Creative Commons License
http://kim-otodragonsfire.blogspot.com/ by Kim Marie Ostrowski is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

WarCraft review 'B.A.R.' discussion On use of 3-D

*disclaimer... I have posted this thread here to show why I have written an article on the 3D topic 
(as I mentioned in the thread it had inspired me to start a post for it and originally started to use one of my answers and thought best to include the thread so those reading the article would have a better understanding of why the article came to be. 
I have removed my friend's screen name in order to protect his identity as I did not let him know I was going to post the thread. (as I had not originally planned on doing so) 

The first is me responding to his review of Warcraft... 

(Me) -  The orcs are not just CGI but also actors doing motion capture so it IS partially practical, while of course with a movie of this epic proportions and fantastical of course it will be heavy on the use of CG. I found the imaging to be possibly better than that of the Lord of the Rings as well as The Hobbit but. But then those are darker movies than this. The colors are more vivid as though you are seeing your own world for the first time. And there is really no real villain (other than the orc Mage) as the humans have known peace and are willing to negotiate with the orcs, as well as a group of the Orcs who are sick of seeing their mage kill every land just to use magic.
As far as what I've heard from fans who play the game, it's a great video game movie, besides the fact the director as well as actor Robert Kazinsky have played the game for quite sometime and the point was to make a movie the fans can love (with some easter eggs from the game that I knew of from doing research) or even those that do not play can still enjoy. That of which I did, I just wish I could have seen it in 3-d and it's worth seeing no matter what priced showing you go to!

My friend
The discreditable CGI I was referring to initially (showcased in the picture presented) was the background buildings and area, where LOTR had over sized models and real life constructions built as opposed to green screen; and as I continued the comparison, within the Orcs themselves, only a selected few were practical effects (showcased in the picture as the actor sat in the make-up chair). But as for the Orc army set in the scene further from the camera view, they were CGI, as it was in the Hobbit, but in LOTR, they had hundreds of extras in make-up to look more realistic. It didn't bother me, as I stated in the video, but this film had the opportunity to be that epic in scale as a LOTR or a cinematic experience like Lawrence of Arabia or Ben Hur. Everyone had costumes.

Did you see the movie in 3-d or regular? because as having seen it (sadly) in 2d.. I saw a building that looked as real and my own house. with angles shadows and looked 3-d without the movie being in so. Honestly I don't think ANY actual make up or prosthetic were used for the orcs. I have yet to see any of the actors in something other than the 'pajama's aka the motion capture suit.
Did you ever think in the case of this film it was cheaper to do all they did in CGI? For something that is based on a video game (ie; CGI...) frankly I see the film shouldn't need to use practical FX as it should look as close to the game as possible but based in reality. If I had not followed how they did the movie through the last few years of waiting for it, most parts I wouldn't have known were made in CGI. but then there's also the fact in this movie I didn't see the 'halo' effect you get when you put live people say Fimmel on top of a CG character (the griffin) with a CG background like most movies get (and I've seen it in lotr or maybe it was Hobbit)
The movie IS still epic even if in CG... I'm not crazy about the use of it, but in certain situations (like this) I found it to be a treat, I didn't see any edges etc, but the I was trying to watch the story and take everything in at once, so when I'm able to watch it a few more times, then I can watch more closely

 No 3D gives me a headache. Also 3d compromises the cinematographic experience.

usually the films that are NOT filmed in 3d like Avatar, was usually ends up having a suck ass box office because you can tell they were not filmed that way. basically everything that came out after Avatar rushed to go have the movie fixed to work for 3d and they failed.

3d in NO way compromises the experience it enhances it. Its just those that cannot watch it that would say that.... Depending on the movie, some I see are worth seeing as 3d, others not. This one would have been worth it. Sadly the only time I could make the move was a regular viewing, though thought we were going to get a 3d version a a trailer or 2 was in 3d.

