Cool News
Info on FANTASIA 2000 and the 3-D IMAX connection
Alright folks... For me... this steps over the boundaries of cool a bit. If you go HERE you'll see that in this article they talk about how they are taking frames into a computer and screwing with them to make the movie 3-D. Well... I have a few problems with this. First off, I was in total support of FANTASIA 2000 as the end result of a thought Disney had half a century ago abou an evolving filmic symphony of images and music.... Adding and subtracting choices from the film over time.... BUT To take the original sequences and render them in 3-D sounds like some sort of TED TURNER on acid thing to do. (Not that Turner would ever consume that product) Read the artcle at that above link and tell us what you think....
-
+ Expand All
-
What makes me curious is the effectiveness possible with conventional hand-drawn animation. Normally 3D should add depth to everything, even the moving objects themselves should have depth, but if you're working with objects with no tone or depth (i.e. a character in Fantasia) is true depth possible or only layering of objects? See what I'm getting at? Think ViewMaster slides. Because they work from objects created originally in 2D, the finished product looks like a collage, with one flat object placed over another. ********* Oh, and I realise that long periods of IMAX are believed to cause headaches, but cutting the film down by an hour? Yuck. And, if they're only keeping two sequences, why not just start from scratch and release Fantasia 2000 as a true sequel?
-
Hey, all...
"Moriarty" here.
The article Harry has referred us to is fairly confusing. This was actually a topic of much conversation at ShoWest, and I was able to talk to a representative from IMAX about this exact topic.
Here's how I understand this whole thing. Only materials that are rendered in 3D originally (i.e. computer animated footage) can be transferred into a large screen 3D format. What this means is that movies like TOY STORY, BUG'S LIFE, and the CG sequences within FANTASIA 2000 can be turned into 3D movies. The conventionally animated Disney films can be shown in IMAX, but they won't be translated into 3D. Remember... there are far more IMAX screens in the country than there are 3D IMAX screens, and the two processes are not the same thing.
Is this all confusing? Yes. The deal that Disney struck with IMAX covers both formats, and there's going to be quite a bit of work done before they make any official distribution plans. The word is that Pixar is already preparing to hand over elements to the company that does the IMAX 3D rendering team so they can use all the original materials and create new prints. The more traditional 2D IMAX prints of FANTASIA 2000 and the more conventional Disney films are being prepped for a very different circuit of exhibition.
Anyway... this is all nothing to get worked up over. It's an experiment. Disney is going to retain their characteristic degree of control over their films, so no one needs to worry about them destroying their films or letting anyone else do the same.
"Moriarty" out. -
From everything I've read about Fantasia 2000, it's going to have three "encore" (that's Disneyspeak) and *six* new sequences -- not just three new ones. They have a large exhibit of conceptual art and storyboards at the Animation Studio in Florida. Looks fantastic.
-
Hate to argue with you Eternal but I think Stravinsky's music is lush and gorgeous, it has a real "visual" style to it, more so than Moonlight Sonata (which I agree is a beautiful piece but it doesn't actually conjure images). But I do agree with your assesment of the prehistoric bit being visually dull. But then what do I know...
-
FANTASIA 2000 consists of SIX new animated shorts, plus "Dance of the Hours", "The Nutcracker Suite", and "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", not three, as is stated in that article. There has not been a single shred of verifiable information stating that the film will be presented in the IMAX 3-D process (see www.FANTASIA2000.com). The article you link to is simply yet another case of a "journailst" talking out of his lower quarters. FANTASIA 2000 will be the 1st animated feature film photographed in the IMAX format, but there has been nothing written or said by anyone at either Disney or IMAX to indicate that it is being re-jiggered for the IMAX 3-D process. The journailst is simply very confused. So my advice to all is to take a deep breath and not get your panties in a wad because of this insanely incorrect article. If we all freaked out everytime we read incorrect information, then there would be mass hysteria at every weekly printing of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY. Don't believe everything you read, folks -- (especially on the internet.) FANTASIA 2000 will be a marvel on the IMAX screens, but it will NOT be in 3-D. -- JBG
-
The latest I've heard is this:
The only sequences being retained are "Dance of the Hours", "Nutcracker", and "Sorcerer's Apprentice", although some say "Tocatta & Fugue" might stay as well. Yes, that means "Bald Mountain/Ave Maria" is definitely OUT, which is amazing to me, as I consider that sequence to be not only the high point of the movie, but a high point in animation history.
