Sweeney Todd?
The guy who kills customers at his barber shop? How are they putting finishing touches on it if i've already seen it?!
As long as they don't use Whoopi Goldberg as the base for rendering the Cheshire Cat, we'll be safe...
Director Tim Burton has signed a deal with Walt Disney Studios to produce two 3-D films, kicking off with a version of Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. The film will, Variety explains, combine "performance-capture imagery" - currently wowing the crowd in Beowulf - and live-action footage. Linda Wolverton of The Lion King …
Whenever I hear about one of these 3D films I wonder what kind of 3D it is going to be in. If it's the colour separation one then that's hopeless; there's a separation technique using glasses with different polarisation in each lens that the Disneyland attraction "Honey I Shrunk the Audience" uses.
Hopefully it will be that one. It's not too painful to watch when you don't have stereoscopic vision.
i loved frankenweenie when i was a kid... it had an eerie kind of attraction to it but it was wicked !
on Alice in Wonderland, I can't bloody wait. loved the books, couldnt get enough of the, had AWS syndrome as a kid... it just couldnt get any better that Burton's giving it a go ! brilliant..
Hopefully they base it on the book and not the adaptations, book is so much more surreal and in a way sinister. Recommend reading both "through the looking glass" and "adventures in wonderland"... Great reads...
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/looking/lookingdir.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-table.html
is that its an exhausting and nauseating experience for the viewer. The sense of alienation from the action caused by movement of the viewing point decreases rather than increases any dramatic experience. A fairground ride perhaps, but any dramatic content is drained. Theatre works in 3D, because the viewpoint is fixed and can be tuned out allowing the brain to concentrate on the drama.
By the way, your spell checker thinks I spelled Theatre incorrectly, where did you get it?
Is something that was first used in a motion picture for the adaptation of Polar Express (to my knowledge). Not sure if that made it across the pond or not. Now Beowulf, which I saw today, did have sections that looked like they were designed for use in a 3D theater complete with glasses, but it was not required. I actually didn't quite catch that until a friend pointed it out.
The only issue thus far with this "performance-capture imagery" is that it's close enough to looking real that you can tell it is not. It's kind of an odd feeling, and I think they haven't gotten the facial expression part down pat, yet. Much, to my perception, is based on the lighting and action. There were parts that you forgot you were watching animation, and just assumed it to be real actors. The arguement for it, that I see, is that it allows the director to keep that fantastic, whimsical feeling, without having the mix live action and CGI. The continuity is better, so that both Beowulf and Grendel look to be in the same plane of existence, for lack of a better description.
BTW, Sweeney Todd looks great, so it will be fun to see that one when it comes out at Christmas (in the States). Odd timing, I'd have to say, but it is Tim Burton.