FunBlog

The movie industry is thrilled with the first-weekend box office success of Monsters vs Aliens and is convinced that 3-D movies of this sort are the wave of the future. Well, I never claimed that my reviews reflect popular tastes. Nevertheless I remain convinced, based on my own experience, that this sort of stereoscopic imagery is a gimmick that actually detracts from the movie-watching experience, and I don’t think it will succeed in the long run.

I think I have figured out what the problem is, though this is just speculation and I don’t have any solid scientific evidence for it.

When you first look at a movie like Monsters vs Aliens it initially looks very “real”, like looking at a scene through a window. Most descriptions of the experience never go much beyond that initial impression.

However there is an important difference: when you look at a real scene, or for that matter at a hologram, and you move your head, the image will shift with nearer objects moving more than more distant objects. With a stereoscopic image you can move your head all you want, and the image will remain unchanged. The part of the brain that processes this kind of distance information finds this very unsettling.

When you look at a normal “flat” projected image, it also doesn’t change when you move your head, but that’s no problem. The low-level neurons that infer depth from parallax shifts know that it is a flat picture and shouldn’t change. The ability to infer depth in a flat image based on perspective cues is a higher-level brain function and is to some extent learned. (Dogs and cats have stereoscopic vision, but they generally ignore the TV screen because it’s just random patterns of light to them; they can’t see it as a three-dimensional image.)

I noticed that to avoid the disturbing behavior of the stereoscopic image I was unconsciously holding my head rigid. The strain of doing this was probably why I got a headache.

If this analysis is correct then Hollywood needs to forget about stereoscopic projection and concentrate on developing some sort of system for holographic projection. This of course will require numerous technological breakthroughs, so they had better get cracking.

UPDATE: Daniel Engber makes much the same point in greater detail. His explanation is a bit different from mine, but I think the bottom line is that there are multiple perceptual pathways that don’t work right with the current 3-D technology.

I went to see Monsters vs Aliens partly because I had a chance to see it in 3-D, and I wanted to see how good the latest version of the technology is. There have been waves of enthusiasm for 3-D (stereoscopic) movies going back to the early 1950s. In the past the enthusiasm has faded as it became clear that the technology of the time did not look very realistic and tended to induce mild headaches, and for the most part all that directors did with it was to use it to throw things in the audience’s faces.

The latest fad is to combine stereoscopic imaging with computer-generated animation, which eliminates the need to fiddle with temperamental stereoscopic cameras. Dreamworks in particular has committed to making all of their future animated films in 3-D.

Initially I was quite impressed by how it looks. The new technology has tremendous depth of field; it really is much like watching the action through a window. Gradually I became less impressed. The action looks somehow unnatural, so that I was constantly being reminded of the technique rather than being immersed in the story. After a while I started to get a mild headache. And the main artistic purpose still seems to be to throw things at our faces.

Oh well. As Jerry Pournelle likes to say, “I do the stupid things so you don’t have to.”
(more…)

This is probably the most acclaimed anime ever made. It won the 2002 Oscar for Best Animated Feature, the only foreign-language film ever to do so. It is one of the great classics of animation, and if you haven’t seen it you probably should.

This movie shows Hayao Miyazaki at the top of his form. It is a splendid example of the art of storytelling, with a main character who is both believable and captivating. The artwork is absolutely stunning. My screen captures don’t really do it justice; you just have to see it for yourself.
(more…)

Few things are sadder than a good idea badly executed. Knowing seems to have a good idea at its core. If it had a talented writer and a skilled director who knew how to make the impossible look plausible, it might have been a true classic. Instead, burdened with clunky dialog, indifferent acting and cheezy digital effects, it drifts into the territory of “unintentionally funny.”

Back in 1959 the administrators of an elementary school decided to bury a time capsule to be opened 50 years later. The kids were told to draw pictures of what they thought the future would be like, to be put in the capsule. Instead of drawing a picture, a spooky girl named Lucinda covered her paper with a long sequence of numbers.

Now in 2009 the capsule is dug up. The paper ends up in the hands of John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), an astrophysicist from M.I.T. whose lectures sound like they were prepared for an audience of fifth graders. He figures out that the numbers encode the dates and locations of all the major disasters that have occurred in the intervening 50 years, plus a few that haven’t occurred yet. So of course he has to prevent the remaining disasters from happening, assuming that is possible.

Few actors are better than Nicolas Cage at conveying internal torment and suffering, although in this case I can’t help wondering if he is tormented by the lines he has to deliver. The other actors are less expressive. In some cases the word “wooden” comes to mind. The flashy special effects are so obviously computer-generated that I was left with no feeling of emotional involvement, even while watching disasters. All in all, a disappointment.

Fail.

I guess this just illustrates the difficulty of converting a visual novel into the linear format of an anime. Kyoto Animation did a fine job of this with Kanon 2006, but here it just didn’t work.

I can see why this may have been a great ending in the original game, and why viewers who are familiar with the game may love it. But speaking as someone unfamiliar with the game, trying to evaluate the anime on its own, the ending is pure deus ex machina and feels unsatisfactory.

Which is too bad because the series is beautifully drawn and has some wonderful moments.

I had fairly low expectations for Confessions of a Shopaholic and they were mostly fulfilled. There are some funny moments, but on the whole the script is hokey, predictable, uninspired and full of obvious plot holes.

The best thing about it is Isla Fisher who is cute and engaging enough to make us like a character who through most of the movie is thoughtless, irresponsible and dishonest. She has some talent for physical comedy and might be really good in a real screwball comedy, but this movie is not nearly clever and witty enough to succeed at that level.
(more…)

While reading Paul Varley’s Japanese Culture I was struck by his account of the tale of the “Forty-Seven Ronin.” It shed new light on something that had been bothering me, the question of why the heroine of Fushigi Yugi keeps doing things that are so freaking stupid.
(more…)

This is an interesting series. I don’t think I would call it a great classic, but it certainly has some dedicated fans. At first glance, from the way it is drawn and presented, it looks like a cheerful comic series with lots of slapstick humor. Actually the story is pretty dark and intense.

It’s a story of adventure and romance, of jealousy and revenge, of passion and treachery and loyalty and courage–all of which was enough to keep me watching for all 52 episodes. However there are a couple of things about it that irritate me.
(more…)

I’m not much of a comic book reader. Occasionally I am intrigued enough by an anime to check out the original manga, but that’s about it. As a result, I never read the seminal graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons on which Watchmen is based. It seems that some people who are familiar with the graphic novel are unhappy with the movie. I can only judge how it stands by itself, as a movie, for someone unfamiliar with the source material.

For me it’s thrilling. It will not be to everyone’s taste. It is very violent, and dark (and darkly funny.) It is full of splendid imagery, great lines, and wonderfully drawn, over-the-top, larger-than-life characters.

The story is set in 1985; an alternate 1985 in which Richard Nixon is beginning his fifth term in office. His popularity is much greater in this timeline, apparently due to his decision to use superheroes to bring the Vietnam War to a quick and bloody end. However the public has become disenchanted with these masked vigilantes, and superheroics have been outlawed.
(more…)

I thought everyone followed Jonathan, but apparently the way he mixes up anime with the hollywoodism repulses people. It’s understandable…

–Author, アニ・ノート, Those Pesky Pronouns

Well, of course I write to please myself, and I take it for granted that my tastes may not be the same as yours. Still, it’s a bit unnerving to hear that this site “repulses” people.

So if you feel that the combination of anime and movies is too much like steak slathered in strawberry sherbet, let me remind you that you can bookmark or subscribe to a subset, e.g.

Category: Anime
Category: Movies
Feed: Anime
Feed: Movies