?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

There is a thing I want to write about. Tomorrow. Yes, tomorrow, I will write about the thing I want to write about today.

Today, I need to try to get "back on the horse."

Today, I woke up angry, so the thing I want to talk about ought wait until tomorrow, so that I can approach it with a more level head.

There was a wonderful thunderstorm sometime early this morning, while Kathryn and I were sleeping. She woke enough to get up and close windows. Here in Providence, it will sort of be summer today, but that's okay. Spring's coming back this weekend.

I don't even want to get started on the WHY we had to leave the house yesterday and spend hours driving aimlessly about Warwick and Providence, when I should have been working. I mean, the why we had to leave the house part. I won't get into that. We might have gone to the shore, but it was cloudy, and not particularly warm, and we knew that we could spend the gas and time to reach Beavertail only to discover it was raining or too cold or too windy to swim. So, we drove around until a 2:45 p.m. screening of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. We even got a very wide, tall screen (though it wasn't flat)

I have only two complaints about The Dark Knight Rises. Neither have anything to do with the movie. First, we saw the trailer for The Hobbit. And, for a moment, I was overjoyed. Finally! Hey, it's really going to happen! But, as I watched this beautiful bit of film – and it was beautiful – I began to wonder why everything looked sort of like a pop-up book and remembered it was shot in 3D. What baffles me is how you can make 3D evident in 2D. The whole pop-up book thing, I mean. The photo has been cut up, and some parts are in front of other parts. It was hideous, and a sacrilege. It was the murder of cinematography. This could be one of the films I've waited my whole life to see. Instead, I probably won't even watch it on DVD in 2D. The juxtaposition of beauty and artless gimmickry was just too...sickening.

The other thing was that Spooky and I both noticed that everything on the screen that was white or light colored had a distinct cyan/red halo around it, through the trailers and the film. I didn't notice it so much through the film, until the credits, because I was so caught up in the film. But, yeah. Look at an A or G or Z. Cyan on the right of the letter bleeding to red on the left side of the letter. And I realized, right off, that it must be because a 3D projector was showing a 2D film and was unable to compensate. So, I said, here we have the death of film. These are the last days of film. Even if you can find a good 2D screening, increasingly you'll have to endure shit like this. Well, I will. Lots of folks, seems to make them happy.

And I will note, as it is worthy of notice, that Christopher Nolan has said, "...the truth is, I think it's a misnomer to call it 3D versus 2D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it's three dimensional...You know 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2D movie a '2D movie' is a little misleading." Yup. Well, I know that. I can't speak for all the idiots. Also, the 3D projector rendered the 2D film very dark and murky. So, yeah. I look towards a day, soon, when I lose going to the theater.

Happy times.

But, that said, The Dark Knight Rises is superb. A very fine conclusion to the trilogy. Not gonna harp on the specifics. I will say that Michelle Pfeiffer has forever been unseated as my ideal image of Selina Kyle. You have bloomed, Anne Hathaway. I never saw that coming (well, until recently). Great take on the costume, too. Gary Oldman was wonderful. Really, it was all perfect. The only part of yesterday that didn't suck. I actually went in with rather indifferent expectations (there's an interesting turn of phrase). I sort of hated Batman Begins, and then I loved the first three quarters of The Dark Knight, but thought the ending was absurd (don't ask me to get into the reasons). But, yeah. I loved this third film. It was like an apology for the first two.

Look! No links! This LJ entry gets a gold star....

Longing for Before*,
Aunt Beast

* Do not imagine you know what this means.

Comments

( 12 comments — Have your say! )
(Deleted comment)
greygirlbeast
Jul. 24th, 2012 05:45 pm (UTC)

Film died sometime last year when studios and distributors decreed that everything must be shown in digital format EVERYTHING. Even the tiny theaters had to switch up to digital projection or get no movies to show. So, film has already been killed off, unfortunately, except for those occasional art theaters, and apparently they don't count.

Well...hmmm. I don't actually hate digital, because it provides such a sharp, clean image. But...I can see the harm the forced switchover has caused the already non-existent small theaters. Which we ought to have in droves. Second run, anybody? Revival?

3D is the demon here.

I loved Dark Knight Rises, too. It had all the depth and interesting textures I like in a movie, and the nearly 3 hours of it went by so very, very fast. I'll be seeing it again.

Yep.
stsisyphus
Jul. 24th, 2012 07:40 pm (UTC)
Film died sometime last year when studios and distributors decreed that everything must be shown in digital format EVERYTHING. Even the tiny theaters had to switch up to digital projection or get no movies to show.

You know, I really noticed this over the weekend when I decided to go see Safety Not Guaranteed, which was very definitely not filmed in digital so far as I could tell (possible exception being the final scene). There was plenty of graininess to the film stock, which surprised me - not because the film wasn't crisp, but rather that I had been "spoiled" by big budget high def digital film blockbusters. Even crap blockbusters.

I felt bad because I could immediately foresee that conventional filmmaking and indie efforts were going to start losing out even harder against the major studios. They are shifting the expectations of the audience and consumers, offering a different quality (as in characteristic, not premium) of movie experience and making everything that doesn't conform to that feel alien and subpar.
greygirlbeast
Jul. 24th, 2012 07:47 pm (UTC)

I felt bad because I could immediately foresee that conventional filmmaking and indie efforts were going to start losing out even harder against the major studios.

And yet indie film makers are embracing digital technology and moving away from expensive celluloid.
stsisyphus
Jul. 24th, 2012 07:53 pm (UTC)
True. I didn't want to equate indie with celluloid, or that they are shunning all technical innovations. Just that I think there might be a popular backlash against anything that doesn't have a high standard of polish on it. Regardless if the polish is needed.
greygirlbeast
Jul. 24th, 2012 08:31 pm (UTC)

Just that I think there might be a popular backlash against anything that doesn't have a high standard of polish on it. Regardless if the polish is needed.

Agreed.

Then again, there was a rather powerful popular backlash against 3D a while back. The business annoyed it, and it pretty much went away.
(Deleted comment)
greygirlbeast
Jul. 24th, 2012 11:12 pm (UTC)

However, there is an advantage in that digital movies can now be made with a camera and lens set up costing less than $1,000. It's a new world, for sure.

This is a big part of why it's popular with photographers and indie filmmakers. Vastly cheaper. As for archival issues, same as with ebooks.
(Deleted comment)
greygirlbeast
Jul. 25th, 2012 04:09 pm (UTC)

Same here. Concern wise. We've already lost a photos we don't even know we've lost.
andrian6
Jul. 24th, 2012 06:11 pm (UTC)
Actually, I think we may be seeing another phenomenon with The Hobbit and its visuals. The film is being shot, and intended to be projected, at 48 frames per second. Normally, film is captured and projected at 24 frames per second. The increase in speed and projection means twice the visual information is being crammed onto the screen at the same time.

It's very clear and sharp. Almost too much so. There are reports the post production color correctors are working overtime to knock the hard edges off the colors and to add in softness to the visuals.
greygirlbeast
Jul. 24th, 2012 06:17 pm (UTC)

Actually, I think we may be seeing another phenomenon with The Hobbit and its visuals. The film is being shot, and intended to be projected, at 48 frames per second. Normally, film is captured and projected at 24 frames per second. The increase in speed and projection means twice the visual information is being crammed onto the screen at the same time.

It's very clear and sharp. Almost too much so. There are reports the post production color correctors are working overtime to knock the hard edges off the colors and to add in softness to the visuals.


But it'll still look like a pop-up book.
darkphoenixrisn
Jul. 25th, 2012 09:39 am (UTC)
Christopher Nolan shoots on film and without 3D. With The Dark Knight Rises, much of it was filmed in IMAX or 65mm. Even when it's all scanned at 2k for digital projection, you can still see the quality.

The Hobbit was shot digitally in 3D at 48fps. Reports have indicated it looks like an HD version of the BBC's "live video" look of the 1970s, harsh and non-cinematic. Peter Jackson should have shot it like The Lord of the Rings.
greygirlbeast
Jul. 25th, 2012 04:11 pm (UTC)

Even when it's all scanned at 2k for digital projection, you can still see the quality.

Yup. Even with the muddying effect of the 3D projector.

The Hobbit was shot digitally in 3D at 48fps. Reports have indicated it looks like an HD version of the BBC's "live video" look of the 1970s, harsh and non-cinematic. Peter Jackson should have shot it like The Lord of the Rings.

Yes, and I think that very aptly describes what I saw...only as a pop-up book.
luciferfell
Jul. 26th, 2012 03:29 am (UTC)
I kind of didn't like catwoman in dark knight rises. It just can't compete with burtons batman returns. Catwoman was so tragic and the love affair between batman and catwoman was so melancholy and sad. Combined with the wintery gothic look of the film I just feel it can't be topped. Dark knight rises really didn't flesh out her character or provide a foundation for her and batmans relationship. I mean she looked good in the film and acted well. She just wasent givin a lot to do by the director besides a lot of backflips.
( 12 comments — Have your say! )