AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Hugo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hugo - Page 4

post #91 of 183
3/4/12 at 12:31am
Speaking only for myself, I think that multidimensional audio and multidimensional video work together to provide a very immersive viewing experience. I found the 3D picture in Hugo to be very well done and it added quite a lot to my personal enjoyment of the film. It gave it an added sense of scope, wonder and exploration that caught you up in the visuals. I watched it again in 2D and I preferred the texture and depth and detail of the 3D presentation. There have been some bad 3D films out there, but this isn't one of them.

I love how well done surround audio can really give you a pinpoint sense of space and location within the action of the film, and now having the ability to experience the same thing visually makes watching movies more fun when it's handled properly (and Scorsese certainly did a good job here). Movies have the power to take you away to another place, and stereo sound and 3D imagery can play a big role in that experience. I'm glad that there are options for both 2D and 3D releases so that all kinds of viewers can get a presentation that works for them. I know I might not be a part of the critical majority, but I just hope that my family and I can continue enjoying 3D films for years to come. As long as there is a 2D screening next door, we should all be happy, right?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 183
3/4/12 at 2:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

There isn't any way in the world you can state that it isn't a gimmick as if it is any sort of fact either. My opinion is that it is and like most find it a distraction and time and effort poorly spent at least in films.

Art

If I may add my own comments to this conversation: I love 3D but I don't feel I am watching a movie when I am watching something in 3D. To me, a movie, a film will always be 2D (I am 46 by the way); when I watch what people call a movie in 3D, I feel like I am having a `3D experience' i.e. enjoying something which is not a movie, but a different form of art. Just my own two cents.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 183
3/4/12 at 4:25am
I dont know if this was one of those rare movies that needs to be seen in 3d, i watched in 2d at home because i dont have a 3d projector, and the few times i watched 3d i felt it was kind of a lame gimick and it also gave me motion sickness and made me feel dizzy. I also felt i worried more about special effects then rather then quality of story.


Although I am looking at a new tv this year that will likely come with 3d... whether i want it or not.

Anyway in 2d i didnt think the movie was that great, i came in with extremely high expectations and found it to be a run of the mill family movie. It was not bad, i just did not see anything that said this should be an oscar nominated movie for best picture. There were some cool scenes and some heart warming moments but thats about all.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 183
3/4/12 at 5:01am
I just watched Hugo late last night. I only made it halfway through before I called it a night - although I was enjoying the film, I was just too tired and didn't want to doze off. I do pan on finishing it today.

I just skimmed this thread and found no mentions of the horrible teal/orange color shift. So many people complaining about the "gimmicky" and "distracting" 3d, but nobody mentions the awful, awful coloring? Yes, I know it's purposely done to create "mood", but it's so overdone it feels like I'm watching on a broken television.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 183
3/4/12 at 5:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Watched the 2D BD tonite.

The video is as good as anything I can recall on the format.
The audio is also very good, but not quite on the same level as the video (IMO).

I could see where 3D was probably employed (hey, I have an imagination).
Although I did buy the 3D/2D combo, at the moment, I don't have the necessary hardware needed to check out the 3D presentation (I will at some point).

Yes, one could see that great effort was put into one point geometrical perspective in regards to frame composition for the enhancement of 3D visual aesthetics. In fact, there were so many single point perspective shots that that I felt it unnecessarily slowed the pace of the film and became predictably repetitious. The films cadence goes something like this: one point perspective shot for the benefit of 3D, pan an area to allow for mental refresh, short story vignette, repeat.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I don't think it had best film of the year quality and was a little let down after all of the HUGO hype. I'm glad I didn't buy it based on the hype, but it's a good rental. A nice little story with exposure to some film history for the masses but it's not a kid's movie. I felt the cinematography and sound were very good.

It would have been interesting to see how the move would have been presented if it had not had all of the effort put into 3D presentation. I'm sad to say this move (because of the repetition and pacing) only reinforces my thought that the use of 3D combined with good story telling remain elusively, mutually exclusive.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 183
3/4/12 at 6:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by vespaguy View Post

... I just skimmed this thread and found no mentions of the horrible teal/orange color shift. So many people complaining about the "gimmicky" and "distracting" 3d, but nobody mentions the awful, awful coloring? Yes, I know it's purposely done to create "mood", but it's so overdone it feels like I'm watching on a broken television.

I noticed the color as well but accepted it as a nod and a wink to the time period. Reminded me of an Alphonse Mucha poster color palette and that Art Nouveau, Art Deco feel of Paris.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 183
3/4/12 at 6:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

A proper calibration will negate the brightness issue.

Tell me how you can do that ?

Art
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 183
3/4/12 at 7:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

ok.. Find me a 7000 lumen projector for under $50k so i can get decent 3-d brightness!

And if you do, does that make the glasses disappear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by art sonneborn View Post

tell me how you can do that ?

Art

Quote:
Originally Posted by redoctober205 View Post

hence the purpose of a proper calibration to account for the 3d glasses lens tint.


+1.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 183
3/4/12 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post


Tell me how you can do that ?

Art

I'm waiting for that answer also. Once I get it I will run it pass my ISF calibrator to validate it.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 183
3/4/12 at 7:26am
This may become the "Hunt for Red October".

In the mean time I'll sit in anticipation of an answer that's clear, simple, and wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 183
3/4/12 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry View Post

I noticed the color as well but accepted it as a nod and a wink to the time period. Reminded me of an Alphonse Mucha poster color palette and that Art Nouveau, Art Deco feel of Paris.

It's very possible that it's a tip of the hat to the time period, but if so it would be an unfortunate coincidence considering Hollywood's current infatuation with teal & orange. It started with action flicks (transformers) and now it's in everything. (check out the trailer for "This means War" - even paintings in the background are teal and orange).
It's overused and distracting. It's possible that Scorsese had good intentions, but to me it looks identical visually to the other junk being shoveled out.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 183
3/4/12 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

What did you think about the film itself?

The movie starts a little slow.
Primarily because the 2 child actors are not consistently right (for different reasons) in their roles.
The boy's acting skills are not well-honed and there is little charisma, but the emotion delivered is convincing.
Miss Chloe is often too slick, too mannered in her role, too obvious she is acting and not channeling her character with conviction.
Also, it seemed the "accent" was making her too self-conscious.
My guess is Scorcese doesn't really know how to work with child performers.
There is no way he would have let adult actors get by with similiar efforts.

In contrast, all of the adult actors are superb.
Particularly, Sir Ben and Borat Mr. Cohen.

The music is excellent and, seemingly, constant in the soundtrack, and adds wonderful audio ambience to the film.
Howard Shore delivers.....again.

Overall, this is a clever and charming movie.
Visually imaginative and worth at least one viewing.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 183
3/4/12 at 8:55am
An interesting comment from TIME Entertainment's review of "Hugo: Scorsese's Magnificent Dream Machine"

"Scorsese had two missions of his own. One was to use his first children’s-film project to push 3-D beyond gimmickry (though his climactic restaging of Arrival of a Train comes close). "

I would seem there is life outside "A dozen fanatics on an Internet forum" who regard 3D as a "Gimmick".

The article is here: http://entertainment.time.com/2011/11/22/2802713/2/
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 183
3/4/12 at 9:09am
Once again, take your pro/con 3D discussion where it belongs.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 183
3/4/12 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Once again, take your pro/con 3D discussion where it belongs.

Nice dodge.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 183
3/4/12 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I'm waiting for that answer also. Once I get it I will run it pass my ISF calibrator to validate it.

Yes ,if he has a way I want some of it.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 183
3/4/12 at 12:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry View Post

This may become the "Hunt for Red October".

In the mean time I'll sit in anticipation of an answer that's clear, simple, and wrong.

The hunt for the ignore button
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 183
3/4/12 at 4:07pm
This was a frustrating watch for me.

There were performances in there that were wonderful, like Kingsley and Moretz and then there was Butterfield as Hugo, who got on my nerves early on and Cohen, who was quite frankly embarassing, IMO.

Howard Shore's score was great, I also liked some visual aspects of the world on show, but ultimately, as a whole, it did nothing for me and became a chore to get through. Hugo runs around two hours, minus credits and I felt every minute of those two hours grind past. At one point, I checked how long was left and realised that 40mins were left and my heart sank. There are much longer films, that I can watch again and again, but this just dragged, IMHO.

I watched the 2D BD and ridiculous orange and teal colour-timing aside, it was practically flawless to my eyes.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 183
3/4/12 at 11:55pm
I have to laugh at all the people in this thread that didn't see one ounce of the genius that is Scorsese's use of the 3D presentiation.

I watched the 3D version first at home, then went and watched selected scenes in 2D and will tell you how 3D adds to the presentation.

First, this movie is a homage to film making. Scorsese and the book writer love the pioneers of film. Anyone that would argue that Scorsese is not one in his own right probably isn't really paying attention.

As the film moves forward, first begining as a mystery, then finally weaving in some of the story of Georges Méliès, the parallels between him and Scorsese and this 3D film become very apparent to any film buff.

Georges Méliès, in the film and real life, used his knowledge gained as a magician and his love for theatrics to pioneer story telling through film. Doing things on film you couldn't do in live theater.

His techniques and brilliant ideas in film production brought the "magic" of the stories he filmed to life. He pioneered many things, including crude colorization, multiple exposures, and other "film tricks" that continue to be used to this day.

Martin Scorsese takes us on a journey into the wonder and amazment people in the early 1900's must have felt going to motion pictures by adding a 3rd Dimension to his story telling.

For instance, in a scene where the protagonist is in a bathtub, apparently talking to himself, we find in a POV cut of the protagonist that he is in the tub with his dog and talking to it.

In 2D the beautiful set design makes the dog fade into the seamingly jumbled objects of the set.

In 3D though, it's as if YOU are there with the dog. It's nose in your face, as it would be in life. It completely changes how this type of movie setup / pay off plays.

In many other scenes throughout the movie where the young boy is seen peaking out through clock numbers, or heating grates, or from behind complicated mechanics, the sense of being there is heightened in 3D. We get the feeling of him safetly hidden from view, or from harm.

In a scene of a store front of Méliès' toy store, in 2D it seems a mess of objects one on top of another. But in 3D we can see it's a store brimming with product, placed carefully in front of, on the counter of, and inside the store. The depth added by 3D makes this seem like a real place, with a real man sitting bored at his storefront.

Hugo is a little slow for children, and probably most adults. But it's typical of Scorsese's style, either you like it or you don't.

Seeing re-creations of Georges Méliès filming his groundbreaking films filmed in 3D adds to and brings us some of the excitment Georges Méliès and those early film makers obviously felt.

It's hard to believe any film buff wouldn't be moved by Scorsese's amazing use of 3D to impart the wonder those early audiances also must have felt seeing the latest film techniques being used to immerse them and us into another world.

If you read the reviews of those that didn't like this film, it's because they go in not likeing 3D. And this is one of the very very few 3D movies that REQUIRE 3D to enjoy to it's fullest. It was made with 3D in mind, and without it the film seems a little flat
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 183
3/5/12 at 6:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Once again, take your pro/con 3D discussion where it belongs.

Since 3D is so integral to the story-telling of Hugo as some proclaim, it is absolutely relevant to discuss the pros and cons of 3D and whether it adds or detracts to the film.

Many have pointed to Avatar and Hugo as the pinnacles of 3D film-making. If so, I'm still unimpressed. Maybe there will be a day when the technology catches up to the concept, but to me, and apparently many others, that day is not here yet.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 183
3/5/12 at 7:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

I have to laugh at all the people in this thread that didn't see one ounce of the genius that is Scorsese's use of the 3D presentiation.

I watched the 3D version first at home, then went and watched selected scenes in 2D and will tell you how 3D adds to the presentation.

First, this movie is a homage to film making. Scorsese and the book writer love the pioneers of film. Anyone that would argue that Scorsese is not one in his own right probably isn't really paying attention.

As the film moves forward, first begining as a mystery, then finally weaving in some of the story of Georges Méliès, the parallels between him and Scorsese and this 3D film become very apparent to any film buff.

Georges Méliès, in the film and real life, used his knowledge gained as a magician and his love for theatrics to pioneer story telling through film. Doing things on film you couldn't do in live theater.

