12/01/2004 Archived Entry: "The Polar Express 3D"
I went to see Polar Express 3D at the IMAX last night, not so much to see the movie as to see the 3D. It was a pretty good experience. I read somewhere that the movie was made with 3D in mind from the get go and it really shows. A lot of scenes look like they were made especially to be experienced in 3D. 3D generally gives you feeling of more depth to the screen, like you're looking through a window instead of a flat screen, but where the effect is most effective when something reaches out of the screen. Those shots are really nice and are so convincing that you feel like you could reach out and touch whatever you're seeing.
The 3D experience isn't totally flawless though. For the most part, it's that "faux 3D" you get when there are multiple layers of scrolling animation in a game or cartoon (and/or anime for some of you), it's also a bit like seeing a magic eye 3D image. The image layering is also a bit off, you can sometimes see double images that are supposed to be converged.
The CG in this movie is pretty spectacular. The humans are probably the best ever rendered in a movie, even better than Aki from Final Fantasy. The hair on the characters is also worth mentioning; in FF only Aki had all of her hair strands individually rendered, this movie looks like it had each hair strand on each character individually rendered, these people look so real sometimes it makes you wonder "why bother with CG?".
As for the movie itself, it tries really hard. When it wants to excite you it'll go on a 30 minute action sequence; when it has a tender moment, it'll milk every second it possibly can from it. It's pretty transparent in the feelings it's trying to evoke and it tries really, really, really hard to perpetuate the lie we tell to all young and impressionable members of our society - that Santa Claus really is real. When the big man finally shows up, he is the most f'ing scary character ever put on screen. The guy is freaky looking (I wish I could find a picture). Anyways, the movie's not really for me but worth seeing for it's technical achievements, especially in 3D.
Totally random thought that you should probably ignore: Three characters played by Tom Hanks - Santa, The Conductor, and the Bum are metaphorical representations of the christian Holy Trinity.
The only other 3D movie I've seen was T2: 3D at Universal Studios a long time ago and that was quite a bit better in that there was a lot more "reaching out" by what was on screen. James Cameron's next movie, Aliens of the Deep, will also be in 3D. Unfortunately, I won't be in Toronto when it comes out in January.
Replies: 5 comments
(these people look so real sometimes it makes you wonder "why bother with CG?")
Isn't that what they're trying to attain with CG? To have their characters appear more and more human, so that one day you may not even be able to tell the difference? Obviously, you are most likely aware of this fact Thai, but what surprises me is your question.
Think of the flexibility that CG characters could bestow upon the movie industry. Every character could be portrayed with a UNIQUE visual appearance (avoids typecasting), you don't need actors to free up their schedules so that you may start shooting your film, there's no need for stunt doubles (although I wonder if designing some would promote the illusion of reality), your characters have many "freedoms" (i.e. range of motion, abilities, etc.); the list could go on!
Posted by dAN @ 12/01/2004 04:36 PM EST
This movie isn't 'true' CG - it was all done with motion capture and laser-scanned models (or some equivalent), I believe. It's still a neat achievement but it's not nearly as impressive as if they'd modelled and animated all the characters in the usual way.
Posted by Joe @ 12/02/2004 08:55 AM EST
Whether a hamburger is from McDonald's or Nickel's, its still a hamburger.
Posted by dAN @ 12/02/2004 12:28 PM EST
dAN: My main problem is with creating a CG Tom Hanks that looks pretty much like the real Tom Hanks and is also voiced and motioned by the real Tom Hanks. There's not much point to it, y'know.
I get that CG actors are more flexible and whatever but in the case of this movie, it feels a bit more like a technical exercise than anything else.
And considering the movie cost 145 Million to make, I think it would have been cheaper to do it with real people.
Joe: They've been motion capturing CG characters since at least the T-1000 in Judgement Day. I'm gonna say, without any proof, that most CG people require either tons of motion capture or really intensive study of human movement and anatomy and even then it's never been 100% convincing. Gollum would not have been nearly as real without Andy Serkis' physical performance to back it up.
Posted by Rayne @ 12/02/2004 03:00 PM EST
sure the polar express was largely a technical exercise - but the motion capture still did allow tom hanks to play 7 characters (although, they didn't use his voice for the child ... that'd be just creepy)
besides, if they had made it not in cg, part of the beauty of the book would be lost. that magic of the polar express was always in the illustrations. cg or "cg", whatever your view on it, was necessary to try to maintain that magic.
Posted by melpie @ 12/03/2004 10:52 AM EST