Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Amazing Spider-Man 3D Critique

The Amazing Spider-Man 3D Critique

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
All I say is look at what kind of "behinds in seats" AKA $ they did... Mr. Collister that's all that needs to be said -- people love this film. Those critiquing ... When did you shoot your last film for a studio repping The Epic... Show work of equal or better quality.
 
Paul Ellington said:
All I say is look at what kind of "behinds in seats" AKA $ they did... Mr. Collister that's all that needs to be said -- people love this film. Those critiquing ... When did you shoot your last film for a studio repping The Epic... Show work of equal or better quality.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have to show your work to critique a movie or how a movie was made.
 
Paul Ellington said:
All I say is look at what kind of "behinds in seats" AKA $ they did... Mr. Collister that's all that needs to be said -- people love this film. Those critiquing ... When did you shoot your last film for a studio repping The Epic... Show work of equal or better quality.
Click to expand...
What does the camera have to do with it when I can make this with $500 of equipment, fueled solely by my personal enjoyment of the format?

 
I will agree that showing your work is not necessary to critique a film, but seeing the film most certainly is. If your post includes "I haven't seen the film, but I hate 3D" you need to find something better to do with your time. Entering a 3D forum to tell people you hate 3D is like joining a church group to tell people you hate religion. Only a miserable person would do it.
 
Jason Goodman said:
I will agree that showing your work is not necessary to critique a film, but seeing the film most certainly is. If your post includes "I haven't seen the film, but I hate 3D" you need to find something better to do with your time. Entering a 3D forum to tell people you hate 3D is like joining a church group to tell people you hate religion. Only a miserable person would do it.
Click to expand...

Well if this forum was all about praising 3D, then you would be right, but I think its an open forum open to opinions. So therefore you can express exactly how you feel about it.

It would probably be best if you have seen the movie or the 3D material before speaking your mind, but it's not a necessity.
 
I haven't seen this comment you are speaking of.

I see someone wondering why the shot it in 3D. That's it.
 
Michael, I'm actually interested in the phenomenon you described earlier, the 3D being no good for 15mins then later you forgot it was 3D. When I'm showing 3D I always warm the viewer up with some narrow IO stuff for 5mins before showing the actual clip I actually want the viewer to see. The fact that you forget it's 3D also is a concern, maybe you get into the story so much and the movie is filmed in such a fashion that you are directed where to focus your attention which comes from 2D film making, I find the big panoramic scenes where the viewer has a chance to explore the scene in z space and experience the eyes adjusting for depth focus give the viewer a much better 3D experience. If the movie is cut traditionally where the viewers attention is specifically targeted using close ups, shallow DOF, different camera angles etc the viewer doesn't get that chance to let their eyes wander in the scene, which I believe is paramount to the success of 3D- think those big slow scenes in Avatar.
 
Dear Clyde ,
I saw the film recently and also read your review. You are absolutely correct as most of the indoor sequences looked flat as the backdrops were out of focus, I watched the scene with out glasses and it all looked the same. The original Spiderman in 2D was for better when compared to this 3D as there was nothing much "Amazing" about the film.

Clyde DeSouza said:
Thought I'd post here, as the film was shot on RED gear. It's interesting to note that even with the best of equipment, 3D is still a subjective art form, with a platform based on science.
The review is a stereoscopic critique of the film and a bit of philosophical musings in the beginning on the role of stereographers and their influence on the film set hierarchy.

The review contains my opinion only (and reading the comments section will show that quite a few stereographer agree) that the narrative scenes were less that spectacular.
Subtle 3D is being confused with outright Flat 3D (again imho) and that's the point i'm trying to drive home despite the argument that the 3D look was "intentional" on those scenes. I absolutely loved the live action and CGI rendered stereo on the action scenes toward the finale with it's creative use of the stereo volume.

I'd love to hear comments from professionals here.

The review: Stereomatography: A review of Spider-man 3D
Click to expand...
 
