Harry Potter, for example, has for some been considered great movies and great books, but if the movie is critiqued off of the book it's horrible. The producers cut many scenes that fans find crucial to make the movie amazing, leaving the movie hopeless for any possible awards. Pride and Prejudice on the other hand was nominated for four academy awards.
But Hollywood seems to have almost moved on from this concept of transforming books to the big screen. Now the big trend in Hollywood is 3D films.
I've seen 3 3D films, the first being an IMAX film I saw at the National Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, FL when I was around the age of 9. The movie was about the Galapagos Islands, and for years made me want to become a marine biologist. The last 3D film I saw was on Tuesday, and that was the new release of Disney's A Christmas Carol.
I was disappointed that the movie added details I didn't remember from older versions of the movie, and the play, and the ghosts truly bothered me, particularly the Ghost of Christmas Past. Maybe it's a personal problem, but why is a ghost, a candle? And, the final Ghost, of Christmas Yet to Come, didn't speak. He was just a shadow.
The last thing that bothered me, was Carrey's dialogue. Not only did he cry after seeing the images from the past, he was constantly stating what the audience could perceive on their own. I didn't enjoy hearing the obvious, and I thought that Carrey didn't capture the true essence of Scrooge. From the plays I saw when I was younger, it took more than one image to make Scrooge realize the errors of his ways.But I thought the 3D effects were great. The snowflakes seemed to be right in front of me, compared to on a screen 30 feet away. The movie used many tactics to try to sell seats. They had famous actors to intrigue their audience such as Jim Carrey and Colin Firth. The owners of the film were Disney, guaranteed kid-friendly. The composer, Alan Silvestri, well known for his work with the Back to the Future Trilogy, Forrest Gump, and most recently Polar Express, stimulates the viewers limbic system, fulling immersing them in the spirit of Christmas. When I walked out of the movie, I expected to see snow falling from the sky, and was disappointed when it didn't happen. But isn't that what good effects are suppose to do? They are suppose to trigger your emotions to make you believe things are
reality, or in this case make it seem it's closer to Christmas, enhancing your spirit, through the use of emotional transfer and warm fuzzies. Being based off of a book by Charles Dickens, there was little persuasive techniques that the public hadn't seen. The concept of bringing this 1843 text into the 21st century with 3D effects, gave the movie a more modern nostalgic time. Set in a time when poverty thrived, the movie truly seemed like the 19th century London. The 3D effects stimulated my neocortex, making me think images were closer than they appear, and the fact that its 3D has become a cultural, aesthetic shift. More and more films are being released as 3D, and older films are being remade to fit in with this current trend.The only difference between 2D and 3D is the addition of depth perception provided in the later dimension. 3D films has existed to an extent since the 1900s through the use of dual film strips. Throughout the 20th and 21st Centuries, the techniques involved in creating 3D adapted to the current technique of computerization. A list of all publicly known 3D films has been compiled, and a trend depicts the rise in 3D productions to today's current fad. The 1920s saw 9 3D productions, to 88 made during the 1950's. Today, society is seeing even more 3D films being produced, and reproduced in 3D. in 2006 A Nightmare Before Christmas was re-released in 3D, and in 2010 Beauty and the Beast is suppose to be re-released on February 12th, 2010 in 3D. Is it right to turn an academy award winning movie, into a film to fit a fad?
I personally, don't know where I stand. Some films, like Up I loved in 3D more than in 2D, but I grew up with Beauty and the Beast. I felt like out of the the Disney Princesses, I could relate to her. I keep my head in a book, and love libraries, but can I let Belle become 3D. I will no doubt see it, but I know it will never place the original in my heart.
Beauty and the Beast isn't the only Disney film being tampered with. The remake of Alice in Wonderland, starring Johnny Depp and directed by Tim Burton is set to release on March 5th, 2010. The film will have a similar atmosphere as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the newest version by this same duo. I know it's unfair to compare these Disney movies, being that Alice in Wonderland is a completely remade movie, but still what is Hollywood's problem?Why must they tamper with children's childhood? Why can't they be original take more time on creating a movie that is unseen by anyone, than remaking movies, or transforming books into movies? I thought with this new trend, that there would be more 3D movies like Up, unseen by anyone. Instead the upcoming 3D films are remakes, books transformations, or sequels.
Will you help me convince Hollywood to be creative?
Media Meditation #5
No comments:
Post a Comment