4 ms·
Just watched the 3D Blu-ray this evening and the introductory sequence was indeed of appallingly bad CGI quality ("Windows 98 screensaver" indeed), as was the b
by classichasclass 4y ago
Just watched the 3D Blu-ray this evening and the introductory sequence was indeed of appallingly bad CGI quality ("Windows 98 screensaver" indeed), as was the bus-wrecking beast which came off like a rejected design from Monsters Inc., and really the entire first act as a whole was just really rickety. In that sense the poor CGI was the symptom of a more systemic disease. Fortunately Earth-838 has lots of welcome character surprises and the ending redeemed a lot. Not Raimi's best, but hardly his worst.
- XorNot 4y ago3D has been garbage since it's inception in cinema though: the guy who pushed it on us (James Cameron) couldn't even constrain himself to the rules of the new tech in the movie which was meant to showcase it (I.e focus pulling will hurt the eyes of the viewer, you have to essentially construct the whole scene in focus so the viewer can look around it). No one else has really cared about it since then.
- classichasclass 4y agoIt wasn't the 3D that was the problem, though, even though the 3D was obviously not native and the digital mattes were fairly flat. It just wasn't good visuals even in 2D. That said, Dredd 3D was a high mark in 3D because it was almost all native, especially the component effects photography (the Slo-Mo scenes in particular blew me away). The few upconverted shots stick out like sore thumbs. Upconversion can be done well - see T2 3D, which was mesmerizing - but nowadays 3D conversion is now just another VFX workflow with the same drawbacks.