(James Franco attempting to steal your soul).
Oz topped the weekend box office results for the 2nd time in a row and of the reviews, the 3D is definitely in the forefront of conversations. In class we talk a lot about good 3D and how to effectively/ineffectively utilize the technology in our projects. The 3D Oz articles over the last few weeks seem to offer both good and bad aspects of 3D, to be debated, and I thought there were some interesting points.
This first article I found discussed the 3D technology of being too extreme and too digitized: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/03/oz-great-and-powerful-3d-hollywood/62920/
The article mainly discusses the digital aesthetic and calls to attention the animated world of The Hobbit in addition to Oz. The author largely pans the new direction 3D, alluding with Jurassic park quote, "In a blind pursuit to top what the other guy just did, they become only concerned with whether they can instead of whether they should." We've had a lot of discussions about the Hobbit's faster frame rate and grand CGI scenes (the troll scenes in particular), in addition to other films', and with 3D features like these currently trending, does it hurt the cinematic quality and experience that live sets and on location productions bring? It highlights an interesting view on how the industry is viewing and evolving 3D film. While I did not agree with a lot of what the writer notes, he definitely makes some good points.
In opposite views on Oz's 3D, there are articles specifically praising the lavish costuming which both critics and audiences say were greatly highlighted by the 3D. The depth of the movie was also apparently very extreme, but in a tolerable and efficient way.
Anyone see Oz over break?
No comments:
Post a Comment