His techniques and brilliant ideas in film production brought the "magic" of the stories he filmed to life. He pioneered many things, including crude colorization, multiple exposures, and other "film tricks" that continue to be used to this day.

Martin Scorsese takes us on a journey into the wonder and amazment people in the early 1900's must have felt going to motion pictures by adding a 3rd Dimension to his story telling.

For instance, in a scene where the protagonist is in a bathtub, apparently talking to himself, we find in a POV cut of the protagonist that he is in the tub with his dog and talking to it.

In 2D the beautiful set design makes the dog fade into the seamingly jumbled objects of the set.

In 3D though, it's as if YOU are there with the dog. It's nose in your face, as it would be in life. It completely changes how this type of movie setup / pay off plays.

In many other scenes throughout the movie where the young boy is seen peaking out through clock numbers, or heating grates, or from behind complicated mechanics, the sense of being there is heightened in 3D. We get the feeling of him safetly hidden from view, or from harm.

In a scene of a store front of Méliès' toy store, in 2D it seems a mess of objects one on top of another. But in 3D we can see it's a store brimming with product, placed carefully in front of, on the counter of, and inside the store. The depth added by 3D makes this seem like a real place, with a real man sitting bored at his storefront.

Hugo is a little slow for children, and probably most adults. But it's typical of Scorsese's style, either you like it or you don't.

Seeing re-creations of Georges Méliès filming his groundbreaking films filmed in 3D adds to and brings us some of the excitment Georges Méliès and those early film makers obviously felt.

It's hard to believe any film buff wouldn't be moved by Scorsese's amazing use of 3D to impart the wonder those early audiances also must have felt seeing the latest film techniques being used to immerse them and us into another world.

If you read the reviews of those that didn't like this film, it's because they go in not likeing 3D. And this is one of the very very few 3D movies that REQUIRE 3D to enjoy to it's fullest. It was made with 3D in mind, and without it the film seems a little flat


... "And though the crowd clapped furiously, they could not see the joke." - Brooker/Fisher/Reid

Respectfully, I think you grossly under estimate the comprehension of the people who have contributed to this thread. I think without exception, everyone here "got it' in terms of an homage to the art of film making, Georges Méliès creativity, and the evolution to 3D. It is so painfully obvious and transparent, perhaps to the point that if the movie were without sound, one which was remotely familiar with Georges Méliès work would understand the connection.

And the idea of the evolution of cinema... My god, how many times could Scorsese reference this point by showing "Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat" by Louis and Auguste Lumière (silent B&W) and then recreate the event in the story via 3D CGI? This point is driven home as if the audience were Pavlov's dog.


"Never work with animals or children." - W.C. Fields

HUGO is a sad children’s film (Old Yeller, Bambi, etc.) and a by the book cliché; a formula format movie.

HUGO is a "woe is me" story loosely based in fact with artistic liberties taken ad infinitum complete with not one but two orphaned children (one with big sad eye's), dogs, a shiftless mean drunken uncle, a Keystone Cop war hero chasing the orphan's, and finally a happy ending where the orphan is re-claimed and becomes part of a loving family. I will take the reference to Georges Méliès work as a bonus.

This is genius? It feels more like stuffing 10lbs into a 5lbs bag.

If there is genius in HUGO it maybe in the screen credit of Jonny Depp as Producer, his un-credited cameo appearance, and all the money he is taking to the bank as a result.

This is a movie made to sell 3D, no question. Whether you like 3D or not may be the bigger question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

Martin Scorsese takes us on a journey into the wonder and amazement people in the early 1900's must have felt going to motion pictures by adding a 3rd Dimension to his story telling.

Maybe so. Stanley Kubrick took me on a journey into the wonder and amazement of cave men discovering fire and learning how to kill people with a bone.

Stanley Kubrick didn't need 3D to do it; so what?

I don't think HUGO will go down in history as one of Scorsese's more memorable movies. I believe the 2012 Academy Awards have given proper credit for the technical merits of HUGO and correctly recognized HUGO did not deserve a "Best Picture" Oscar.