If Captain America Civil war was in 3d... that would be a toss up for me, being all the movies before were not made that way. Sadly I don't know how to explain to someone how I decide which ones would be worth it or not. It's just by the look of it I guess. Plus it BRINGS YOU INTO the world. Star Trek I think would be one that would be cool as 3d, even if they did a star wars that way even in parts but not the cheesy gimmick schlock. I think that was one of the reasons those that did see certain movies in 3d liked that version Avatar didn't have the cheese of it, it just enhanced the experience, and I can't WAIT to return to Pandora!

 You're looking at the experience through your own perspective and enjoyment. It's great that you personally enjoy 3d, but for me, it doesn't enhance anything but aggravation. Through my eyes-view, it's similar to reading a pop-up book as opposed to a novel. It's fun for a bit, but then, just becomes annoying when you want to concentrate on the story and dialog. And when it comes to visuals; again, for me, it sabotages the artistic view of the director for the sake of a gimmick.
(now with what he just said, isn't he doing the same of what he is accusing me of????) and  I also mentioned the Pop-up book reference in the article as well)

Weeeell, I can't look at enjoyment and so on in anyway other than through my own eyes.. That would be some feat if I could write a review based on everyone elses enjoys in a movie, tv show or book.

Also I'm not going to be tacky in my reviews and constantly say 'if you can digest (as in it doesn't make you nausea, or you have some eye problem that makes watching the format a problem etc) 3D, go see it that way) See Pop-up books (aside from maybe the Dracula one which I still need to get) is mostly for kids, but I do so miss them, but remember they didn't have much of a story to them.
My question is, do you have a depth perception problem? Then I can understand it making you nausea etc. but when 3d is done RIGHT say at least in the case of Avatar (and no I won't shut up about it... as I have yet to see a movie in 3d that has equaled or bettered that movie in using the tecnique.)

Now let me see if I can explain my view better with the 3d stuff...

 is 3d a gimmick? when someone uses it as an enhancement (at least in my eyes) to submerge you further into the world you are watching. then NO.  
When everyone jumps on the band wagon to make a few extra bucks (which they aren't making anything extra as they are paying more to format it to 3d) then YES it's a gimmick and one would grow weary of watching them and why I am pretty strick in what I watch when movies do come out in 3d. (I'm still surprised Star Wars hasn't done so as that would look awesome to me) another option is the movies made as 3d doing the cheesy sort of old school stunts like thowing an axe at the camera yes THAT is 100% when 3d is gimmicky.
If it's used for one part or 2 in a movie yeah then it's a gimmick, but I see it as if a movie is made in a certain way to utilize the technology of it then it's not a gimmick to me, but enhances the image and experience. is it about enjoyment, that I'm not sure on but as I said enhances the experience and immerses you more so in the film. (I remember when I went to see Avatar and one other film that was in 3d, and I did not notice once anyone screwing around with their freaking phones. So I was either enveloped in the story fully maybe partially due to the enhancement or maybe the story was just interesting enough I didn't want to choke whoever around me was talking or texting on the phone. (which is rare!)

(also thanks for the idea for a blog post & Moviepilot article... )
Compared to the 3d of old like what was it Godzilla & King Kong in the 80s to now... thank gods we don't have to watch with those red & Blue cardboard glasses anymore (which I do have a pair somewhere around here) that version I would say was quite the gimmick but because as far as I remember it was only 2 movies that were done like that (and shown on WPIX) it wasn't as much of a 'gimmick'.
Do some producers or directors whoever's idea it would be to use it in a movie over use it? Yes, the popularity of something makes something a gimmick. All the Superhero movies be they come in threes or more those are a gimmick just like when you mention the 'cheap frights scare tactics' like a loud noise to make us jump... that's a gimmick as well. I can for arguments sake (which I don't want this to actually be) can say EVERYTHING used in movies no matter the genre is a gimmick. Hell social media sites are gimmicks especially being as they are used to market ourselves and advertise our blogs, and other websites we write or Vlog on.

No comments: