Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)

This is topic Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001437

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 07-11-2008, 12:52 PM:

In Real D 3D! I can't believe nobody has hit this one yet. Maybe it is just a bigger deal for me, since my company decided it needed to have a 2k DLP running in time to show this in 3D, and I want to rip my hair out. That is another thread, though.

This movie is terrible. The acting is terrible. The writing is terrible. The special effects are pretty much terrible. I can't believe it is only an hour and a half. It felt like closer to three. I recommend not seeing it at a public showing, because, if you are like me, you will be completely unable to stop yourself from yelling at the screen a dozen times. And it isn't the screen I'm mad at, because I just got a nice new silver screen. It is this movie, which is terrible. 0 out of it doesn't matter, because 0 divided by anything is the same thing. Infinite terribleness.

Now, here is my Real D mini review. Real D is cool. It is a cool technology, and it could be used to do some really cool things. Flashlights falling at your face and birds coming right at you are not, however, among them. There are a few parts where the 3D adds real depth and object separation. This was awesome. It probably is not feasible, considering people's fickleness, but 3D really could be a great film making tool. Real D gets a 4 out of 5, because those glasses were uncomfortable, and it has issues at the far front and far back of the auditorium.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-11-2008, 01:14 PM:

The 3D makes this movie almost interesting enough to watch. The scenes shot on practical sets work really well. The scenes in virtual sets don't. The 3D was used effectively. I just wish they did a better job lighting.

I agree with Galen that the technology could be used to do some really cool things, and I think that it will on 12/18/09.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-13-2008, 06:09 PM:

I agree..l. this is a film that you go to for the 3-D stuff and nothing else. Its equally as good in Dolby or Real-D 3-D. Heck, even as a kid I found the original movie boring and drawn out... the only thing it really had going for it was Arlene Dahl! It didn't have a very good script either.

Mark

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 07-13-2008, 08:54 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I agree with Galen that the technology could be used to do some really cool things, and I think that it will on 12/18/09.

And what comes out 12/18/09?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-13-2008, 09:25 PM:

James Cameron's AVATAR! Woo Hoo!

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-14-2008, 12:30 PM:

AMC Tysons Corner
Auditorium #6
REAL-D

While the story is an inventive take on the Jules Verne book of the same name, the only thing I had fault with was the inconsistent use of the 3D filming - there at times when the effect is used in effective over the top ways, and others that are just lost and seem like a cop-out to the filmmakers. But... it's fun and the audience I saw it with had a blast.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-14-2008, 02:32 PM:

quote:
James Cameron's AVATAR! Woo Hoo!

This will be so long-awaited and the hype on it will be so massive that it's practically guaranteed to suck. "Titanic" lightning isn't likely to strike twice, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong though.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-14-2008, 02:57 PM:

First off, anticipation doesn't impact the quality of a movie. It change the way a movie is initially perceived, but that has little to do with how good it is, or how history looks back on it.

Second, TITANIC isn't a case of lightning striking. James Cameron movies being masterpieces are more like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-14-2008, 03:06 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
First off, anticipation doesn't impact the quality of a movie. It change the way a movie is initially perceived, but that has little to do with how good it is, or how history looks back on it.

I'm not sure about that. Look at Waterworld. At the time it was The Most Expensive Movie Ever Made, and it was over budget and delayed, and the problems on the set were legendary. The media ran with that and the result was everyone hated the movie before it was even released. If none of that had happened, it might have been regarded as just what it was: A fairly good Kevin Costner movie.

Anytime somebody waits forever between related projects, it causes a problem with the hype machine. The same thing happened with the new Indiana Jones, just not to as big an extent. People will expect Avatar to be the best movie of the 21st Century, and when it comes out and is "just" a very good movie, disappointment will run rampant.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-14-2008, 04:05 PM:

Maybe hype can impact history's view on a movie. I haven't seen WATERWORLD, but you seem to have liked it. Does the media's spin on the movie make you like it less?

And as someone who hasn't seen the movie, if I were to watch it now, I wouldn't have all that baggage, and I would be able to see it for what it is, which is all that really matters.

But (to get this thread back on topic) one thing's for sure. JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH 3D has, and always will suck, regardless of the hype.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-14-2008, 05:47 PM:

James Cameron directed movies since 1984...

The Terminator
Aliens
The Abyss
Terminator 2
True Lies
Titanic

He's got a good track record, don't you think? Yes, he has a lot to live up to to follow Titanic...but I'm prepared to give him my confidence he can pull it off.

Let's hope. At least there's no way EVEN if it sucks that it will suck anywhere near as much as that last excuse of an Indiana Jones movie. That film has set a new benchmark in suckyness.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-14-2008, 07:23 PM:

There's a good example of what I'm talking about. Like Mike said, INDY IV didn't live up to expectations, so people like John hated it. But ten years from now, some kid will see it for the first time from an unbiased perspective, and realize that it's just as good as the other three. [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2008, 10:29 PM:

Indy 4 was decent, but not great.

Regarding James Cameron and Avatar, I just hope it's a good movie. I couldn't be made to give a rat's ass if it doesn't surpass the box office success of Titanic.

Some of the folks in the press will certainly be spinning everything as hard as they can to make it seem like Cameron will have failed if Avatar doesn't gross over $600 million in the United States. And those press folks deserve to be called idiots if they wish to judge the movie that way. It's a flat out unreasonable expectation.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-14-2008, 10:49 PM:

quote:
But ten years from now, some kid will see it for the first time from an unbiased perspective, and realize that it's just as good as the other three. [Smile]

Then again, maybe they won't. [Wink]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-15-2008, 09:19 PM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
This movie is terrible. The acting is terrible. The writing is terrible.

Whadda expect for a Canadian made TV movie?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-15-2008, 11:01 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Some of the folks in the press will certainly be spinning everything as hard as they can to make it seem like Cameron will have failed if Avatar doesn't gross over $600 million in the United States.

What do you mean "some?" I don't think I've ever seen a review of an M. Night Shayamalan movie that hasn't noted that it's "not as good as 'The Sixth Sense.'"

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-27-2008, 02:50 PM:

I have always been addicted to 3-D movies since I first saw them in the early fifties and looked forward to seeing this movie because it was the first non animated film in Real D 3-D. After watching it yesterday at Regal's Dole Cannery 18 in Honolulu, I must admit I enjoyed the 3-D effect very much but was bothered with a picture that was projected a little on the dark side and watching it with my Polaroid glasses, made it even darker. The production value had a TV movie feel to it but after I had put it out of my mind as well as checking my brains at the door, I enjoyed the movie very much.

-Claude

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 07-27-2008, 08:24 PM:

Claude, according to the Real D manual that I have, the screen luminance metered through the glasses should be between 3.5 and 5.5 FL. Obviously the glasses and polarizing "Z Screen" account for a good loss of light, as well as the projector's inefficiency (I have a Barco, to further suck down the light). 5.5 FL is a far cry from the 16 FL I otherwise expect to get on this screen, especially since my Real D install uses a monster 6500W lamp for a 42 foot in scope, fixed height screen, versus the 4000W I use in my 35mm! Getting more light on screen needs to be a major priority for Real D as well as projector manufacturers, and of course xenon manufacturers.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-27-2008, 09:21 PM:

quote:
5.5 FL is a far cry from the 16 FL I otherwise expect to get on this screen,

But isn't there a reason why 5.5 FL is acceptable? I thought that it had something to do with each eye getting the light separately or something. I don't understand how it works, but I thought I was told that 5.5FL in Real D is the equivalent of 16FL in 2D.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 07-29-2008, 11:51 AM:

I haven't heard anything like that. It certainly does look brighter than I would expect, but still not nearly as bright as I shoot for on other screens. Of course, we changed to a silver screen a few days before we started our run of Journey, so I only ran a couple shows in 35mm on the silver screen making it hard to know what kind of effect that is having, exactly. Even if 5.5 FL on screen is an acceptable situation, running a 6500W lamp which would be putting ~30 FL on screen in a 35mm setup sure sucks down the power for so little light on screen. Efficiency needs to come up to prevent having to use extremely expensive lamps that last 500 hours and suck down more than 30% more power in order to make 3D a viable profiting situation.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-10-2008, 10:29 PM:

FWIW: I sat through this film again today in Dolby 3-D with some friends that hadn't seen it yet and although this film still leaves alot to be desired in the story department the 3-D effect was a show all in itself. Everyone in attendance obviously had a great time as was evident by the smiles on faces as we left the room.

quote: Mike Schindler
But isn't there a reason why 5.5 FL is acceptable?

I don't know the answer to that... may have something to do with "apparent" brightness. I definately do know that the studios want to get that brightness level up quite a bit higher. The colors and density are presently mixed for the 5.5 level and any higher light levels tend to wash things out... so a re-mix for any higher level would have to happen.

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Efficiency needs to come up to prevent having to use extremely expensive lamps that last 500 hours

The Christie CDXL60 6kw short gap lamp is rated to burn 1000 hours. Its warranted life span is however about 600 hours. We have one just at about 700 hours still running just fine and with excellennt light output.

Mark

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 08-10-2008, 11:17 PM:

We use an Osram XBO DHP 6500w (I may have left out a few more letters in that name). With small exception, what lamps we get are not up to me, our ordering list for some reason excludes items that can easily be purchased from Hadden, such as said Christie lamps. I have been dissatisfied by the performance of high wattage Osrams, and would be happy to try out Christies, but it isn't an option.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-11-2008, 02:27 AM:

Maybe it's my somewhat bad depth perception (or I'm just picky)... but everytime I'd watch parts of this movie from in the booth it felt like everything in the foreground (the stuff that's noticeably "sticking out" in the 3D space) was much more in the foreground than felt natural. By that I mean I'd look at the screen and feel like the stuff in the foreground appears closer to the viewer than I would expect compared to the stuff in the background of a shot. It felt as if they shot the movie entirely in 2D (single camera) then digitally edited it to make some stuff appear 3D.

And since I thought "maybe it's just me and not the movie" I made sure to watch the 3D trailers (Fly Me to the Moon and Bolt) and the 3D look felt much more natural.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-11-2008, 08:04 AM:

Chris,

I have no idea how the film was shot although I can tell you that it costs about 10 times the initial filming cost to put in the 3-D after the fact... I agree that some of it looked exagrated and some of it looked pretty flat. Hopefully some day they will all look like the original House Of Wax, or like Hitchcocks Dial M for murder where every shot looks to have the same amount of 3-D.

Mark

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-23-2008, 03:54 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Hopefully some day they will all look like the original House Of Wax, or like Hitchcocks Dial M for murder where every shot looks to have the same amount of 3-D.

Agree 110% These films STILL remain the benchmark of how realistic 3D should look.

quote: Mike Schindler
But isn't there a reason why 5.5 FL is acceptable? I thought that it had something to do with each eye getting the light separately or something.

5.5ftL will always be 5.5ftL, 2D or 3D -- there is no magicical optical illusion about 3D that will make a 5.5ftL look like 16ftL. And me thinks the reason the RealD manual says you should get between 3.5ftL(?!) and 5.5ftL is because that's all they can get out of their system, not because that's what will make your image look like a normal, well lit screen. I can't even begin to imagine how awesomely sucky 3.5ftL looks like -- talk about not being able to see detail.

Galen obviously can see how under lit that 5.5ftL image looks with that kind of light-starved output, and he doesn't need to measure it. No one needs to call in a tech to tell them when their picture looks dark and muddy.

My big question is, forget about the shorter life of the 6500w bulb -- how about the life of the DMD? How much light energy can be safely pumped at the DMD module, not much bigger than a film frame, before it impacts negatively on the life span of the mirrors, or even threatens it? One would think there isn't a substance known to man that can remain unscathed if enough focused, radiant energy is aimed directly at it. Anything, be it film or nano-mirror, especially a few million delicate moving mirrors, will take on hellofa beating as that radiant energy is increased. We know that with film there is a point of diminishing returns where the increase in lamp wattage does not see a proportionate rise in the light level on the screen, but continue to increase the energy and it will threaten the integrity of the film passing thru it. There must be a similar point where the DMD begins to be threatened by the heat as well. At least film has the benefit of a shutter interval.