Saw it last night 2d. I was entertained, nut it wasnt what i was expecting. Should have been darker, much darker. The movie was also not a remake of the original disney cartoon, it was a sequal to it. It was interesting though
Movie Theater Alice in Wonderland
- Thread starter the m700 project
- Start date
Re: Alice in Wonderland
We saw it in 3D, yesterday. Visually it is cool, but they were bit all over the place.
One of the initially annoying things for us was, Depp couldn't seem to figure out what voice he wanted to use. It was a piece of every thing and had no consistency what so ever. Poor choices in our opinions.
Seems to me, they spend 90% of the time figuring out how to make a visual impact and the rest of the time how to sell the movie, and they let the stories go by the wayside because people will talk about the visuals more than the poor story, or weak writing.
It wasn't awful, but it wasn't great either. The take doesn't match the reality of the picture.
We saw it in 3D, yesterday. Visually it is cool, but they were bit all over the place.
One of the initially annoying things for us was, Depp couldn't seem to figure out what voice he wanted to use. It was a piece of every thing and had no consistency what so ever. Poor choices in our opinions.
Seems to me, they spend 90% of the time figuring out how to make a visual impact and the rest of the time how to sell the movie, and they let the stories go by the wayside because people will talk about the visuals more than the poor story, or weak writing.
It wasn't awful, but it wasn't great either. The take doesn't match the reality of the picture.
Re: Alice in Wonderland
Agreed. We saw it the other night and thought the same things. Depp's accent/lisp changing was extremely annoying. I'm not sure why they bothered with the dance gag either. It seemed like a poor attempt at cheap humor that usually doesn't belong in a Tim Burton movie. I'm just glad all the characters didn't start dancing at the end.
They had a good story to work with, I'm not sure why they thought it would be a good idea to try and string together bits and pieces to make a new storyline.
But I do think as a whole the movie was very visually stunning.
Agreed. We saw it the other night and thought the same things. Depp's accent/lisp changing was extremely annoying. I'm not sure why they bothered with the dance gag either. It seemed like a poor attempt at cheap humor that usually doesn't belong in a Tim Burton movie. I'm just glad all the characters didn't start dancing at the end.
They had a good story to work with, I'm not sure why they thought it would be a good idea to try and string together bits and pieces to make a new storyline.
But I do think as a whole the movie was very visually stunning.
Re: Alice in Wonderland
"Alice" is hands down one of the most difficult shows I've ever worked on. There was no time to do the crazy volume of visual effects work to the level it required. Making films in 3D is exponentially more difficult than in 2D - you can't get away with anything. "Alice" was filmed almost 100% on green screen, so everything around the actors was created by an army of CG artists. It was also shot in the traditional 2D format, instead being "dimensionalized" after the fact in post production. There were so many people who tediously matchmoved proxy geometry to match all of the actor's performances from how their hair waved in the wind to their scarves or dress. They then projected the filmed performances back onto the geometry to make it 3D.
I worked on the moat crossing sequence mostly and I would say we re-did our work half a dozen ways over the few months we were on that film for the simple fact that the MPAA kept changing their mind about them - "too gory: give it an R".
"Alice" is hands down one of the most difficult shows I've ever worked on. There was no time to do the crazy volume of visual effects work to the level it required. Making films in 3D is exponentially more difficult than in 2D - you can't get away with anything. "Alice" was filmed almost 100% on green screen, so everything around the actors was created by an army of CG artists. It was also shot in the traditional 2D format, instead being "dimensionalized" after the fact in post production. There were so many people who tediously matchmoved proxy geometry to match all of the actor's performances from how their hair waved in the wind to their scarves or dress. They then projected the filmed performances back onto the geometry to make it 3D.
I worked on the moat crossing sequence mostly and I would say we re-did our work half a dozen ways over the few months we were on that film for the simple fact that the MPAA kept changing their mind about them - "too gory: give it an R".
Re: Alice in Wonderland
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We saw it in 3D, yesterday. Visually it is cool, but they were bit all over the place.
One of the initially annoying things for us was, Depp couldn't seem to figure out what voice he wanted to use. It was a piece of every thing and had no consistency what so ever. Poor choices in our opinions.
Seems to me, they spend 90% of the time figuring out how to make a visual impact and the rest of the time how to sell the movie, and they let the stories go by the wayside because people will talk about the visuals more than the poor story, or weak writing.
It wasn't awful, but it wasn't great either. The take doesn't match the reality of the picture. </div></div>
I didn't think you did anything other than shoot, LOL
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We saw it in 3D, yesterday. Visually it is cool, but they were bit all over the place.
One of the initially annoying things for us was, Depp couldn't seem to figure out what voice he wanted to use. It was a piece of every thing and had no consistency what so ever. Poor choices in our opinions.
Seems to me, they spend 90% of the time figuring out how to make a visual impact and the rest of the time how to sell the movie, and they let the stories go by the wayside because people will talk about the visuals more than the poor story, or weak writing.
It wasn't awful, but it wasn't great either. The take doesn't match the reality of the picture. </div></div>
I didn't think you did anything other than shoot, LOL
Similar threads
