Eyepopper
Lowering the tone since 2006
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 67,407
I cant wait for this..... .
Burton + Depp + Bonham-Carter + Elfman = Crazy gold dust
Far too much CGI in that trailer tho...tweedledum & tweedledee & the cheshire cat look awful
Oh Tim Burton, how about you do something a little different for once?
The trailers make it look exactly like Charlie and the Chocolate factory. All slightly too weird and yet strangely not weird enough. CGI has ruined Burton's creativity. I wish he'd do more stuff like Big Fish and stop making these silly technicolor childrens films for grown ups
The trailers make it look exactly like Charlie and the Chocolate factory. All slightly too weird and yet strangely not weird enough. CGI has ruined Burton's creativity. I wish he'd do more stuff like Big Fish and stop making these silly technicolor childrens films for grown ups
It's shiiiiiiiiiiiit. Can't believe I wasted my money on it, and I can't believe Tim Burton made it!
Aye 3D movies are pointless. Just another way to make more money.
Errrr, I can!! He's a poor one trick pony, at best.
I disagree. I think it only adds to the experience and can only be seen as a positive as the technology is fine-tuned in terms of editing etc.
I saw Alice In Wonderland at the IMAX yesterday, and the film in totality wasn't fantastic, but it is aimed at a largely younger audience. I think the target audience has to be considered when trying to criticise a film, and there were plenty of kids that seemed entranced by the Wonderland Tim Burton created.
Johnny Depp is an incredible character actor in my opinion, and didn't disappoint as the mad hatter with the accents and eccentric if not slightly erratic mannerisms. Apparently he researched hatter's syndrome in preparation for the role, and wanted to explore the personality disorder associated with the syndrome.
There was a trailer before the film called "How to train your dragon" (i think), and again it is a film for children, but the 3D effects in the look great, and i would have absolutely loved that as a kid.
3D is the future, and whilst some films may be hit and miss in terms of leaving some underwhelmed, it doesn't take anything away from the film, and in the majority of cases will only add to the experience.
Maybe I'm old school but I just feel if a movie's good enough it will be enjoyed in 2D.
I agree with kps88, if a film has to be in 3D to be good then it's crap. I have no desire to see Avatar because it looks/reads/sounds like a shit boring film, and it being in 3D won't make me cream my pants like it has some other people.
Story, script, acting etc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> special effects.
I also don't want to sit watching a film or television at home with stupid glasses on.
That's true I guess, but all the same it's not something I'm interested in. I also don't want to sit watching a film or television at home with stupid glasses on.
That's true I guess, but all the same it's not something I'm interested in. I also don't want to sit watching a film or television at home with stupid glasses on.
correct me if I am wrong but I believe phillips were looking in to producing 3d effects without the use of siully glasses, but they have abandoned it.
sony however have done something weaste knows about where you can walk around the picture and look at it from different angles