Originally Posted by Health Nut
I already watched Hugo. I'd have to disagree. Also, its not just about motion, it is about tactile. That is a really lame response. There are plenty of scenes that would benefit this coding this movie. Besides, as I have stated before, it is an advantage to code movies with less action as well becasue the several scenes that have action, have more of an impact than movies like G.I. Joe where you get hammered the entire movie and become desensitized to some degree.
Anyway, I don't like the response, or the reason given. Besides, it is that much faster to code if they feel that way.
There is more than enough action in Hugo to justify the coding. Maybe we should all list the dumb movies they coded in the past that have very little movement. I haven't watched Contagion with D-Box, but it is hard to believe it has more action or motion than Hugo.
And I don't intend any disrespect to Drvais, but his logs are NOT correct. Hugo was on the list, and three of us saw it. The explanation from D-Box is so short and abrupt as to clearly suggest some other motive. Hugo was on the list, and then it was removed from the list. And the explanation is basically one of 'we ignore input from our loyal customers. Regardless of how many awards or critical acclaim it has received, we aren't coding it, regardless of your requests.'
Originally Posted by drvais
You just reminded me, The Hurt Locker is still AWOL from the world of MFX. Too bad.
Btw, in other news, it looks like the Czech Republic received another huge batch of re-syncs today.
The motion director must be Czech, given the number of films they code for a small nation with a very small population. (Or the Czech Republic must have an astonishingly high proportion of D-Box owners given their smaller population as countries go.)
I wonder what disingenuous or absurd excuse D-Box would give for not ever coding the Hurt Locker, since it clearly has motion? What the Hurt Locker and Hugo have in common is that they received critical acclaim and won numerous awards. That must explain the failure to code those films, as it is the only common denominator between the two films. The Hurt Locker has plenty of motion, and won the Academy Awards for Best Film, Best Director, and Best Screen Play. Despite numerous requests on this web site at the time, it was never coded.
It would appear that to move to the top of the D-Box priority list for coding, a film should be released in the Czech Republic; receive no awards or critical acclaim; and be filled with static images with little movement showing dead bodies from a pandemic. Oh, I forgot. And it would still take two to four months for the coding to be released.So let's add an important criteria for coding
, assuming that D-Box even monitors this site. Since we all own their extravagantly expensive product, it is a safe bet that many of us own other cutting edge technology, namely 3D. Films released in 3D should be given special preference, assuming they are reasonably good as movies go. Those films should be coded in both 2D and the 3D versions.
Hugo falls in that category. The Adventures of Tintin is the next important 3D film to be released. It received a 74% rating on the Rotten Tomatoes web site. Let's hope that D-Box at least codes that film. (Dolphin Tale is another 3D release with an 83% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It is also not on the D-Box list.)
D-Box has coded many 3D films, and I thank them for that. It is, however, the 3D aspect of Hugo that adds to its importance. It was originally filmed in 3D and is widely considered to be one of the best 3D films since Avatar. That is an additional and important reason to code that film. As others have noted, even if it has limited motion, it just means it could be coded that much faster. And many films with far less motion are coded by D-Box on a regular basis.
It is important to note that giving special preference to *good* 3D films would not detract from other 2D films. There aren't that many films released in 3D. I also suggested that 3D be simultaneously released in 2D coding as well. Note that I included the proviso "assuming they are reasonably good as movies go." For example, I didn't suggest the Darkest Hour. I haven't seen it, but it received only 12% on Rotten Tomatoes, and received terrible reviews.
Those of us who own 3D televisions or projectors would like to enjoy the latest *good* 3D films using both forms of technology -- 3D and D-Box. Anyone without a 3D display would enjoy them in 2D and D-Box.
Is that too much to ask?
D-Box, are you listening?