This is topic Disney/Pixar "UP" 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=001550

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-28-2009, 01:07 AM:
 
After doing an install at one of our plexes with a digital (NEC 1600) unit and "RealD", we sat down and screened this movie - mainly to check everything out prior to opening night.

One of the better Pixar films to come out - should really attract the masses of all ages due to the two main characters in the movie "Mr. Fredrickson and Russell".

A very strange, yet growing "buddy movie" between the two characters - both become heroes in the movie...in their own special way.

Ed Asner did a great job voicing his assigned character, in as well as Christopher Plummer as the adventurer.

4/5 for me on this one..

Just wish it was in Scope - Monte
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 05-28-2009, 02:18 AM:
 
I screened this the other night and I have to say this is now in the top three of the best Pixar films for me. Loved everything about it, I really liked the fact that they didn't use alot of gags with the 3D, it made you feel more like you were immersed in the movie. The voice work was great. Also watched the Toy Story 3 teaser, which is nothing more then the characters making the sign for the movie. But it got me excited for it.

Also a side note, watching this movie in 3D never made my eyes hurt or my head hurt like Monsters vs Aliens did. In MvsA I had to take the glasses off a couple times and rub my eyes before watching more. Never had that feeling in UP!

Solid 4/5
 

---

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-29-2009, 01:54 AM:
 
Alright, before I say anything else, I should point out that I prefer 35mm over DLP, and that am I extremely critical of 3D, particularly Real D. Perhaps I should've located a venue that was not showing it in Real D, and from a Sony no less.

Also, I wasn't floored by the various advertising that I saw for Up like I was for Wall•E, but I always give Pixar a go, so here we go.

This was one of the most fantastic movies I have seen in a long, long time. If there is a group of people who know how to properly employ 3D, it is called Pixar Animation Studios. Absolutely phenomenal, without compare, above reproach. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I liked the 3D. The movie itself delivers just about what you would expect from Pixar, a straight slam dunk. While the plots are pretty straightforward and even transparent, it is always about the characters, and performs so well on that level that you could play the first 15 minutes (if I had to guess, because I couldn't tear my eyes from the screen to check my watch) and have a winner, but it goes on to continue delivering. Speaking of tear and my eyes, I found myself with tears welling up at numerous points because of the complexity and depth of the characters. I'm a manly man, too. I don't cry, I didn't even know I had functioning tear ducts, reasoning that they had atrophied from years of disuse. I thought I couldn't love another Pixar movie as much as I love Wall•E, but Up gives it a run for its money.

Go see it now, and for Pete's sake, bring a handkerchief, because anyone who doesn't have at least a moist eye is dead inside.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-29-2009, 02:11 AM:
 
Blown away. Again.

I was sniffling a half hour in. Considering the end of Monster's Inc, I can say that Pete Doctor is the best at tugging at your heart strings without overdoing it.

I plan on watching it twice more tomorrow, one more time in 3D and once without.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-29-2009, 04:23 AM:
 
It's been rated PG over here which surprises me a bit. The sub is 'some scary scenes'. Would you agree? Can I still take my young children (aged 3 and 6) to see it?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-29-2009, 05:02 AM:
 
True, the 'scary scenes' are there, but what draws the "PG" is towards the end when there are adult themes at play...and a touch of adult violence..

Yet, just staying neutral on the recommended age group...a personal matter here..

Still a great flick though - should be a winner for this summer.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-29-2009, 01:37 PM:
 
John, that is a hard question to answer. I once had a woman berate me because she took her children to see Kung Fu Panda, and how dare it be rated PG and not PG13. Clearly, different people have differing views on what is appropriate.

I, personally, would take my hypothetical children. Probably what is the most frightening scene for children is in the television commercials already (you will be frightened and affected by completely different scenes, which your kids will barely notice), and the cartoon violence is far less graphic than television shows I watched as a kid, although the impact and consequences of those actions is portrayed more realistically. I'd say, if you have concerns, go check it out for yourself first. You won't regret seeing it, and you'll be more comfortable taking your kids if you decide to do so.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-29-2009, 03:45 PM:
 
I haven't seen Up, but:

The MPAA/CARA (Classifications and Ratings Authority) says "Rating Reason: Rated PG for some peril and action."

The New York Times' Manohla Dargis, whose sense of such things I trust (though I'm not a parent), says, "“Up” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). A wee bit of gentle action and a climactic fight scene, but nothing inappropriate for any viewer of any age."