I enjoyed reading your post David_B
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 183
3/5/12 at 7:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolumbo View Post


Since 3D is so integral to the story-telling of Hugo as some proclaim, it is absolutely relevant to discuss the pros and cons of 3D and whether it adds or detracts to the film.

Many have pointed to Avatar and Hugo as the pinnacles of 3D film-making. If so, I'm still unimpressed. Maybe there will be a day when the technology catches up to the concept, but to me, and apparently many others, that day is not here yet.

Which would make discussion of the use of 3D in Hugo and its quality on this disc relevant. That is not what is happening in this thread. Instead, we have a few people telling us about the downfall of 3D in general. That is a discussion for the 3D section of the forum.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 183
3/5/12 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Which would make discussion of the use of 3D in Hugo and its quality on this disc relevant. That is not what is happening in this thread. Instead, we have a few people telling us about the downfall of 3D in general. That is a discussion for the 3D section of the forum.

There is no way to divorse this film discussion from 3D issues generally. Such a thing would be tantamount to censorship of the topic. Of course, that would aid your cause I guess.

I'd still like an answer to how we can calibrate out brightness issues in 3D presentations.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 183
3/5/12 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Which would make discussion of the use of 3D in Hugo and its quality on this disc relevant. That is not what is happening in this thread. Instead, we have a few people telling us about the downfall of 3D in general. That is a discussion for the 3D section of the forum.

Which thread are you reading? Here's what happening in this thread. One group of people who saw the movie in 3D say it's way better than 2D even though they've never actually seen it in 2D. Another group of people who have only seen the movie in 2D say it's a really good movie and that the 3D wouldn't add anything even though they've never seen the 3D version. And then the one guy who's seen the movie in both 2D and 3D (me) claims there isn't any significant difference.

So it's a bunch of half-informed people shouting down everyone else and claiming rampant bias on the other side while they themselves are pure as the driven snow. Or... wait... you've seen it in 2D, right?
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 183
3/5/12 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry View Post

Maybe so. Stanley Kubrick took me on a journey into the wonder and amazement of cave men discovering fire and learning how to kill people with a bone.

Stanley Kubrick didn't need 3D to do it; so what?

Kubrick didn't need 3D, but he did need 65mm.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 183
3/5/12 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Kubrick didn't need 3D, but he did need 65mm.

Unfortunately, most of the US and the world saw it via 35mm 2.35:1 anamorphic scope.

After thought: Even Cinerama ran out of product to show.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 183
3/5/12 at 9:40am
Moderator

seems to me any discussion of this movie on a BD disc is appropriate here: both versions are pictured in the top post

what is not appropriate is one member telling another member to leave the thread

now please: can we move on?

TIA
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 183
3/5/12 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

The movie starts a little slow.
Primarily because the 2 child actors are not consistently right (for different reasons) in their roles.
The boy's acting skills are not well-honed and there is little charisma, but the emotion delivered is convincing.
Miss Chloe is often too slick, too mannered in her role, too obvious she is acting and not channeling her character with conviction.
Also, it seemed the "accent" was making her too self-conscious.
My guess is Scorcese doesn't really know how to work with child performers.
There is no way he would have let adult actors get by with similiar efforts.

In contrast, all of the adult actors are superb.
Particularly, Sir Ben and Borat Mr. Cohen.

The music is excellent and, seemingly, constant in the soundtrack, and adds wonderful audio ambience to the film.
Howard Shore delivers.....again.

Overall, this is a clever and charming movie.
Visually imaginative and worth at least one viewing.

Yes, it should get at least one viewing. And Mr. Shore adds to an already impressive resume of film scoring.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 183
3/5/12 at 1:36pm
i saw it in 2d. i can see where scorcese employed 3d from the way the shots are staged. didn't miss not being able to view it in 3d. still a wonderful, brilliant and altogether worthwhile cinematic adventure. only negative i can say is that the lead child was not a very good actor. did lucas do the directing for the underage cast members?
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 183
3/5/12 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

i saw it in 2d. i can see where scorcese employed 3d from the way the shots are staged.

I watched it with my eyes closed. I can envision the shot choices by listening to the soundtrack.





Sorry, dude- if you didn't see it in 3D, you're completely out of place commenting on the 3D.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Hugo