fan, but went into this film with open expectations... because I know he can do other genres. he has - King of Comedy is one. And he handled this type of movie very well. I felt the story though was a little spacious and slow and out of synch with the rest of the film in that way. I felt they could have incorporated the mystery more throughout.

The lighting was gorgeous.

The 3D I definitely could have lived without. There were a couple amazingly wonderful shots - but I feel like for the majority of the film, the 3D was taking me too far out of the experience. I "get" why they thought this movie in particular for 3D. I feel though it would have been better shot traditionally 2D in the overall outcome.