P3D Comparison - Everest / ...Deep

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

Got to see the Imax flat picture "Everest" yesterday followed by the three
dimensional "Into the Deep."  My posting yesterday went into technical
issues on the 3-d "...Deep."  Today I just want to add some comments
regarding the overall quality of these films.

Actually, I'll begin with a digression.  Although I never thought I would
say this of landscape photography, such as was the centerpiece in
"Everest," I think the addition of the third dimension really would have
enhanced this film.  For two reason's.  One, just like in "...Deep," the
vistas were often so alien and abstract, that stereo might have helped some
in establishing spatial form or voids.  Particularly in some shots showing
the climbers crossing crevasses, 3-d would have helped tremendously in
defining the depths.  With some other shots showing great range of scale,
stereo might have enhanced the sense of infinite size and space - its
"flatness" would have contrasted against the three dimensionality of scenes
closer to the camera.

Of course, after seeing "Everest," you have to marvel at the camera crew
taking even a flatty, specially trimmed down Imax camera to the summit.

"Everest" was very enjoyable for its grand vistas, and the fantastic range
of scale that this mountain represents.  The cinematography takes advantage
of the great size and high resolution of the Imax image, often showing the
impossibly large mountain along with tiny climbers in the same shot.
However, I left the theater feeling I had not seen enough of the mountain
or the climbing, and that I had heard too much unnecessary narration.

Early on, the pace of the film was perhaps too deferential of the majesty
of the mountain - perhaps too slow.  A critical review that I read two days
ago praised "Everest" as one of the best Imax films, particularly because
of the well-done human element.  But I found myself quickly tiring of the
rather lengthy, very formal, idealized, too "glossy", and really not very
informative introductions to the members of the climbing party.

It seemed that I was not being introduced to these people personally,
rather as a second-hand report from a friend.  (Of course, that's what film
is.  But good films make you a member of the party).  This sort of aloof
"second hand reporting" feeling continued throughout the film with greater
or lesser intensity.  Some of the most dramatic human events, involving a
disaster on the mountain, were related after-the-fact within the narrative
of "Everest," further weakening what could have been (and other reviewers
felt were) its strongest component.."

Everything missing in "Everest," I found in "Into the Deep."  And More.

First of all: character development.  You might think I am making a joke,
praising character development in a film about fish and crabs - but I'm
serious.  The characters were introduced naturally, as part of the story,
and they were developed within the context of the story.

The pace of the film was good, with rarely (never?) a dull spot.  Or was I
too busy taking the goggles off my head over and over again, analysing the
stereo imaging?  I found the narration unintrusive, informative, and often
times humorous.  While watching the film, the impression was like being
there live.

Humor - there was great humor in "Into the Deep."  This movie made me laugh
at times.  This was a component sorely lacking in "Everest," where all
seriousness and super-human grandeur ruled the day.

"Into the Deep" also had grandeur, drama, tragedy, love.  It had all of
these elements in wonderful balance."

Finally, if this is a concern to you, I thought that "...Deep" was a better
movie for kids.  It was visually more diverse, faster paced, joyful and sad
- but all on a level that kids can understand better.

Respectfully submitted, even though I hardly ever go to the movies anymore,




Boris Starosta

usa 804 979 3930

boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.starosta.com
http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase



------------------------------