However, folks who have seen Bald Mountain's replacement sequence, "The Firebird Suite", are reporting amazing things about it.
Other new sequences include "The Steadfast Tin Soldier", a sequence of Donald Duck as Noah's apprentice set to "Pomp & Circumstance", and a reportedly breathtaking sequence of 3D animated whales. -
I'm sorry, I must now open up a can of whup-ass. The only segment of Fantasia that deserves to be labelled boring is the opener, Stoccata (sp?) and Fugue in B Major, which is just abstract images. Fantasia is not the thrilling, balls-to-wall action picture at the best of times, rather it's a piece to meditate to, rather like just listening to music. ****** Now, there's another misconception that's floating about here, that was addressed earlier. This is not the "new and improved" Fantasia. It's a NEW EDITION. The old one is not going to be thrown out. This is more of a sequel. Disney always planned it this way--Every time Fantasia came back to theaters, to add a few new pieces to replace a couple of old ones. But the original will still be available. ******* The 3 pieces they're using are, I believe, "Sorceror's," "The Nutcracker Suite", and "Pastoral". The new pieces are Saint-Saens' "Carnival of the Animals", Beethoven's Fifth, "Pomp and Circumstance", Resphigi's "Pines of Rome" and Stravinsky's (yes, Stravinsky's) "Firebird Suite", which is the big climactic number. There may be a 6th Piece I'm forgetting. ****** Finally, a question. What are they going to d with those in-between segments with the conductor? Are they going to have new segments, or are they just going to cut from one piece to another? I found them a bit pompous and annoying in the original...
-
The 3 scenes that are remaining from the original Fantasia are
"Sorcerer -
It has been awile since we have had a 3d film in theaters. Seems like the last one was a Nightmare on Elm Street sequel about ten years ago. I can still remember the 3d boom in 1983 (Jaws, Amityville, Friday, Spacehunter) due to technology I guess. The 3d never works, but is only a way to sell tickets to a horrible film. And when the film comes to television the images are stretched and blurry. The only place to see a 3d film is at Disneyland and Universal Studios. Technology in film has come along way since 83', and it was just a matter of time when 3d would come back. If Fantasia is a success, get ready to see Mighty Ducks 3d, Ernest Goes 3d, and any film Disney can get someone kicked in the crotch in 3D.
-
This reporter clearly has his facts backward, as is evidenced by the fact that he doesn't even know how many sequences there will be. As several people have posted, three original ones will be kept and six new ones added. I can't speak for the 3D conversion, but it sounds to me like Disney may need to do a slightly different transferring process to have the old sequences look appropriate in a 3D Imax theater. (I've never been in one, so I don't even know how it works.) However, Disney has taken extreme care to remain true to Walt's vision and to connect the new work to the old masterpiece, so I can't believe they'd Turnerize it in any way.
-
What's the problem? I cannot see what's wrong with tampering with Fantasia. It was too long, so trimming it seems a good idea. And lets face it, it was so boring. Most of the movie was tripe. I love the music, but the images put to it never added up to me. One of the scenes which will undoubtedly not be cut, 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice', is undoubtedly, in my personal opinion, one of the most over rated pieces of cinema ever. In fact, it's one of the most overrated things fullstop. They've obviously decided to chop rather a lot, what with the running time now an hour less, and add new pieces. This can surely only improve the film.
And transforming it into 3D. As far as I'm concerned that's not a bad thing. Surely it will now become even more engrossing, or, should I say, just engrossing to begin with. Now, maybe, what was at one time a state of the art piece of animation will again become that, coz let's face it old Disney cartoons do look dated. Not that most aren't brilliant, they are except this and Bambi, but they don't have the same reality impact animations do now. -
I went to see A BUG'S LIFE tripping on acid and it was OK (but the teaser trailer for you-know-what kicked ass!!) I wish movies today werent so obviously made for the drug generation; then i could watch 2001 for the trip that it really is and not find the slow editing boring (its my favorite cinematic work of art but i do admit that it can drag when youve seen it a bunch of times). Ive never seen any other movies tripping though. However, i think the new technology craze that it is hitting the movie biz is going to make many great acid movies. I, for one, am greatly looking forward to FANTASIA 2000 because I thought the original was Disney's best animated feature (kick ass music and a bunch of satanic brooms--all right!). Now that the new one is going to be in 3D IMAX, ill be sure to be there opening night with three tabs under my toungue. IMAX movies are the first step towards more virtual film expereinces. a century from now, 2D movies will be out; everything will be virtual reality and the world is going to go insane from all the dropped acid that will ensue because of these super-duper-sensory movies. it will get to the point when movies are just brain implants (Verhoven's TOTAL RECALL is a masterpiece because it will soooooo be true someday). by then, we wont even need acid anymore because our brains will be totally F-U-C-T fucked anyway! speaking of which, FANTASTIC PLANET opens at a little art house near me next week. im gonna smoke such a fatty before entering the theater. the future is insanity >:0 "you are not you. youre me." --ah-nold
-
Having done my share of substances I can tell you that another good movie to see when you are tripping is Microcosmos.... Any ever hear of it?
That would make a good column here: Harry if you are reading this... how about assigning me movies to watch while on the drug of choice and I'll send in reviews.... Could always use a good laugh.
"So much time , so little to do"
"Wait Strike that, reverse it.."
Leave me email .. let me know/
-
I mentioned this earlier, in the article about the Disney "Masterpiece Collection" for 2000, but it's worth another shot. The very best Disney "trip movie" is "The Three Caballeros." Not so much for the opening sequences, but by the time they get to Mexico, better strap yourself to your seat. The closing sequence, "You Belong To My Heart," is like having your very own peyote ritual without having to leave your living room!
-
I have to take exception to the statement that 3-D in films was always bad. Yes, that is true in the case of the "FREDDYVISION" in FREDDY'S DEAD: THE FINAL NIGHTMARE, since they were using the polarized red and blue style. However, I have with my own eyes witnessed HOUSE OF WAX and FRIDAY THE 13TH 3-D within the last five years or so and their 3-D was wonderful. This is the type where the glasses are tinted a light blue on both sides. I understand that this requires a special lens (and it doesn't hurt to have an actual silver screen) and therefore is incompatible with today's multiplex way of film distribution. Man oh man do I hope someone invents a new 3-D technology. Maybe when everyone goes digital?
-
Poor Mr. Disney,
Now before you all jump on me, yes, I know about the nazi party affiliations, his dictatorial attitude, anti-semitist and anti-communist attitudes (he basically attacked Hollywood) and the general overblown weirdness that surrounds a famouse person. Also remember that he spent most of his life searching for his real mother, and the illigitiamcy of his life haunted him for the rest of his life.
With this said....
Fantasia was Disney's stab at art. What ever you say about it, this was his dream. He made it for himself, and hoped that others would enjoy it aswell. That didn't happen. And he was crushed. Emmotionally. Physically. Socially. He was doomed to forever make the shitty puppet children fests that we hate afterwords. Because Fantasia didn't do well, animation was doomed, Disney was doomed, art in Hollywood was pretty much, doomed.
So, to top this off, Fantasia is finally accepted, (after Disney died.), but by the druggy croud. (Nothing against you guys, do what you want.) But I'm sure Disney intended the film to be looked upon as art, not a trip fest. Also before you enter the rant of, "But they HAD to be on drugs to make that stuff." Have you ever tried animating? Do you know how many layers of airbrush applications the had to use just on one cell in that film. Over twenty. Art of this standard cannot just be made.
Anyways to keep a long story short. This film (Fant 2000) will either be a hommage to the original, and hopefully revolutionize the industry. Or, a chopped up butchery of the idea, mass marketed to those of you that said the first was, "Too long, and Boring."
In making this sequal, Disney will have the power to make film history. It's up to them, and us to see what will be written in the books.
Thylacine8 -
Poor Mr. Disney,
Now before you all jump on me, yes, I know about the nazi party affiliations, his dictatorial attitude, anti-semitist and anti-communist attitudes (he basically attacked Hollywood) and the general overblown weirdness that surrounds a famouse person. Also remember that he spent most of his life searching for his real mother, and the illigitiamcy of his life haunted him for the rest of his life.
With this said....
Fantasia was Disney's stab at art. What ever you say about it, this was his dream. He made it for himself, and hoped that others would enjoy it aswell. That didn't happen. And he was crushed. Emmotionally. Physically. Socially. He was doomed to forever make the shitty puppet children fests that we hate afterwords. Because Fantasia didn't do well, animation was doomed, Disney was doomed, art in Hollywood was pretty much, doomed.
So, to top this off, Fantasia is finally accepted, (after Disney died.), but by the druggy croud. (Nothing against you guys, do what you want.) But I'm sure Disney intended the film to be looked upon as art, not a trip fest. Also before you enter the rant of, "But they HAD to be on drugs to make that stuff." Have you ever tried animating? Do you know how many layers of airbrush applications the had to use just on one cell in that film. Over twenty. Art of this standard cannot just be made.
Anyways to keep a long story short. This film (Fant 2000) will either be a hommage to the original, and hopefully revolutionize the industry. Or, a chopped up butchery of the idea, mass marketed to those of you that said the first was, "Too long, and Boring."
In making this sequal, Disney will have the power to make film history. It's up to them, and us to see what will be written in the books.
Thylacine8 -
Poor Mr. Disney,
Now before you all jump on me, yes, I know about the nazi party affiliations, his dictatorial attitude, anti-semitist and anti-communist attitudes (he basically attacked Hollywood) and the general overblown weirdness that surrounds a famouse person. Also remember that he spent most of his life searching for his real mother, and the illigitiamcy of his life haunted him for the rest of his life.
With this said....
Fantasia was Disney's stab at art. What ever you say about it, this was his dream. He made it for himself, and hoped that others would enjoy it aswell. That didn't happen. And he was crushed. Emmotionally. Physically. Socially. He was doomed to forever make the shitty puppet children fests that we hate afterwords. Because Fantasia didn't do well, animation was doomed, Disney was doomed, art in Hollywood was pretty much, doomed.
So, to top this off, Fantasia is finally accepted, (after Disney died.), but by the druggy croud. (Nothing against you guys, do what you want.) But I'm sure Disney intended the film to be looked upon as art, not a trip fest. Also before you enter the rant of, "But they HAD to be on drugs to make that stuff." Have you ever tried animating? Do you know how many layers of airbrush applications the had to use just on one cell in that film. Over twenty. Art of this standard cannot just be made.
Anyways to keep a long story short. This film (Fant 2000) will either be a hommage to the original, and hopefully revolutionize the industry. Or, a chopped up butchery of the idea, mass marketed to those of you that said the first was, "Too long, and Boring."
In making this sequal, Disney will have the power to make film history. It's up to them, and us to see what will be written in the books.
Thylacine8 -
Poor Mr. Disney,
Now before you all jump on me, yes, I know about the nazi party affiliations, his dictatorial attitude, anti-semitist and anti-communist attitudes (he basically attacked Hollywood) and the general overblown weirdness that surrounds a famouse person. Also remember that he spent most of his life searching for his real mother, and the illigitiamcy of his life haunted him for the rest of his life.
With this said....
Fantasia was Disney's stab at art. What ever you say about it, this was his dream. He made it for himself, and hoped that others would enjoy it aswell. That didn't happen. And he was crushed. Emmotionally. Physically. Socially. He was doomed to forever make the shitty puppet children fests that we hate afterwords. Because Fantasia didn't do well, animation was doomed, Disney was doomed, art in Hollywood was pretty much, doomed.
So, to top this off, Fantasia is finally accepted, (after Disney died.), but by the druggy croud. (Nothing against you guys, do what you want.) But I'm sure Disney intended the film to be looked upon as art, not a trip fest. Also before you enter the rant of, "But they HAD to be on drugs to make that stuff." Have you ever tried animating? Do you know how many layers of airbrush applications the had to use just on one cell in that film. Over twenty. Art of this standard cannot just be made.
