Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Disney's "G-Force" (2009)

This is topic Disney's "G-Force" (2009) 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=001570

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-24-2009, 07:39 PM:

Definitely kiddie fare for next summer kid show series. Good live action 3D effects - not the typical "in your face" with some of the cheaper made productions.

Decent amount of one-liners to be had of course...
...but, it won't last long-"legs" will drop off real quick.

...but the tackiness of using the "letterbox" format for a 3D Flat 1998 release is definitely not it!

They definitely should have used the 3D 2048 Scope format that the 2D film releases are using to make it more entertaining.

1/5 on this one. Would have given it a "2" if they used the scope format...

-Monte

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-24-2009, 11:45 PM:

CINEMA: Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons, Sandy, UT
AUDITORIUM: 15
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/RealD
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Two stars (out of four)

Guy Behind Me is trying WAY too hard to be buds with his kid. The kid is completely ignoring him. Must be a divorcee. All the guy is really accomplishing is annoying me.

The "Toy Story/Toy Story 2" 3-D double feature trailer was awesome. Nice use of the letterbox frame to drive the 3-D point home.

THE PLOT: An evil government agency tries to obstruct capitalism. Wackiness ensues.

So this was supposed to be cute and funny, right? Because all of the funny parts were obviously in the trailer. There wasn't any more funny here at all.

If anything, the movie took itself far too seriously.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 07-27-2009, 07:30 PM:

I only saw/handled this in 2D (and I didn't enjoy it at all) but the 3D version is flat & letterboxed? I'm assuming that would be to get more light on screen, eh?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-27-2009, 07:39 PM:

quote: Jeremy Jorgenson
but the 3D version is flat & letterboxed?

Yep, and kinda heard that Cameron's "Avatar" will be released the same way..flat in letterbox format for 3D and 'Scope for 2D film releases.

Only thing I can think of why of this letterbox concept is that the flat digital presentations fits within the 1080 pixel height, HD resolution requirements, whereas the 'scope digital presentations falls below the 1080 HD, which is around 853 pixels high for 2k releases.

-Monte

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-27-2009, 07:56 PM:

If they're going to continue with this concept of Scope film 2D and Flat digital 3D, why the hell didn't they work out a better way to project the 3D movie in the scope format?

It seems ridiculous to me that we're all being urged to go Digital 3D as it's SO fantastic, yet there are OBVIOUSLY limitations to the system so much so that directors are happier with a small screen letterboxed (FFS!) to offset those limitations.

How sucky is that?

Has anyone said "fuck it" and just run G-Force in 2.40:1 anyway? I'm sure tempted.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 07-27-2009, 07:58 PM:

I haven't seen the film but I understand the purpose of the letterboxing in the flat image is to break the edge of the frame "barrier" that mars the 3D effect in almost every 3D film. The plan is to actually make if look like things are protruding from the screen into the room by having them not only come toward you but also above and/or below the visual limitation of the frame - thus creating the illusion that they are reaching through screen. Personally I think it's a very creative idea.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-27-2009, 08:08 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
I understand the purpose of the letterboxing in the flat image is to break the edge of the frame "barrier" that mars the 3D effect in almost every 3D film.

I assume when you say that you're not referring to IMAX 3D 'cos there are no such issues with that format.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 07-28-2009, 04:03 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Only thing I can think of why of this letterbox concept is that the flat digital presentations fits within the 1080 pixel height, HD resolution requirements, whereas the 'scope digital presentations falls below the 1080 HD, which is around 853 pixels high for 2k releases.

The reason for doing the letterbox scope-in-flat frame is that there are several 'gimmicky' effects where there are objects (mostly sparks, glass shards, and other debris) that is supposed to appear to 'come out of the picture and fall to the ground' (visible in the black areas of the image).

I agree that this should have been just done in either 3D scope or straight 3D flat without the letterboxing.

-Aaron

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 08-24-2009, 02:36 PM:

quote: Aaron Sisemore
(...) The reason for doing the letterbox scope-in-flat frame is that there are several 'gimmicky' effects where there are objects (mostly sparks, glass shards, and other debris) that is supposed to appear to 'come out of the picture and fall to the ground' (visible in the black areas of the image)(...)

Does this happen *really* often?
It's going to be my first 3D movie when it opens in Italy next month, and since we'll be showing it on a non-masked 2.35 screen I'm very tempted to set it up in Scope and be done with it.
This "Flat on Scope" thing is completely idiotic for CIH rooms (which are the vast majority here), I hope it doesn't become a trend...

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-24-2009, 10:55 PM:

Hi Pietro

I agree. Try it in 1.85 and then in 2.39 and see what you think. Try and find a spot where this dumb effect happens.