DVDizzy Forum

This is just wrong...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/oct ... a-jones-3d

milojthatch wrote:This is just wrong...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/oct ... a-jones-3d

I would go see them in theaters. Mainly because they are on the big screen and i've never had the opurtunity to see them in theater, I'm not sure why I never did but it might be the fact that I wasn't in existance until 1987 while the first indiana jones was in 1981 (that was when there was back up on the hoober bloob highway)

<object width="410" height="341" id="veohFlashPlayer" name="veohFlashPlayer"><param name="movie" value="http://www.veoh.com/static/swf/webplaye ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.veoh.com/static/swf/webplaye ... =anonymous" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="410" height="341" id="veohFlashPlayerEmbed" name="veohFlashPlayerEmbed"></embed></object>
<font size="1">Watch <a href="http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/categ ... )Childhood Favorites - Dr. Seuss - The Hoober Bloob Highway.mpg</a> in <a href="http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/categ ... >Family</a>  |  View More <a href="http://www.veoh.com">Free Videos Online at Veoh.com</a></font>

That lead-lined fridge will now fly right at ya!

Excuse me for one moment...

WHY?????????!

Why not? It's not like it takes away anything from the movies, and I'll be happy to see the original in theaters (I wasn't.. born when they were released )

TheValentineBros wrote:Excuse me for one moment...

WHY?????????!

Money, money, money. Must be funny in a rich man's world. Money, money, money. Always sunny in a rich man's world.

TheSequelOfDisney wrote:

TheValentineBros wrote:WHY?????????!

Money, money, money. Must be funny in a rich man's world. Money, money, money. Always sunny in a rich man's world.

Ah-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah-aaaah-aaaaaaah-aaaaaaaaah!
All the things I could do,
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world

Any donations can be made payable to the Make Wondy Rich Foundation. Either that or the Stop Hollywood Being Gimmicky Foundation.

As a hardcore Indiana Jones fan, I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand, I hate 3D conversions, and have yet to see one converted film where the effect looked as good as stuff filmed in 3D, plus the whole 3D fad is getting old and worn out anyway. But on the other hand, I'd love to see these films in a theater with a big crowd.

Damn.

Cheers,
JM

It's annoying that there's always got to be a gimmick to get people to see older movies in theaters these days. For a short while, Disney tried IMAX. And now it's 3D. Thank God for small theaters that just show older movies as they originally were. I guess the real issue is the major expense of mounting a nationwide release of some big movie.

Just Myself wrote:As a hardcore Indiana Jones fan, I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand, I hate 3D conversions, and have yet to see one converted film where the effect looked as good as stuff filmed in 3D, plus the whole 3D fad is getting old and worn out anyway. But on the other hand, I'd love to see these films in a theater with a big crowd.

Damn.

Cheers,
JM

That is basically my feeling. I'd love to see the first three in the theaters, as I either was not born yet or too young to see them. But, I really don't want to see them in 3D!

I would not mind seeing the films in theatres if they got rid of the stupid "3D" gimmick. Why does every single film released in theatres nowadays have to be in 3D? It's getting pretty ridiculous.

Steven Spielberg, who directed all four films, has his own 3D project, The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn, in the works.

This is the more upsetting part, to me. So now Hollywood is going to wreck a legendary, monumental European comic character, too?

Goliath wrote:

Steven Spielberg, who directed all four films, has his own 3D project, The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn, in the works.

This is the more upsetting part, to me. So now Hollywood is going to wreck a legendary, monumental European comic character, too?

Herge said that Steven Spielberg was the only person who could do justice to a film version of Tintin. And I agree with that. As a huge fan of Tintin, I have been years for Spielberg to finally getting around to adapting The Adventures of Tintin and I'm so excited to see it come to fruition. I cannot think of a more appropriate director for this project.

And considering the entire cast and the screenwriters are British, it's hardly going to be Americanised, even with Spielberg directing.

@ estefan: Yes, it's true Hergé said that, but I still feel comic characters can't be captured in real life action, CGI or even in that technique-I-can't-recall-the-name-of-but-which-was-used-on-that-Tom-Hanks-Polar-Express-movie.

A comic is a comic. It's still pictures, not meant to move. It's its own art form. It has its own language that can't be translated.

Goliath wrote:...even in that technique-I-can't-recall-the-name-of-but-which-was-used-on-that-Tom-Hanks-Polar-Express-movie.

Motion-capture!

TheSequelOfDisney wrote:

Goliath wrote:...even in that technique-I-can't-recall-the-name-of-but-which-was-used-on-that-Tom-Hanks-Polar-Express-movie.

Motion-capture!

I think Goliath was being sarcasticly funny as he always does at times meaning hes not a fan of motion capture, idk...for me it depends on the story....it's not my favorite type of filming technique, doesont' mean i'm against every single one, they just have to have a great story. For instance I liked Disney's A christmas Carol over Zemmicks Polar Express Movie....

disneyboy20022 wrote:I think Goliath was being sarcasticly funny as he always does at times meaning hes not a fan of motion capture, idk..

Actually, for once, I wasn't being sarcastic. I really didn't recall the name of that technique. But you're right I'm not a fan. It's just as pointless as rotoscoping.

Goliath wrote:A comic is a comic. It's still pictures, not meant to move. It's its own art form. It has its own language that can't be translated.

Does this mean you feel all comic book movie adaptions are failures through using this logic?

As some others have said, I'll take advantage of this just for the sake of seeing the trilogy in theaters. I could give or take the 3-D, but seeing a classic film in theaters with other established fans is a really fun experience (the audience at my Back to the Future screening was particularly enthusiastic).

The 3-D doesn't bother me because I look at it the same way I look at 5.1 surround remixes. They're just taking the elements that are already there and giving them more layers for a more immersive experience. After a few minutes, I'll forget the 3-D's even there, anyway. As long as Hollywood keeps bringing classic films to theaters (whether in their original form via Fathom Events or via newly converted 3-D), I'll keep going to see them.