Scorsese's Hugo (film)

[Neil]

"The best 3D yet"

DFJZ1HKybZA

[EvilNed]

And that's saying something?

[Neil]

And that's saying something?

Well yes, else their lips and mouths wouldn't be moving!?

[MinionZombie]

I haven't paid much attention to this Hugo flick - no idea what it's about really, and I'm not that interested. I'll see it on Sky Movies probably, but I don't fancy much seeing it in the cinema.

I find it interesting that Hollywood is still trying to pimp 3D like it's something truly marvellous ... and yet it's still just a gimmick to me. The more 3D I've seen, the more and more it feels like a gimmick. In Avatar it was nifty because it was a novelty and it actually worked pretty well (i.e. not that ropey blue/red stuff), but then it just got tiring in movies after that. Some movies (many, in fact) have totally abused 3D as a way to make more money and dish out shitty 3D (e.g. Clash of the Titans, or Thor - which was flat and way too dark - or Tron Legacy - which simply didn't benefit from the quite flat 3D, in my view, although I really dug (and continue to dig) the movie itself).

About the best 3D movie that wasn't Avatar that I've seen has been Jackass 3D - and that's exactly because it plays up the gimmicky nature of the tech. Poo Volcano. 'Nuff said. :lol:

I don't need 3D to help 'tell the story' - if you can't tell a story in 2D, then you're not much cop, frankly. I don't need 3D for immersion either - if the story and filmmaking is good, then I'll be hooked-in. When I first saw Dawn of the Dead I was utterly enraptured, and that was in 2D on a 20 inch TV in the middle of the day on VHS.

[Neil]

I haven't paid much attention to this Hugo flick - no idea what it's about really, and I'm not that interested. I'll see it on Sky Movies probably, but I don't fancy much seeing it in the cinema.

I find it interesting that Hollywood is still trying to pimp 3D like it's something truly marvellous ... and yet it's still just a gimmick to me. The more 3D I've seen, the more and more it feels like a gimmick. In Avatar it was nifty because it was a novelty and it actually worked pretty well (i.e. not that ropey blue/red stuff), but then it just got tiring in movies after that. Some movies (many, in fact) have totally abused 3D as a way to make more money and dish out shitty 3D (e.g. Clash of the Titans, or Thor - which was flat and way too dark - or Tron Legacy - which simply didn't benefit from the quite flat 3D, in my view, although I really dug (and continue to dig) the movie itself).

About the best 3D movie that wasn't Avatar that I've seen has been Jackass 3D - and that's exactly because it plays up the gimmicky nature of the tech. Poo Volcano. 'Nuff said. :lol:

I don't need 3D to help 'tell the story' - if you can't tell a story in 2D, then you're not much cop, frankly. I don't need 3D for immersion either - if the story and filmmaking is good, then I'll be hooked-in. When I first saw Dawn of the Dead I was utterly enraptured, and that was in 2D on a 20 inch TV in the middle of the day on VHS.

Well, Cameron did describe the 3D in Hugo in terms of a 12 cylinder Bugatti engine. He said Hugo was like a 12 cylinder Bugatti engine firing perfectly on all 12 cylinders, of which 3D was just one of those cylinders... ie: It's just part of the experience...

Now, like you, I've seen 3D as less and less important a choice when going to the cinema. Infact I'm getting to the stage where generally I'll see the 2D version. But I'm not saynig if a good film comes along that lends itself well to 3D, that I wouldn't then see it in 3D... Maybe Hugo is just such an example...

[MinionZombie]

Yeah - if I was fussed enough to see Hugo in the cinema, then I'd see it in 3D ... but I'm not fussed about seeing it in the cinema at all, so...

Now, Captain America for instance - very fun flick - but I specifically watched it in 2D (especially after the dreadful 3D of Thor). Captain America didn't require the 3D to be enjoyable, and there really only seemed to be two sequences in the final act (one of which was the end credits! :lol:) that seemed to lend themselves to 3D. Everything else worked perfectly in 2D.

[Neil]

Yeah - if I was fussed enough to see Hugo in the cinema, then I'd see it in 3D ... but I'm not fussed about seeing it in the cinema at all, so...

Now, Captain America for instance - very fun flick - but I specifically watched it in 2D (especially after the dreadful 3D of Thor). Captain America didn't require the 3D to be enjoyable, and there really only seemed to be two sequences in the final act (one of which was the end credits! :lol:) that seemed to lend themselves to 3D. Everything else worked perfectly in 2D.
Indeed! I wish I'd seen Tron in 2D, as I suspect it would have been clearer.

