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

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Disney's "G-Force" (2009)

Author

Topic: Disney's "G-Force" (2009)

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.

Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 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?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 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

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Pietro Clarici
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 136
From: Foligno (PG) Italy
Registered: Sep 2008

posted 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...

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.