|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Beauty and the Beast (1991)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 01-17-2012 10:39 PM
quote: Geoff Jones
Yes, 2D. All of the recent and upcoming 3D re-releases seem to include some 2D showings, thankfully. I'm hoping to take my 8 year old to see Titanic, but I'm not sure she's mature enough.
I don't like 3D. I don't like wearing dark glasses to watch a movie. I don't like paying extra for it. And when I've tried taking my kids to 3D movies, they have taken the glasses off.
I can't wait to see Titanic again, not really all that thrilled about the 3D process (but I do want to see it in IMAX so I will have to settle), but they will be showing it in 2D. According to the producer, there is a 4K master, James Cameron says that it will look better than any showing from the original release....I can't wait, I wonder if he's right.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 01-20-2012 06:08 PM
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is a masterpiece of hand-drawn animation. It is the perfect combination of great music & lyrics, good storytelling and a great vocal cast chosen to match their characters.
I have some problems with this version. 3-D does nothing for this movie. The characters were originaly drawn flat, and that makes it hard to create a 3-D image. So, it looks like much of the 3-D effect was assigning part of an image to a plane, similar to what was done years ago with 3-D comic books. This works reasonably well for group scenes, but it fails badly on faces. As a character moves, parts of faces are moving to different planes and the effect is somewhat jerky. An example of this is the 3 girls singing in the opening number. Their movements forward and back look very strange. There are many other examples of this throughout the movie, such as Lumiere's candle..it looks to be square instead of round.
I also did not like the sound re-mix. In the theatre I attended (Marcus Crosswoods, Columbus, OH), most of the orchestral parts were in the surround channels. This was distracting and pulled attention from the screen action at times. It sounded as if it were mixed for a home system rather than a theatrical environment.
But, this is a truly great movie, and I'm glad we saw it today.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-21-2012 02:03 AM
Had you seen it at Northpark, you would've left with a much different impression of the print quality. If you recall, the Northpark was John Pytlak's last stop after traveling all over with the instruction to personally screen every print of Titanic in 70mm and report back to Kodak on how well the prints held up. This was about 5 months into the run.
John was ecstatic that we were "using PTR rollers" (an assumption on his part) and said none of the other prints looked nearly that good. Well, we weren't using PTRs, but since FilmGuard hadn't been released to the public yet, we lied to him and said something along the lines of "we don't use PTRs, we just keep the projector and booth really clean". Regardless he said he had never seen a presentation so absolutely and perfectly flawless, that the print looked as if it had never been ran before.
Well duh! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
He found out the truth a few years later.
Getting back on track, I am not familiar enough with the original sound mix of Beauty and the Beast to comment on its remix, but at least it wasn't a horrible insult to the original mix like the Lion King abomination.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Lasher
Master Film Handler
Posts: 493
From: Newark, DE
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 01-24-2012 12:01 AM
quote: Sean Weitzel
I never understood how Cameron managed to get such a good contrast relatively low grain image blown up from a super 35 negative.
A Perfectionists Guide to Super 35 (ASC Article about use of Super 35 on Titanic)
I'm not going to quote the whole thing here. Key points:
- They carefully selected the best lab for the job.
- "make a beefy, beefy camera negative" - JC
- "In the case of Titanic which cost $190 million and runs 20 reels the negative cost about $9 million per 1,000' roll. If you take into account what it would take to replace the roll, it has no price. [...] In response to this, I actually have the lab sign an agreement before we start the answer-printing process stating that they will not make any print without checking with me first. This dramatically cuts down on the number of times that the negative is handled and runs on the machine; therefore, we have fewer scratches, less dirt and a lower potential for damage." - JC
- "Other than watchdogging the process all the way through, the only other special thing I do is to make a very meaty negative," [Cinematographer Russell] Carpenter reiterates. "But I'm also working with a director who is very involved in this process, and Jim is not one to say, 'That's good enough.'"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic