|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Gravity
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 10-10-2013 10:12 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I do agree with Terry, that they seem have a better marketing department than Dolby. But then again, it is hard to compare Dolby to IMAX. IMAX is more like THX in the sense that it's a concept. And unlike those other 2 or 3-letter acronyms those multiplex chains are inventing themselves, they do have exposure.
There a few marketing things that set IMAX apart from Atmos. I can only speak of my area but an IMAX movie in digital theaters do not have commercials before the coming attractions, there are only IMAX trailers, and then the IMAX countdown ad. Right from the start it is just IMAX and IMAX only. Nothing at all to confuse customers.
With Atmos, the Atmos ad gets lost in everything, there are so many freaking commercials and ads before the feature presentation ad that the Ultra AVX ad shows up and then the Dolby Atmos ad shows up. Wait? Did I just pay extra to see the movie in the Ultra Audio Visual Experience (UltraAVX) and if I did then what the heck is Atmos then?
Visit IMAX or ReelD.com and they both support the movies that are currently playing in those formats, they also support the new upcoming movies as well. I Googled Dolby Atmos and the main for Atmos comes up and you have to go into a few menus before you get to the movie list and the link to the movie website or IMDB.com. It seems very amateurish to for a big company like Dolby.
There were a few posters advertising Dolby Atmos and there were a couple of ads here and there inside the cinema lobby. For Wolverine they even gave away white Dolby Atmos t-shirts. So there is some marketing for it, but it is not very good.
As much as I loved Gravity in Atmos, I don't see Atmos succeeding.
If Atmos is to succeed, Dolby will have to market the format within the trailers of the movies as well as in print ads and posters. My local television advertises movies with "See it in IMAX, Ultra AVX and other large formats" this is the approach Dolby will need. Perhaps even some sort of exclusive for some movies, but I think that will be very hard to do, looking back at DTS and SDDS, Universal and SONY movies were elusively in those formats which no doubt helped both of those brands compete with Dolby at that time.
Dolby was smart to obtain the naming rights to the former Kodak Theatre, this was a right step in the right direction. For the multiplex, I am sure Dolby could market a something like a Dolby Atmos 3D Cinema, that could succeed.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-11-2013 12:47 PM
quote: Lyle Romer
First on the technical stuff which did take away from the film for me. If you're going to make it science fiction, don't use real stuff and then do things that are completely unrealistic.
Yeah, it did occur to me right from when the movie's first catastrophe hit that all those different orbiting sites (Hubble, ISS, the Chinese Tiangong) weren't positioned so close together in reality. The close proximity of all three made it seem like space agencies across the planet were working on building an orbiting town of sorts.
Satellite orbiting "belts" are positioned at a number of different altitudes and locations in part as an insurance policy against the very disaster this story dramatizes. I still found the story fascinating, entertaining and thought provoking. There is a lot of space junk agencies like NASA must track.
Back in high school I wrote a term paper about how a rouge nation or terrorists equipped with good enough rockets could lay waste to our satellites. Launch a rocket with a payload of ball bearings, dust and other kinds of trashy debris. Sling-shot it around the moon and back to earth in an ideal retro-geosynchronous orbit. Release the garbage and let it trash anything going the opposite direction in that orbit. It would be pretty easy to do if you didn't have any satellites of your own in that orbit or care about the political consequences.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
There a few marketing things that set IMAX apart from Atmos. I can only speak of my area but an IMAX movie in digital theaters do not have commercials before the coming attractions, there are only IMAX trailers, and then the IMAX countdown ad.
That's theater chain policy, not anything to do with IMAX.
I've been in multiplex theaters, Cinemark for instance, that ran a lot of trailers and even commercials before an IMAX movie. That sort of thing is very easy to do with digital projectors by the way. When I watched The Dark Knight Rises in 15-perf 70mm film projection Cinemark's IMAX theater only ran the movie. Nothing else would fit on the film platter.
Warren Theaters has a policy of not showing TV commercials and loads of trailers before the feature. At most, you'll see one or two "attached" movie trailers that came with the DCP. It doesn't matter whether the movie is in one of their standard theaters, one of their IMAX digital theaters or their director's suite screening rooms. IMAX doesn't make them do that. They had that policy before ever starting to do business with IMAX.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
With Atmos, the Atmos ad gets lost in everything, there are so many freaking commercials and ads before the feature presentation ad that the Ultra AVX ad shows up and then the Dolby Atmos ad shows up.
Again, that's theater chain policy and nothing to do with sound/projection formats. At least you got to see the Atmos trailer. Some chains, such as Regal, don't even run any sound format trailers. That problem dates back to the 1990s. It's customary for any theater chain to run their pre-show program of movie trailers, policy/snack counter snipes and even TV commercials. The better theater chains don't subject the audience to 20 minutes or more of that shit. It's flat out crazy for anyone to expect a company such as Dolby to mandate limits on what a theater chain can do with its pre-show program.