I think you're probably fine.
If you really want the gory gory details, check out the category-by-category analysis at sites like kids in mind and Parent Previews. The former has stuff like:

quote:

---

SEX/NUDITY 1 - A husband and his wife kiss. A husband and his wife hold hands and hug. A wife caresses her husband's face. A man kisses a picture of his now deceased wife.
...
VIOLENCE/GORE 3 - A man with a cane strikes another man in the head, the man falls to the ground and we see blood on his head). A man with a sword threatens another man with a cane, they fight, and one man spits out his dentures at the other man
...
SUBSTANCE USE - Two men hold glasses of champagne, and a dog opens a bottle of champagne and pours two glasses.

---

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

---

Planes flown by dogs fire weapons at a boy dangling from a floating house (he is not struck). Planes flown by dogs crash together in mid-air (we see dogs parachuting out of the planes).
...

---

quote: Carol May

---

I give it 4 1/5 of 5 stars, only because I didn't buy into the talking dogs.

---

The talking dogs were the deal breaker for you? Really?

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

---

How about the airplane piloting dogs?

---

The whole thing had a weird sense of the unreal, from the balloons floating the house, to the focus on the famously fictional "snipes."

It was definitely charming, and had a lot of brilliant poignancy... but it was all so wacky. I'd recommend it, and I'll probably see it again, but it didn't blow my socks off.

Saw it in 35mm 2D at AMC Flatirons Crossing in Broomfield, CO. Focus was annoyingly soft in the bottom half of the screen, and the rumble from Night at the Museum next door was occasionally distracting. If I see it again in the theatre, it won't be there. (I was also very bummed that the Toy Story 3 teaser wasn't attached.)
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-31-2009, 05:26 PM:
 
CINEMA: Kerasotes Star Cinema 16 and IMAX, Council Bluffs, IA
AUDITORIUM: 11
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/RealD 3-D
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

I buy my ticket ($6.50! Not bad), go to the auditorium, sit down, notice all the other patrons fiddling with their RealD glasses, get up, go back to the ticket desk, say "You didn't give me glasses", get the glasses and an apology, go back to the auditorium, and sit down.

The first thing that runs after First Look is the Dolby Digital Cinema trailer in 2D. HUH? They have a Dolby server and they went with RealD? Then the "put your fucking glasses on assholes" slide comes on and everything else is 3-D. The audience acts as if they've never seen 3-D through the trailers. Lots of freaking out and giggling.

THE PLOT: A public nuisance escapes the clutches of authority. Wackiness ensues.

As previously noted, the movie opens with a touching and beautiful montage. If it ended right there, I would have given it four stars. It doesn't, of course.

From here forward, it plays like a Lord of the Rings installment. A little setup and a long boring walk in the woods. No talking trees, though. Thank goodness.

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

---

I personally found it silly that they had so much ridiculously unplausible science at work here, yet thought they needed to come up with a reason that dogs could talk. Seriously...Why bother?

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

(I was also very bummed that the Toy Story 3 teaser wasn't attached.)

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

How much light loss does the RealD polarizer cause?

---

As Monte points out, they have two models now. The old one would let (much) less than 50% of the light go through. With the glasses on, the perceived brightness is a little less than about 20% of the one the same projector/screen would produce in 2D.

The new one is almost (but not quite) twice as bright as the old one.

It IS a huge light loss in 3D applications. Some systems, like Dolby, lose even more light ...
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-31-2009, 08:49 PM:
 
Monte/Julio, I have no idea which one is installed there. This system was installed almost 2 years ago. From the auditorium side, I only see a single polarizer but then maybe I don't know what to look for. I didn't even know there was a "deluxe" version of RealD. Nothing I've ever seen on this specific screen in 2D or 3D has ever made me think "Not enough light" until "Up". "Star Trek" looked great a few weeks ago, and the one 2D trailer they ran today also looked fine.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-31-2009, 08:51 PM:
 
I have the feeling more people are going to eventually start complaining about dimm 3D images, specially in older theaters as they start to penny-wise on lamp-life and brightness and the sparking new silver screens start to get covered with a nice coat of dust ...

And as film studios start to progressively "time" their 3D films to a bit higher light levels as they see more newer theaters hitting the 5.5fl mark ...

Imagine what it would've been if the movie was in Scope 3D format ...
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-31-2009, 08:53 PM:
 
Dave. when you go there next time, look up in the port window. If you see a dual element, "over/under" polarizer, that's the Deluxe version.

Standard ones will be just the single element.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-31-2009, 09:01 PM:
 
I know we're going off-topic, but just out of curiosity how much does it cost an early-adopter RealD theater to upgrade to the improved version?

Just to help make this at least slightly on-topic: The campfire scene with the 3D burning embers rising from the flames was an inspired touch. (Even if it was dim)
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-31-2009, 09:09 PM:
 
I don't know the specifics in pricing on Real-D (they negociate different agreements with each victim ).

Totally off topic: one cool 3D scene I shot was in an underwater cave as the bubbles from the regulators floated up and made "air lakes" on the ceiling of the cave ... Unexpected 3D effect, very cool.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-31-2009, 10:03 PM:
 
The basic numbers are:

Dolby: 10% efficient
Real-D: 15% efficient
Real-D XL: 27% efficient.

So, if you measure the white light on the screen conventionally, and read 50fL,

Then with Dolby, it will be down to 5fL
With Real-D, it will be 7.5fL
Real-D XL, it will be 13.5fL.

However, with a Silver screen process, the Real-D (or any other Silver Screen process), you only have that high number in ONE SPOT...and once you get as much as 20-degrees off of axis, it is down to half of that and long before you get to the edge of the screen, you are down to 1/10...so while typical installations will have a brighter center spot...most other places, Dolby will be as bright or brighter...all else being equal. If you follow Disney's guidelines for UP, then Dolby will be brighter everwhere since they specify for Real-D and Dolby 3D to be the same brightness in the middle.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 06-01-2009, 04:22 AM:
 
Oh, the Silver Screen curse ...

All things been equal, the different processes follow the efficiency numbers given.

I.e: if you use the same projector/screen to show a film in RealD, RealD-XL and Dolby, you get a little more than 15% the light, 27% the light and a little less than 10% of the light respectively, that you would get in 2D with the same screen/projector, everywhere in the theater.

That is to say, in relative terms, that Dolby, i.e., is almost 3 times less bright than RealD-XL. I.e. for each 10 lumens Dolby "produces", RealD-XL would "produce" 27 lumens, almost 3 times as many in the same situation, and 2D would "produce" 100 lumens.

Of course, if you change the screen variable of the equation and use a silver screen with a typical gain of say 2.4 for the RealD processes and a different screen, i.e. a high gain perleascent screen for Dolby with a 1.8 gain ... then things change.

The Dolby system in that situation would be an ADDITIONAL (aprox.) 25% DARKER than the RealD in the center spot, due to the screen lower gain (i.e. total relative brightness ~3.5 times darker than RealD-XL), but by about 25º angle it would be back to the same relative difference, making Dolby once again "only" ~3 times darker than RealD-XL in this example.

And by the time you are in the ~45º mark off-center, then the RealD system "decays" to about half the efficiency, becoming only ~2.5 times *brighter* than Dolby in this situation.

In this situation, RealD-XL would be brighter everywhere in the auditorium, raging from ~4X in the middle to only ~2X on the sides.

Dolby typically is used on screens of 1.8-2.2 gain, while RealD systems are typically deployed on screens of 2.2-2.4 gain, so this is a typical situation.

So normally, RealD is brighter all the time over Dolby when using the same projector/lamp, of course. BUT, you could use a much (much) higher rated projector/lamp for Dolby (i.e. 12KW over a 2KW for RealD) and use a matte white screen and match the brightness of a RealD-XL installation with a silver screen in the middle (i.e. following the guidelines for UP).

Then, the silver screen will by half-as-bright when seen at around 20º, while the Dolby in this example will remain the same on the matte screen, becoming twice as bright as the RealD from this possition. And by the time you are at about a 45º angle, the Dolby screen would show about 3X the light. But that's only because in this example Dolby was using a lamp that is 6X as powerfull as the RealD-XL to begin with...

But that's comparing Apples to ... PC's
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-01-2009, 09:50 AM:
 
Julio,

You are most certainly wrong here...your example presumes a constant light source and not one sized to work properly with the respective format.

The only spot defined, this far, for correct illumination is the center.

Thus, both Dolby and Real-D start off with the same center lumens of 4.5-5.5fL (if set to spec.). Dolby will remain much closer to that number, depending on the screen installed. Mine have been in the 1.5 range and curved and thus are much more uniform illumination.

Note, too, the Real-D brightness is only achieved at one seating location on one spot of the screen too. Everywhere else, it is darker.

As the center spot brightness is increased, the required lumens for Dolby is clearly at a disadvantage. Some have noted acceptable center spot brightness at 8fL and over with Silver Screen based systems. While they definitely are loosing their black levels in the middle...on average, it is probably fine since they have lost well over half their brightness everywhere else. The fact remains, with a silver screen, once you are 20-degrees off center, you have droppped your illumination to half of the on-axis level...by 40-degrees off center...you are at 1/4 the level.

In my mind, this is an arguement for making the Silver Screen processes target 14fL in the center...thus for most of the typical auditorium, you will be at or more brightness than the brightest point in the current spec. One could probably also do some digital manipulation to the image to make the center less bright and pre-equalize. Mind you, it would be funky as the illumination would vary based on seating position but on average, it would even it out for most people.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 06-01-2009, 11:59 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

You are most certainly wrong here...your example presumes a constant light source and not one sized to work properly with the respective format.

---

I believe we are sort-of-saying the same thing, but perhaps it wasn't clear.

If you want to compare apples-to-apples, then you must compare a Dolby on a (say) 4KW projector and a 2.4 gain screen to a RealD-XL on a 4KW projector on a 2.4 gain screen.

In that situation, RealD-XL will be about 3 times brighter from all positions, like I said.

But I also said that, like you are saying, if you try to match the luminance of both systems and create, say, a 6fl (center) on a Dolby and on a RealD-XL ... well, you have the SAME situation AS LONG AS THE SCREEN IS THE SAME, except that the lamp powering the Dolby should be (about) 3 times higher than the RealD-XL.

Now, the third situation, when matching both systems on DIFFERENT screens, we get the third situation which you are centering your argument around. In that case, if you use a 1.6 gain screen for Dolby (nothing prevents you from using a 2.2 or 2.4, BTW) and a 2.4 gain screen for RealD-XL, you need a lamp on the Dolby that is (about) 4 times as powerfull to produce the same lumens at the center. But, in this case, as you move around, indeed the RealD system would fall off more quickly (like I also said) and by the 45º mark it would be half as bright as the Dolby.

BUT, this is not a "fair" comparison, as you are comparing a (say) 2KW(+2.4 gain) realD-xl to a (theoretical) 8KW Dolby (+1.6 gain) in this example to reach your point of both images being the exact same brightness in the center but the RealD system falling off to almost half the light of the Dolby at 45º.

A "more realistic" approach to compare brightness would be that you set up a Dolby with, say, 6KW+1.6gain and only are able to get, say, 6fl center/3fl@45º and then you get a 2KW RealDXL+2.4gain and get, say, a 7fl center/3fl@45º. Of course, if you lower the RealD lamp even more to match Dolby's 6fl, then the fall off at 45º would be larger and below Dolby levels because the screens are different. But nothing prevents you from using a 2.4 (or 2.2) gain screen with Dolby, thus saving on lamp size and matching perfectly RealD-XL at all angles ... except that the Dolby lamp is driven almost 3 times higher. At least it would be less than 4 times higher to meet the conditions of your example (assuming both screens are, i.e., curved to their optimal geometry, of course)

You can make a Dolby look brighter than a RealD all you want, but only by the no-brainer of using a much brighter lamp. And you can make the fall off to be "zero" using a matte screen and thus beat the pants off RealDXL at an angle, but once again you must use a much, much, much brighter lamp for Dolby.

If you wanted to, you could also use a low-gain specialty polarization retaining screen for RealDXL. In this case RealD would still be 3 times brighter than Dolby and, this time, from all angles.

But your point is noted that, if you go to a theater that has a 6fl at center for RealD and another that has a 6fl at center for Dolby, chances are the one running the Dolby is using 3x the lamp size and the one using RealD will look dimmer from the sides, as it's typical for Dolby to use screens of 1.6-2.2 gain while for RealD is "always" 2.2-2.4
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-01-2009, 04:45 PM:
 
Julio,

The fair comparison is the one I gave...the only specified, currently, spot on the screen is in the center. That is the pivot point for any system...at the moment, it is 4.5-5.5fL for the latest movies.

The fact is and remains, Dolby requires significantly more light than the other alternatives. The fact also remains, Dolby's system has the best method for even illumination throughout the screen of the passive systems.

If you allow hot-spotting and also allow for over-lighting (raising the black levels) in the middle, then you can claim that Real-D and other Silver screen methods can get more light...however, until the movies allow for this (have the black levels)...you are going to get a washout in the middle.

As I said, they could, intentionally, lower the luminance in the middle of a Silver Screen system to sort of even-out the perceived illumination (for one seated in the center) and probably get a better fit for all.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-01-2009, 04:51 PM:
 
Yeah, but the movie was pretty good.

I guess I would put it about halfway up the list of my favorite Pixars. Finding Nemo is squarely at the top, followed by Toy Story 1, Cars, Ratatouille and Toy Story 2. I liked this one much better than Wall-E which is at the bottom of my list.

I was a bit turned off by the ridiculousness of it all, although all animated movies have that to some extent....living plastic toys, cars with eyes in the windshields, a cooking rat, and so on. But this seemed to go to another level -- like the guy is able to pull his house around at will and it never, like, "gets away." And sometimes the house would float, sometimes it would crash to the ground, the number of balloons lost to bullets, fire etc. didn't seem to make any difference to its bouyancy, etc.

I didn't like the talking dogs either. I also wished to know "how he did that."

I also wish I hadn't known it was Ed Asner doing the old guy's voice...I kept visualizing Lou Grant.

The movie looks great. Every time it showed the balloons I was wowed. I didn't miss the 3-D at all, but do wish the movie was in scope.

Overall -- a good effort but not a great one. I would say 3 out of 5 stars. Am planning to watch it again and might be blown away more, hopefully.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2009, 01:31 AM:
 
OK finally saw this in Disney Dolby Digital 3D featuring Real-D Digital Christie projection or some such stupid bullshit. God DAMN this movie is dim! The glasses really eat up a lot of light! Also, the trailers were really, really loud and harsh. This theater obviously doesn't believe in running the trailers at a lower volume than the feature. Pity they are not willing to do that. Lazy.

Anyway, the movie was very enjoyable and I enjoyed it a lot! Great story that really didn't have any slow spots or parts where I got bored or disinterested. This movie taught me that I can be accepting of both obese people AND asian people! The computer animation was great, but certainly nothing groundbreaking. The visuals look like they use the same engine as The Incredibles, but with fewer effects. Then again, this movie didn't really need anything like that. It also did not benefit at all from 3D, either. In fact, I wish I saw it in 2D instead because it would have been brighter. 3D actually diminished the enjoyment somewhat, but I will be looking forward to this on Blu-ray. I just hope they don't waste space by including a 3D version with it (unless it is on a separate disc).
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 06-04-2009, 11:02 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

It also did not benefit at all from 3D, either. In fact, I wish I saw it in 2D instead because it would have been brighter.

---

quote:

---

The glasses really eat up a lot of light!

---

quote: Dennis Benjamin

---

I noticed that there were entire 15 to 20 minute segments of this film that were not even in 3-D.

---

quote: Dennis Benjamin

---

there were entire 15 to 20 minutes of this film that were not even in 3-D

---

quote: Dennis Benjamin

---

Oddly enough I was with my little ones and they spent half the movie with thier glasses off.

---

quote: Jeremy Weigel

---

This got me to thinking... Is it not possible to make the Real-D glasses without the tint?

---

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren

---

I saw it at the mighty Michigan Theater

---

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

---

taking the talking dogs thing well past them just being able to talk and instead carry out complex problem solving intelligence tasks only humans can do -like flying planes in a "dogfight." Ha ha. Yeah, I got that joke. Shit, only a small percentage of people have the skills to fly planes much less "Man's best friend" being able to do it."

---

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

---

I laughed out really loud more than a couple times. Some of the stupid yet clever shit Kevin the bird was doing had me in stitches. I think Kevin is a throwback to some classic Looney Tunes or Tex Avery characters. Doug the dog and Russel, the irritatingly positive wilderness explorer both had great moments as well. And the thing with Alpha the Doberman's voice translator malfunctioning when he is introduced made me bust out laughing the loudest. I'm not sure why that moment is so funny, but it is. Still, the big moment in For the Birds ranks as the biggest Pixar laugh out loud moment for me to this day.

---

I guess the 3D thing is the evolutionary development Pixar has introduced this time around -along with a new Pixar logo intro. With all the previous movies from Pixar you could pick out new breakthroughs in technology. Wall•E really pulled off the simulation of anamorphic photography very well. I bought A Bug's Life on Blu-ray -which also gave me a big discount on the Up movie ticket. As good as A Bug's Life looks on Blu-ray you can also see that it looks very primitive compared to a recent Pixar movie like Ratatouille. Anyway, I'm not sure what new Renderman™ technology was rolled out for Up. Aside from the 3D, I agree with that the visuals seem a bit similar to The Incredibles.

Did I mention the movie had a pretty decent sound mix to it? It grew pretty aggressive during a couple scenes. Good sound is usually a given on any Pixar movie anyway.

I'd like to see Up again in the theater. Our local Carmike theater amazingly is showing it only on 1 screen. So there is no 2D versus 3D option to see the difference. And the movie may play out itself entirely in 3D through its run there since the theater has 3 RealD systems installed in various sized auditoriums.

I'm definitely buying Up on Blu-ray.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-05-2009, 11:50 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Why does Disney need to promote "Disney Digital 3D"? Who do they think they are fooling?

---

You're kidding, right? They are fooling millions of people. There are Disney freaks out there who think anything that says "Disney" on it is amazingly awesome, even if it's stamped "Made in China" right underneath the big D's logo.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-06-2009, 10:37 AM:
 
"Disney Digital 3D" just piles more onto the "Ads that Confuse" problem. We have fake 3D formats to go along with fake IMAX. I guess this is the new norm for "digital cinema."

Even the sound thing continues to be screwed up in how it is advertised. I rarely ever see any mention about uncompressed 5.1 audio being offered. Instead the same Dolby or DTS logos often get stuck on there if any technical information is supplied at all. For example, Carmike just revamped its website. Under the showtime listings for our local Carmike location it has every show playing in DTS when in truth every show is playing in LPCM 5.1. I guess they feel more comfortable sticking a cool brand name on the sound listing.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 06-06-2009, 11:22 AM:
 
The uncompressed sound is the only breakthrough for me.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-06-2009, 02:37 PM:
 
OK, boys, this one moved me to tears. That first section really did me in. I feel about my wonderful and adorable wife much as Carl did Ellie, and the thought of losing her made me very sad. I've never been that emotional in a movie before.

Pixar never stands still. Looking at the trailers for upcoming 3-D films from a number of producers, they all have the same look. Pixar always moves the state-of-the-art. The clothing had great detail. Carl's face was very complex, not just the square one might imagine. Even the eyebrows were very well done. Every film looks better than the last. I can't say that for most studios.

Someone from Pixar must have been spying on my dog, Chauncy. He is just like DUG. Sure seemed to me that DUG was an homage to Buddy Cat, who kept calling Sylvester "George" in the cartoon "HOPPY GO LUCKY, which is, in turn, an homage to Lon Chaney Jr. in OF MICE AND MEN.

The film is well paced and never dull. As I've stated many times before, I believe in what I call the "Siskel-Ebert" rule, which states that for a movie to be successful, you must care about the characters. These are all loveable characters.

This is one of the best from Pixar. They just don't release films without good characters and well thought-out stories.

The short, PARTLY CLOUDY, is really beautiful. Pixar must have been testing some new scenic software there. Another nice effort.

I'm so glad they cast voices for character, not for "big name star power". Dreamworks would have cast Brad Pitt as Carl, one of the Jonas brothers as the kid, and Eddie Murphy as the dog. It just wouldn't have been as good.

I'd like to compliment whoever sets up the sound at RAVE COLUMBUS. These are the sweetest sounding rooms I've heard since the THX room at an old GCC. Beautifully balanced, with subs that sound like part of the whole, not add-ons. This is a much smoother system than the one in the local IMAX location.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 06-06-2009, 04:30 PM:
 
I saw this film a second time today. This time in "Real D".

Great film, even the second time around.

I tested the 3-D thing again. A majority of this film is NOT in 3-D. Not that it matters.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-06-2009, 05:16 PM:
 
It's possible that particular theater's RealD system was not set up well. Seating position is also a factor. The quality of 3D was very good throughout at the theater where I watched Up.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-06-2009, 06:22 PM:
 
Cinemark Movies 14, Mishawaka, IN
Auditorium: #1, RealD Digital 3D
Presentation: seems to be fixed!

The last time I spoke of auditorium 1, there were some presentation issues. The sound system was having some trouble with humming, distortions, and missing channels. Today's screening had none of that, and sounded wonderful. A very nice and balanced mix.

As for the film, wonderful. Pixar scores again. Films love to draw us in to the experience with big picture and amazing sound. I think Pixar has found another dimension that some really fail to capture: emotion. I was totally sucked into these characters, especially Carl. Although I'm only 27, I can still identify his longing of the past and the way things used to be. I think a lot of the time we can get caught up in the same kind of traps. It's only when we realize this, that there is more than what was, that we can move along.

It's a brilliant film. I agree that the 3D does not really do much to help the film, which I think in and of itself is a gimmick. I blame Disney though, not Pixar. I have a feeling the Mouse was pushing for Pixar to start using 3D, even though their films do not need such a gimmick. Sure, the 3D effects were very nice, but it did not outweigh the disadvantages of current implementations: lower light and those bloody glasses. I'd like to see this in 2D, whether digitally or on film (done right).

I'd rate this as one of Pixar's better pieces, especially the flashbacks at the beginning. The ending drags a little bit, and at times gets a little zany. However, I think that was the point, and it makes sense in the world of this film.

I'm highly curious to see Toy Story 3 as well, after a funny little teaser.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-06-2009, 09:26 PM:
 
Here is a link to Roger Ebert's blog review of the film. Read the comments to see what actual adult moviegoers think of 3-D.

The Ebert Blog
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-06-2009, 09:49 PM:
 
Interesting read Mike.

I agreed with one of the posters in that the 3D actually took me out of the film a bit. I knew I had glasses on, and I knew I was supposed to be "experiencing" 3D. In the end, I felt I was part of an attraction, not a film screening.

I too took my glasses off a couple times, and the brightness was far greater, along with more detailed color. Made me wish they were showing the film in 2D digital as well.

I'm curious to see Avatar, but I really hope 3D dies off, and fast. If they can do 3D without glasses, I might be more interested.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-07-2009, 08:58 PM:
 
I'm surprised hardly anybody has mentioned "Partly Cloudy," the short included with this film. I liked it a LOT better than "Presto," the short from Wall-E last year. I thought it was really pretty amazing the way it told a fairly complex story with no words. Are the animators on these shorts "in training" for work on features?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-07-2009, 11:41 PM:
 
I rarely mention the shorts because I just don't care about them.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-08-2009, 07:40 PM:
 
Joe, you going 'commando?'
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-08-2009, 10:54 PM:
 
"For the birds" was my favorite short - being attached to "Monsters, INC"
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-09-2009, 12:27 AM:
 
I am partial to "Boundin'" because it was written, vocalized and etc. by Bud Luckey, who is from Montana. (Missoula) "For the Birds" was great though and I think is about the funniest of all those shorts.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-09-2009, 05:44 PM:
 

quote: Aaron Garman

---

...but I really hope 3D dies off, and fast.

---

I'm not trying to flame, but should I take that as meaning because you don't like 3D, it shouldn't be an option for those of us who do? I can appreciate the problem if the only available option is 3D, but I've not yet seen a 3D movie in which a 2D version wasn't screening somewhere nearby (often in the same multiplex).

I guess I should start a new thread to complain about all that color in "Becky Sharp."
 

---

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 06-09-2009, 07:38 PM:
 
I was crying after the first fifteen minutes of UP both times that I saw it.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-11-2009, 07:46 PM:
 
What I really mean is to see 3D die off in its current form. That current form involves gimmicky glasses, premium price, and poor light levels compared to a 2D screening.

What really bugs me is when a awesome auditorium gets booked with a silly 3D film (not Up, because Up was GREAT) for weeks and a much better film gets bumped to the smaller, poorer house. I knew some folks that had this issue big time last summer with Journey to the Center of the Earth playing in a wonderful house while the Dark Knight did not get as great of a house.

To me, going to a 3D film is like an entirely different art form compared to 2D films...it's a different medium.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 06-13-2009, 03:06 AM:
 
Thankfully, most places that have 3D houses were told not to install it on their huge screens because of the light issues (at least we were). Having 5/14 screens 3D (of different sizes) also gives a lot of options for placement.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-13-2009, 08:38 PM:
 
And an obviously NOT-camcordered version of the short is already online here.

Damn those movie theater people and their camcorders!!!
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-14-2009, 02:28 PM:
 
I had bad experiences with both Real D and Dolby Digital 3-D movies before when the light level was very low and the projected image was dark and I did not enjoy the movie as much as I would have liked. After watching UP in 3-D yesterday, I feel differently about Real D now. So far, I saw Real D digital 3-D films at the Regal Dole Cannery in Honolulu on one of their larger screen but the Regal Pearl Highland only five minutes from my house has Real D now and that is where I saw UP yesterday in 3-D and it was superb! I suspect the difference between the two venue has to do with the size of the screen. The Dole Cannery #10 sits about 600 hundred people and the Pearl Highland has seats for approximately 300 patrons with a screen much smaller than the Dole. The Dolby 3-D at Consolidated's Ward Centre is in one of their larger houses and I recall the presentatIon of MY BLODDY VAKLENTINE 3-D Was extremely dark and worse than the Dole. The company now has a Dolby 3-D system at their Mililani 16 and I have to check theirs out too. Most of the Milililani screens are also small so I suspect the picture quality will be better but not by much because I understand Dolby does not require a silver screen like Real D.

As far as the film, UP was excellent and I do not agree 3-D was not necessary. I saw the film with both eyes open in 3-D and closed my left eye and watched a few minutes in 2-D and 3-D was much better. Why many prefer 2-D over 3-D is something I cannot understand when the presentation is flawless. Don't we see every thing in life in 3-D with both of our two eyes? "UP" without the usual 3-D gimmicks proved that good movies in the process works just like DIAL M FOR MURDER, KISS ME KATE & MISS SADIE THOMPSON did in the fifties.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 06-14-2009, 03:40 PM:
 

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

Why many prefer 2-D over 3-D is something I cannot understand when the presentation is flawless.

---

That's part of the "problem". We all see (and hear) things differently. Some people can't understand how you can not like Michael Jackson's music (or hard rock, or classic music, for that matter). How can you dispise something so "obviously" wonderful????