But we have to remember there's another improvement in 3D on the way in the form of a higher FPS, which will invariably improve clarity especially in faster moving scenes...

[Legion2213]

3D doesn't excite me in the slightest, having to "gear up" to simply watch a movie is not my idea of relaxing entertainment.

[Neil]

3D doesn't excite me in the slightest, having to "gear up" to simply watch a movie is not my idea of relaxing entertainment.

"Gear up" being managing to move your right arm from your waste to your head, once, to put a pair of light plastic glasses on? Christ, how relaxed do you demand to be? Are you wheeled into the cinema out cold or something? :)

-- -------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

More love from AICN - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52055

-- -------- Post added at 01:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

CinemaBlend rates 3D or not 3D for Hugo as 35/35 (for 3D) - Wow!

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or-3D-Buy-Right-Hugo-Ticket-28023.html

[Legion2213]

Technically speaking, I'm carried in...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rNMOlewSvvM/SrkLS-8PFiI/AAAAAAAADXU/pG7jhMMWi18/s400/litter2.jpg

But honestly, if I can't just sit down and watch a movie without adding gadgets then I consider it a "gimmick", not a legitimate way of watching a flick. Your mileage may vary. :)

[Neil]

Technically speaking, I'm carried in...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rNMOlewSvvM/SrkLS-8PFiI/AAAAAAAADXU/pG7jhMMWi18/s400/litter2.jpg

But honestly, if I can't just sit down and watch a movie without adding gadgets then I consider it a "gimmick", not a legitimate way of watching a flick. Your mileage may vary. :)

Depends what your definition of a gadget is. A pair of simple 3D plastic glasses doesn't really register on my gimmick radar as they're a necessity for 3D films.

ps: Why do you make one of your minions go in without a turban? What did he do?

[JDFP]

Eh, not interested in seeing the film at all. It just doesn't do anything for me. 3D has no bearing on it, because if I did see it I would have no interest in doing it in 3D.

Movie theaters are basically dead to me. Why spend $10-$15 to see a film (and then with the prices for popcorn and sodas - forget about it!) and have to be around other people and all that noise when I can wait 4 months and rent it for $1 (or less) and watch it on my 50" plasma? Perhaps instead of adding gimmicks like 3D to films they could reduce budgets to films and remove all that nonsense CGI and charge reasonable prices for people to want to be enticed to actually see a film in the theater?

j.p.

[Legion2213]

Eh, not interested in seeing the film at all. It just doesn't do anything for me. 3D has no bearing on it, because if I did see it I would have no interest in doing it in 3D.

Movie theaters are basically dead to me. Why spend $10-$15 to see a film (and then with the prices for popcorn and sodas - forget about it!) and have to be around other people and all that noise when I can wait 4 months and rent it for $1 (or less) and watch it on my 50" plasma? Perhaps instead of adding gimmicks like 3D to films they could reduce budgets to films and remove all that nonsense CGI and charge reasonable prices for people to want to be enticed to actually see a film in the theater?

j.p.

Snipers in the projection room to deal with noisesome idiots would be a good use of resources if they wish to lure actual movie watchers back into the theater...

http://s11.allstarpics.net/images/orig/i/l/ilnfnfo4bkdynlnd.jpg

[Neil]

Eh, not interested in seeing the film at all. It just doesn't do anything for me. 3D has no bearing on it, because if I did see it I would have no interest in doing it in 3D.

Movie theaters are basically dead to me. Why spend $10-$15 to see a film (and then with the prices for popcorn and sodas - forget about it!) and have to be around other people and all that noise when I can wait 4 months and rent it for $1 (or less) and watch it on my 50" plasma? Perhaps instead of adding gimmicks like 3D to films they could reduce budgets to films and remove all that nonsense CGI and charge reasonable prices for people to want to be enticed to actually see a film in the theater?

j.p.

$10 for 2hrs+ of entertainment? Doesn't seem too bad too me?!

[JDFP]

$10 for 2hrs+ of entertainment? Doesn't seem too bad too me?!

When you can watch that same entertainment from the comfort of your own apartment with beer and the comfort of your couch for about .50 cents an hour? Doesn't compare to me. :D

j.p.

[Legion2213]

When you can watch that same entertainment from the comfort of your own apartment with beer and the comfort of your couch for about .50 cents an hour? Doesn't compare to me. :D

j.p.

It's really nice when you can stock up on your favorite snacks/drinks/junk food and indulge in some quality movie watching (my plasma is only 42" though...still, my living room ain't the biggest, so it does a fine job!)

[Neil]

More AICN love - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52074