Harkins Theaters didn't hammer me with a half hour of trailers and commercials on the front of Gravity. In their pre-show they had the big curtain-opening with their Harkins Cine Capris logo. They played, I think, 3 or maybe 4 movie trailers and their branded feature presentation snipe. Then they played the Dolby Atmos Unfold trailer directly in front of the movie. There's nothing wrong with that approach. It's not any different from the old days of seeing a THX trailer and DTS/Dolby Digital trailer directly in front of the movie.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Visit IMAX or ReelD.com and they both support the movies that are currently playing in those formats, they also support the new upcoming movies as well.
The average movie-goer will never visit those web sites.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I Googled Dolby Atmos and the main for Atmos comes up and you have to go into a few menus before you get to the movie list and the link to the movie website or IMDB.com.
Your web browser sucks then.
In Google Chrome, when I type "Dolby Atmos" in the address bar (omnibox) I get Dolby Atmos' movie page at the top of the search list. The Dolby web site navigation structure isn't the greatest, but it's still is fairly simple. The theater locator map is easy to find. And unlike IMAX, Dolby actually says specifically what Dolby technology each theater supports. IMAX prefers keep visitors in the dark, never saying if a theater is equipped for IMAX film projection or HDTV resolution video projection.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
If Atmos is to succeed, Dolby will have to market the format within the trailers of the movies as well as in print ads and posters.
Dolby Atmos is starting to appear on some movie posters and end credits. But it needs to be visible in more places, like the credits on movie trailers and TV commercials. Theater chains have their own roles to play in hyping IMAX, RealD, Dolby3D, Dolby Atmos, THX, etc.
Word of mouth will eventually help Dolby Atmos. It is a far better sound format than the plain 5.1 system IMAX uses. Atmos can be used as a piece of leverage for movie theater chains who don't want to buy into the IMAX thing. As I said earlier, if I had a choice between a theater with dual 4K projectors and Dolby Atmos versus an IMAX-D theater, I'd absolutely be choosing the non-IMAX site.
Make no mistake about it, IMAX absolutely needs this new dual 4K laser projection system they've been spouting vaporware talk about to work out great. IMAX' current dual 2K DLP setup is already being out-classed by other alternatives that don't require the expense of buying into the IMAX brand. IMAX' sound system is out of date with 7.1 LPCM surround in standard theaters and the newer alternatives like Barco 11.1 and Dolby Atmos. IMAX can suffer the same fate as THX if they keep doing things business as usual. For me, personally, the only draw IMAX has for me is 15-perf 70mm projection, and IMAX is trying its best to phase out that film system that made the IMAX name mean something in the first place.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-11-2013 05:55 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Back in high school I wrote a term paper about how a rouge nation or terrorists equipped with good enough rockets could lay waste to our satellites. Launch a rocket with a payload of ball bearings, dust and other kinds of trashy debris. Sling-shot it around the moon and back to earth in an ideal retro-geosynchronous orbit. Release the garbage and let it trash anything going the opposite direction in that orbit. It would be pretty easy to do if you didn't have any satellites of your own in that orbit or care about the political consequences.
I don't think it will be easy to get anything into retro-geostationary orbit, at least for a whole while. And you probably need a lot of debris, which needs to be carefully placed so it stays in orbit. And then again, the chances of hitting one or two satellites will probably be quite good, but to hit a lot of them, it will still be a very lucky shot. It's still like randomly firing bullets in the dark on a very small target.
This is also one of the problems in the movie, together with this one: The debris field started in an orbit below and moved up. If it moves up, why is it hitting again after 90 minutes?
quote: Lyle Romer
I'm also confused as to why they lost contact with the ground. While there are areas that require TDRS satellites to communicate, much of the time they have line of sight to Houston.
While it might probably be possible to capture the broadcasts from the spacesuits without the shuttle acting as relay, I don't think those suits would be capable of receiving ground communications directly.
The communications systems in IIS might be damaged beyond repair and while inside the Chinese station, there simply was no time for any chatter. The Soyuz had some working communications systems, as it was capable of communicating with somebody in China...
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
I'm putting a quote tag into a Spoiler tag here, let's see how that turns out... quote:
The problem is that once it was clear that Sandra Bullock would survive it turned into something along the lines of James Bond in space and lost all sense of realism. That's fine for James Bond because it doesn't take itself seriously but it was a huge problem here.