Anyways to keep a long story short. This film (Fant 2000) will either be a hommage to the original, and hopefully revolutionize the industry. Or, a chopped up butchery of the idea, mass marketed to those of you that said the first was, "Too long, and Boring."
In making this sequal, Disney will have the power to make film history. It's up to them, and us to see what will be written in the books.
Thylacine8 -
Lots a probs on my server. Sorry for the multiple posts.
Thylacine8 -
The NEW computer animated episodes of the new Fantasia 2000 will be re-worked into a 3-Dimensional piece since it CAN BE; CGI starts out as existing inside a fully dimensional environment like a sound stage. This will be returning to that multi-fasceted world it was origionally created in. I would imagine that there will be close to 1 hr. of CGI footage - hence the short running time of the 3-D IMAX Fantasia movie.
It's an experiment that I for one am curious to see. Add to that a nice surround sound and it should be a revolution in immersive envoronments - quite the beautiful filmic experience.
I would also like to see the other flat, 2-D work on a large IMAX screen - which WILL NOT, as I understand the hullaballoo, be shown as a 3-D piece, merely blown up to fit the IMAX screen.
Disney is cautious with all their properties and I'm sure this will be no exception. I say go for it, just send me a ticket.
mongo -
Everyone seems to be complaining about a process that none of you have seen. IMAX 3-D is light years beyond every other form of 3-D we've ever seen. It is truly amazing. Add the fact that they have the best sound systems in the business, 70mm, and 5 storey screens, and IMAX kicks the hell out of conventional theatres. Stop complaining about 3-D until you have seen an IMAX 3-D. If they do render it in 3-D you'll all be blown away. Yes, it's that good.
-
I think the decision to release Fantasia 2k in Imax is a stroke of genius. The Imax format is so superior to any current film format that it just screams for this type of programming. The end result of Imax technology and Disney animation will provide an experience that will not be soon forgotten by those lucky enough to see it. I normally hate Disney with a passion for many reasons, but I have to salute great thinking ( even from them) when I see it. Regardless of your feelings about the film, I highly recommend you experience it for yourself and then make up your mind. It WILL be an amazing event.
-
There are three basic formats for mass-market 3D right now: anaglyph (red/blue glasses), polarized filters, and a new one that uses a diffraction grating to shift different light wavelengths (I don't know the name of the format).
Not one is used correctly.
Anaglyph looks fine as long as the projection is bright enough. It also is works fine when broadcast on TV, as long as some dumbass TV exec doesn't try and stick color into the image. Anaglyph is a black and white format, and color just adds a bad ghosting effect. To my knowledge there has never been a pure anaglyph TV broadcast, so everyone thinks it looks crappy.
The polarized filter system only works well when the right and left eye images are run on two linked projectors. (Mis-synced prints are the source of the "3D causes headaches" stories from the 'fifties. It doesn't if it's projected right.) The single-print, single-projecter systems that use a beam splitter not only have poor image quality, but the image is too dim to be seen clearly.
The new process, which will work when broadcast, isn't really a 3D process at all. It is a false stereo effect because the depth illusion isn't based on spatial relationships but on color. In other words, a red apple will appear to be at a different depth than a yellow apple, even though they're sitting side by side. While it gives a feeling of 3D, the effect is too difficult to control to be reliable for 3D. (One way around it would be to bathe the set in a spectrum of light from front to back.)
Don't judge 3D by the piss-poor versions of it that are out there.
-
The unfortunate thing about IMAX 3D is the films they show on it. I mean, did anyone see 'New York: Adventure Through Time' (sorry if I got the name wrong). It was a timid, slow visually-boring pain to watch. It was about a Russian immigrant boy coming to the NY and finding his uncle's possessions. One of these was a stereogram player, and half the goddamn film was still b&w stereogram. What a waste of time. And to add excitement they had original 3D concepts like jugglers, and yo-yos. YAWN. Although, even in this piece of crap, one could see that the technology has enormous promise. ****** BTW, I believe IMAX 3D works by projecting 48 frames a second, i.e. 1st left eye 2nd right eye etc. Is that right?