I saw the film in Digital IMAX 3D. Several times I took off my glasses to give my eyes a breather, and noticed that a good chunk of the dialogue scenes weren't shot in 3D. I didn't have much of a problem with it, since I'll never see the film in 3D again, but it felt cheap to me that the films dialogue was seemingly shot sparatically in 3D, instead of consistently. Oh well.
 
Just thought I'd chime in here. I saw the film in 3D a couple of days ago, and agree with you Clyde, that the narrative scenes were flat. I took off my glasses several times to see if there was any 3D at all, and would have liked more roundness in the actors' faces and more room volume in the dialogue scenes. I accepted it as the filmmakers' choice to separate the two worlds of Spiderman, but thought they didn't have to dial the 3D that much down. I also noticed that the director or DP obviously were used to compose shots for 2D. Many of the shots had foreground objects placed close to the camera, which would have worked fine in 2D, but unfortunately forced them to reduce the IA to an absolute minimum to make it work in 3D. Interestingly, I found the converted Avengers to have more shots that seemed planned for 3D than the native 3D Spiderman movie that was still using the 2D filmmaking vocabulary.

Sindre Saebo
Creative Director, ekteTV
Oslo, Norway
 
Thank you all for your participation in this discussion.
I think it's a tie (although the against shows 9 votes v/s the 8 "for", my vote does not count)

I'm a bit surprised, with the 8 votes of "for", but it's a good learning experience, that professionals in the business, I'd assume many who voted are actually using Cameras (ReD or other brands), and feel that the 3D was good enough on the narrative scenes.

As I mentioned, this kind of data is interesting to me, as it shows the divide between the older generation of stereographer, the newer gen, and also audience expectations from 3D.

I do hope more vote, either for or against, so the data gets more helpful.

Meanwhile, Sindre above put it well, particularly
>>I also noticed that the director or DP obviously were used to compose shots for 2D

To me, this is also where the Stereographer and DP are to blame. The Director (Auteur) maybe Stereoscopically illeterate, that's why the Stereographer is on board, and from the looks of it the DP didnt expand his/her vocabulary either.

Now all this is still fine, but what I object to (quite vocally) is the argument that this is what a, "Subtle 3D" look is.
It is NOT!

There is a big difference between using a carefully planned depth script to vary the depth (mood?) in scenes and what was done in TASM (again on the narrative scenes). Those were just plain Flat.

It was stereo illiteracy at it's best. Sorry I have to be blunt.

But it's not doing 3D any good if denial comes in, or politically correct answers and statements are made.
On a multi-million dollar shoot such as TASm it is the duty of the Stereo team to do test takes of the scenes, and project them in as near to final presentation size and "Show" the Auteur the difference.

Unless...the argument can be made... that the Stereo team on those scenes did not know the difference in the first place?

It is my hope that by calling this out, that future subtle 3d will be "motivated" and a clear understanding of Spatial framing and presentation will ensue. I'm actually positive (no pun) it will!

Will those who called out the errors such as Sidre, Keegan, Ramchandra....etc be given credit for vocalizing it? I highly doubt it.

But whatever the outcome, at least the winner will be better 3D and hopefully a medium that is here to stay as Audiences (who are getting 3D literate by the minute) are the ones paying our salaries in the long run.. NOT the Auteur!

Kind Regards
Clyde
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Prometheus and Hugo is great in 3D, SpiderMan is a 2D movie shot with 3D equipments, the scene design and the skill of telling the story didn't use much advantage of 3D(while Hugo is completely opposite and Prometheus did great). The cinema near my house uses very light projector, BARCO, so color problem never happened to me, 3D feels always better than 2D to me. (Some cinema use very dark projector, which sucks, and IMAX use old 70's liner polar glasses which is painful to me, who can tell me why they do not use RealD?)

To my opinion(do not bash me:P), 3D V.S. 2D is like movie with sound V.S. silent movie. One more axis definitely can do a lot for joy. If I can decide, I would like to push z-axis usage in the story to some extreme status, while I know it's difficult to control the side effects like dazzling the audience, at least there should be some try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top