I've got my own little theory here, so consider this: Maybe she didn't survive? Maybe she died right there in that Soyuz capsule and the reason why everything turned a bit "James Bond" was because it did only happen in her (dying) mind, just like Clooney stepping back into that same capsule.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
With Atmos, the Atmos ad gets lost in everything, there are so many freaking commercials and ads before the feature presentation ad that the Ultra AVX ad shows up and then the Dolby Atmos ad shows up. Wait? Did I just pay extra to see the movie in the Ultra Audio Visual Experience (UltraAVX) and if I did then what the heck is Atmos then?
All D-IMAX locations around here show both commercials AND non-IMAX trailers. The new, local Atmos house around here shows commercials and trailers and then shows not only one but two Atmos trailers. The first one is "Amaze", the second one "Unfold". The "Unfold" trailer plays at such a volume, that you almost get blown out of your chair. The raw bass that this trailer produces, beats anything I've ever heard from D-IMAX and at a clarity and dymanic range D-IMAX can only dream of. People are actually looking at each other after the trailer and the WOW is clearly on their faces. Compare that to this: Every time that stupid "IMAX theater optimization cross-check" trailer plays, I'm inclined to cover my ears...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-12-2013 02:32 AM
Finally got around to seeing this tonight. (Finally, as in one week later. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
I didn't bother with Atmos, even though I wanted to see it in Atmos. Every Atmos auditorium within any reasonable driving distance is shitty because people are too cheap to install masking...and no way can I watch a movie like that and actually enjoy it. All of that IMAX, XD, ATX, AVX, HDX and XXX nonsense sucks because to my knowledge NONE of them install simple masking. Yes masking...something that is required by the DCI specifications and is a mandatory aspect of showmanship. You people are doing it wrong! ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
So I saw it in 5.1 and even in 5.1 I could tell they spent quite a bit of time moving things around in the sound field. So kudos for that, but some sequences were a bit "noisy", meaning the overall tone could've been tweeked a bit. Some of this was equalization in the mix but other minor issues was simply "too many" sounds. For example, a shot of 40 people walking across a street does not sound realistic if 40 people's footsteps are foley'd into the mix. However putting 6-8 people's footsteps into the mix does sound realistic. A few spots of Gravity suffered from "too much" of this. Sometimes, less is more.
From a sound aspect "in space", I found the opening scene from Contact far more impressive than the opening scene from Gravity. I have a feeling that issue was caused by the desire to place too many objects into the Atmos mix (hence my footsteps point above).
I did not care for the music score in this. I understand the intention, but I found it more "musical noise" than music.
A note of clarification on my sound comments. When I judge a sound mix I judge it in two ways. First and foremost I judge it with one ear. Literally, I throw out ALL steering of the sound and judge it by "how would this SOUND to a person with normal hearing in one ear, but fully deaf in the other?" Second comes the steering and placement. In other words, I would rather watch a movie well mixed in mono than one with lots of movement to the sound that just didn't "sound" that good.
3D or 2D? Well, being that I hate 3D, I opted for good old fashioned realistic 2D. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif) Unfortunately that's where a problem occurred. Watching this movie in 2D was distracting at MANY points because it was obvious they were more worried about the 3D gimmick. As a result, many of the special effects just didn't hold up in 2D as they looked like bad blue screening. ![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif) Then again had I watched this in 3D, I would've been constantly reminded that I was watching a 3D movie because of the gimmicks as opposed to getting lost in the movie and forgetting that I was watching a movie (which just isn't possible with 3D).
Also I'm well aware of what the title of the movie was. When it was over, I did not need to be reminded of it at the beginning of the end credits. Furthermore I did not need to be reminded of it AGAIN partway into the credits. Really??? I walked out before the end of the credits, but I have a feeling it was the last thing in the credit roll too. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Regardless of the above nitpicks, I give the movie itself 4 out of 5 stars. I give the overall sound mix 3.5 out of 5 stars and the object placement in the sound field 5 out of 5. As Manny said, it did fold down nicely to 5.1
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-12-2013 05:28 AM
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, regarding your theory of what happened to Bullock at the end, the ending is about transformation. It is a rebirth of her.
Yeah, but that’s only at the very end of the movie, after she has landed back on earth and narrowly avoided drowning. And in this case, it would be a rebirth in the metaphorical sense, after surviving all the stuff she’s gone through.
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
quote: Lyle Romer
I like your spoiler thought. Especially since that is what would really happen (although much sooner).
If you’re going down that route, it is not entirely clear where it would have started, but I think that this scene would be the most obvious point in the story. And now I’m going to put a potential spoiler inside a spoiler: Just like it was clear in Vanilla Sky, that the “split” happened at the point where those Vanilla Skies first appeared, but in that case the movie explained itself, it would, IMHO, have been better if it didn’t do that in such detail (in that way, it could’ve improved on the original).
quote: Mike Blakesley
A lot of people call this "LieMAX" but to me a better word would be "WideMax." After all, it is still just as wide as a standard Imax picture. (But what if the movie is "flat?" Is the picture floating in the middle of the screen?) Anyway, the unmasked top and bottom of the screen were distracting. I'm amazed that a company that's claiming to deliver "the ultimate movie experience" would leave out such a simple detail.
