Sunday 19 June 2011

Green Lantern: is the 3D worth paying for? No, with a hint of yes...

submit to reddit

Delicious
Bookmark this on Delicious



I'm not being equivocal here there's genuinely two answers to the question. The 3D isn't native, in other words it's a conversion. (although Rob Marshall proved, with Pirates 4, that when the director doesn't know what to do with his cameras, filming in 3D can be just as useless as many a conversion)if we take Clash of The Titans and The Last Airbender as the nadir of conversions, the master-classes in how not to do it, and then films like Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story as better examples, then Lantern is certainly no Clash or Airbender.


What I have to say is more or less what I said about Thor, although I found that conversion more effective and better planned. My advice with Thor, was that if you were a Thor fan you had to see it in 3D. The scenes in Asgard and the other Realms had been conceived with 3D in mind, you could clearly see that. The effects were also well served by being in 3D. The rest of the film was fairly normal, hence my recommendation to fans. That said I still believe there's enough spectacle in Thor to make it worth a 3D ticket for non fans, but of course it is expensive. So I'm sure there will be some scenes, on Oa, that GL fans. Will love seeing in 3D, but in all honesty. I can only remember one shot, where Paralax is attacking a city and we see it / him in the sky,  that stood out for me. So I can't say that it is worth a penny extra.

My final point is that if the industry wants to charge premium prices, they have to supply a premium experience. 3D conversions should be marked as such AND should not cost the full 3D extra price, if any more at all. GREEN LANTERN 2?

No comments:

Post a Comment