Some people, I like to call them "3D nuts" , are so tantalized by the film presentations in 3D they simply can't understand why doesn't everybody flock to 3D films. They just don't realize that, whatever it is that makes the 3D so visually appealing to them, is not shared by 90% of the population.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

Don't we see every thing in life in 3-D with both of our two eyes?

---

Part of the explanation is that not everybody indeed sees in (the same) "3D", as about 10% of the population has visual system defects (amblyopia, estrabismus) which hinders their depth perception to something completely different to the average experience.

Then, people with (geometrically) smaller heads (and usually the rest of the body as well), like children or perhaps some women, have their eyes closer together in space, giving them a reduced sense of "3D" during their everyday lives than someone with a large watermelon over his shoulders and eyes 3" apart.

What the other 80% of the population sees, must be something in-between what the 3D-nuts and the 3D-impaired see. For them, the 3D is cool and all, but not something to die for, spectacular, and worth it of the extra $3 if, on top of that, it also means a dark picture and "stupid" glasses.

Once the novelty wears off, and all it takes is a couple of films to get to that point, a large part of the general public doesn't give squat if a film is in 3D or not. And I wouldn't be surprised if the tendency to favor 3D presentations over 2D starts to reverse a few years down the road, as long as the 3D one remains more expensive.

Problem comes when the "people in charge" is a 3D nut. Like say James Cameron or Dreamwork's Katzenberg. Cameron spent $$$$$ in Ghost of the Abyss and (I guess) thought it was wonderful in 3D. Well, it sucked for a lot of people who couldn't fuse the images they way he photographed them (and I don't blame them with those huge interaxials). My daughter, who has seen plenty of 3D in her life, us having many 3D systems at home and many films in that format, couldn't stand keeping the glasses on during the (traditional IMAX) presentation she saw of Ghost....

You can also tell when a theatre owner is a 3D nuts because he'll have 12 3D systems in all his 12 screens ....collecting dust.

3D is not for everybody and is not for every movie. But it does have a place and it's a lot of fun for a lot of people who like to have piranahs thrown at their faces

And it can make $$$$. Specially for RealD and Christie ...

I mean, look at the current box office. You have a low budget stupid comedy nothing-out-of-the-ordinary, "The hangover" in 2D surpassing the grosses of a state of the art, wonderful, oscar worthit Pixar masterpiece in 3D.

Obviously the producers of "The hangover" didn't think 3D (which in this day and age is very easy and cheap to make) was worthit of their time. If they believed the hype that "3D films make 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times more than 2D films", then no-doubt no-brainer most-all movies would get made in 3D, as producers are not stupid and they all like to gross 2, 3, 4 ... times more.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-14-2009, 04:30 PM:
 
Julio,

You brought up some very interesting points and i am inclined to agree with you on some of them. As I had mentioned in my thread about UP, it was the first of the current 3-D film not to use the gimmicks others have used to sell the process such as object coming at you. It told a very touching story of a man who had shared his life with a loving wife and after she had passed away, would go away on a adventure with a little boy in search of a South American waterfall in his house propelled by hundreds of balloons. The thing that irritate me most about current 3-D films is the fact that most of them are animated and if they are live action are all directed to either children or brainless young people who delight in seeing people getting slashed or stabbed with a pick axe. With the exception of James Camerron's AVATAR" and ICE AGE , all of the upcoming 3-D films will all be the same thing. As much as I love 3-D, I intend to stay away from them.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-15-2009, 02:58 AM:
 
I saw the film last night (Sunday) at the El Capitan in Hollywood. While it was in 3-D, the image was considerably brighter than I normally see on Real-D systems (being in the balcony, I couldn't tell if they were actually projecting with 2 projectors or not. They did on Chicken Little. Anyway, I think the 3-D was only a slight enchancement and the film would be just as good in 2-D. The stage show that proceeded it was the lamest one yet.

The theatre has gotten a bit too splashy on their pre-show curtain openings, though, with a huge catalog of distracting lightin cues. They've also added yet another curtain to the three existing, bringing the count up to 4. Even though I believe in curtains, 4 is a bit excessive.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-15-2009, 04:39 AM:
 

quote:

---

And an obviously NOT-camcordered version of the short is already online here.

Damn those movie theater people and their camcorders!!!

---

I guess that's what happens when you make it available for download on iTunes.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 06-15-2009, 05:19 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Anyone showing this in digital 2D?

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

...this movie could have been made as a live action drama and been really good.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

We have ten of them instead of the usual five so the Academy can grant token nominations to a few films they didn't really want to nominate.

---