I guess this was a former IMAX MPX 15/70 location with a 1.33:1 screen? In that case, you’re wasting about 1/2 of the available screen with scope... The "new installs" usually have a screen with a 1.77:1 aspect ratio. A flat movie usually fills the whole screen, they probably crop the left and right edges of the image to fit on screen.
Flat movies on those 1.33:1 screens fill it from left to right, so there is still some unused screen at the top and the bottom, but it is obviously less. I don't think Digital IMAX installations are even capable to fill the entire 1.33:1 "classic" IMAX screen.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I was kind of underwhelmed by the sound. I thought it would be louder than it was. It sounded good, but not amazingly so.
Those converted 15/70 locations usually don’t sound as loud as the "new installs". I guess that’s because they not only left the screen, but also most the old sound system in place.
quote:
All of that IMAX, XD, ATX, AVX, HDX and XXX nonsense sucks because to my knowledge NONE of them install simple masking. Yes masking...something that is required by the DCI specifications and is a mandatory aspect of showmanship. You people are doing it wrong!
While I fully agree that you should use proper masking, what I don’t understand is: none of those MegaTHXD theaters around you has a native scope screen? Since everything has gone digital, masking has become a luxury and I’m choosing theaters based on the aspect ratio of the movie. Luckily, the local SuperHDXX theater decided to install a scope screen (alas without movable masking) for which I’m very grateful.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markus Ito
Film Handler
Posts: 27
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 10-12-2013 03:16 PM
Cinema: Arclight La Jolla
Format: 3D Xpand, Dolby Atmos
Presentation Problems: None
Rating: 5/5
This was an incredible movie. Yes, there were some stretches when it came to the position of the ISS, Hubble, etc., but they didn't detract from the plot. The premise it not entirely unimaginable (remember the Chinese shot up one of their own satellites and I think doubled the amount of space junk in orbit) and is plausible through extremely bad luck. The pacing was good I think they were wise to limit it to 90 minutes.
The 3D looked good. There were times when I forgot I was watching it in 3D, but was reminded when something started floating at the screen. Overall I think that it certainly added to the experience but I would have to see the 2D version to make any definitive comment about its efficacy.
Dolby Atmos is what made this film particularly enjoyable. Even before the film started, just listening to the Atmos trailer was enough to make me want to see it a second time. I think the weightless nature of space lends itself very well to the object-oriented sound positioning that Atmos employs. Of the movies I have seen in Atmos, I think this has the best implementation of it so far. I thought the music score was well done and reminded me of some similar scenes in Apollo 13.
Definitely a film to go and see. I'm interested to see what comes of the Academy Award rumors, but this definitely deserves several nominations.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stu Jamieson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 524
From: Buccan, Qld, Australia
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 10-12-2013 07:51 PM
I wish we had Atmos here in Oz. I think there's only one cinema in Melboring that has it.
"Prolific" is not a word readily assigned to Mexican director, Alfonso Cuarón. Gravity is only his third feature since his "foreign" hit, Y Tu Mamá También, from 2001. And there's been a lengthy seven year gap since his last feature, the excellent Children of Men. But Cuarón has a reputation for quality cinema (even his Harry Potter entry is regarded as one of the best) and so it is that Gravity arrives with an expectation of excellence.
Described widely as a sci-fi film, in reality there is little (if any) science fiction in it. Rather, Gravity is a solidly entertaining space disaster flick which has more in common with The Poseidon Adventure than 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is not a criticism, however, as there are few better breathtaking, seat-of-your-pants survival thrillers than Cuarón's space race against time.
Cuarón brings his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lunezki, with him from Children of Men and, as in that film, the camera work here is suitably impressive. The many tracking shots are nothing short of gobsmacking: floating freely about space, shifting seamlessly between 3rd and 1st person perspectives - the film is almost one long tracking shot.
There are problems, however, which mar this piece of cinematic near-perfection. In it's single-minded mission to pile thrill upon thrill, the film does stray at times a little far from reality. Some cinematic licence is expected, of course, but given that Cuarón strives so hard to look authentic, these lapses are mildly disappointing nonetheless. The film's final act, in particular, stretches credibility to near breaking point, thus foiling Cuarón's attempt to deliver a masterpiece.
So, a masterpiece it is not, but it comes oh so close. Definitely compelling viewing.
8.5 out of 10
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
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