-
When 3D was initially introduced, it was heralded as the NEXT BIG THING in movies, but very few films were made that were anything more than gimmick collections - stuff flying towards you, people kicking you in the face, etc. The only 3D movie that truly took advantage of the early technology was "House of Wax", starring Vincent Price. Every scene in this excellent movie is laid out to take advantage of the depth perception, and there are only a few gimmicky scenes. I highly recommend checking this one out, if a repertory theater near you plays it in 3D (usually around Hallowe'en). It's a look at what, for a very short time, was thought to be the future of filmmaking.
-
There's one other notable 3D film that was an artistic success -- Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" was originally shot in 3D. He wasn't enthusiastic about the 3D process, but it is generally thought that he used it quite well, for subtle effects rather than the stuff-flying-in-your-face cliches (the attempted murder scene, with Grace Kelly reaching for the scissors in the foreground, is usually cited as the most effective use of 3D in the film). But by the time it came out, the fad had passed, so the surviving prints are in 2D.
-
There's one other notable 3D film that was an artistic success -- Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" was originally shot in 3D. He wasn't enthusiastic about the 3D process, but it is generally thought that he used it quite well, for subtle effects rather than the stuff-flying-in-your-face cliches (the attempted murder scene, with Grace Kelly reaching for the scissors in the foreground, is usually cited as the most effective use of 3D in the film). But by the time it came out, the fad had passed, so the surviving prints are in 2D.
-
I think that this is pretty
exciting. There are quite a few
companies that do 2-d to 3-D conversions ,which looks pretty damn good these days. With the computer as the tool, roundness and extended images look completely natural. I believe that there has been some talk about a 3D attraction using lcd shutter glasses. No need for a silver screen, polarizing lenses, synchronized images( just alternating frames L-R-L-R). I'm pretty sure that with digital projection we will see the return of 3D. See www.dddesign.com for tons
of 3D links and info. There is quite the scene growing. There is an IMAX 3D theatre in Orlando, CA
which I'm headed towards this weekend with the woman and child. This is good news! -
Yes, "Dial M For Murder" was in 3D, and it was released flat. But I know for a fact that a 3D version exists, because I worked at the Tiffany Theatre in Los Angeles in 1979 when we showed it in full 3D with linked projectors. I believe it was shot in 3-strip Technicolor (I may be wrong on this) and if it was that means that each frame of the film was recorded on six cameras! By the way, another excellent use of 3D was in Jack Arnold's "It Came From Outer Space." I was lucky enough to see a 16mm anaglyph print in 1985. It was such a rare find that I got a world-famous scientist and the head of the Griffith Park Observatory (both big-time SF fans) sitting on the floor of my ratty apartment wearing 3D glasses and dodging alien death rays.
-
Yes, "Dial M For Murder" was in 3D, and it was released flat. But I know for a fact that a 3D version exists, because I worked at the Tiffany Theatre in Los Angeles in 1979 when we showed it in full 3D with linked projectors. I believe it was shot in 3-strip Technicolor (I may be wrong on this) and if it was that means that each frame of the film was recorded on six cameras! By the way, another excellent use of 3D was in Jack Arnold's "It Came From Outer Space." I was lucky enough to see a 16mm anaglyph print in 1985. It was such a rare find that I got a world-famous scientist and the head of the Griffith Park Observatory (both big-time SF fans) sitting on the floor of my ratty apartment wearing 3D glasses and dodging alien death rays.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 188 total posts 188 posts
- Tom Cruise Saddles Up For A Remake Of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN!! -- 126 total posts 124 posts
- A Fire Definitely Rises In The New DARK KNIGHT RISES One Sheet!! -- 215 total posts 109 posts
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 122 total posts 108 posts
- Mark Millar Offers Some Interesting Insight Into The KICK-ASS Movie Sequel!! -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- Quint sees some DJANGO UNCHAINED footage at CANNES!!! -- 325 total posts 94 posts
- SPOILER ALERT! AICN COMICS/POPTARDS PODCAST: JUSTICE LEAGUE! DANCER! INCREDIBLE HULK! HARDCORE! NEW CRUSADERS! INVINCIBLE IRON MAN! DANGER CLUB! -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- When there’s no more room in Hell The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will walk the earth. -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- Stay Away From The Creepy Girl Alone In The Parking Lot For THE POSSESSION's Poster!! -- 41 total posts 39 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 35 total posts 35 posts