If I wasn't quite happy with my sig, I would choose that one.

Cinema has never been as good since "three-strip" Technicolor passed away

I was working on a film that was considering using that process.
We were up at the Technicolor labs, being shown a side by side comparison of Godzilla in the Technicolor process, compared to a regular 'single strip' process.

The main differences we noted were...
none.

No-one in the room (apart from those employed by Tech.) spotted any difference whatsoever in the end result, apart from your processing costs being three times higher, with more margin for error and slightly more complex post production. We didn't go with it.

My comment was actually intended as a humerus example of what a conservative Ludite might say about 3D, however...

I'm very surprised by your findings. I did not know that colour processing had evolved to that degree. Certainly in the 1980s and 90s it was very noticeable that the new single strip colour film images looked "cheap" compared to the glorious Technicolor of the preceding decades.

How big was your screen?

It wasn't a full size cinema, but nor was it a 14" monitor - it was probably getting on for something like a 60" projection. I'm going back a decade now.

That's tiny. Even a 1080p Piratebay rip would look impressive at that scale, while it would look terrible on the big screen.

What was kind of funny was the technicians talking up the picture 'look at the saturation and clarity' while myself and the co-producer are looking at each other going 'wtf? where?'

You should have sold them some gold plated OFC kettle leads

What's all this talk of different 3D systems??

I took the same glasses in that I used for Avatar. They've got Real3D written on the side and it worked a treat - everyone in the cinema had glasses that looked the same, and had the same branding.

They didn't ask for them back, but there was a "recycle point" where you could post them if you wanted to on the way out.

Read again. There are 4 different 3D technologies out there.

But cinemas need extra equipment, so they will standardise on one system, they won't get the films in different 3D formats.

Went to see it last night. I'm not going to give a review but I quite enjoyed the film on the whole. The onyl problem is I went to see it in 3D. Big mistake.

The thing is I've got nothing against 3D when done well. I actually think it added to the experience of watching Avatar and was not simply there as a cheap trick. In Alice though I did feel like it was there for a cheap trick. Worse than that when the 3D insects, flying cups or whatever else did 'jump out' they were out of focus. I know some people have complained about 3D not working well with their dodgy eyes but Avatar was fine for me.

Film = 7/10 3D = 2/10

By the way does anyone know what the technical (if any) difference there is between Dolby 3D (used at Showcase) and Real D 3D (used at Cineworld)? The glasses are different in size and style - and you have to give the Dolby ones back - but I didnt know if that was the only difference.

I have just seen the film - in 2D. It was, well, awful.

It looked very good, but the story bore no resemblance to the books. It was a standard sword and sorcery story with a returning hero combating a dragon and the rightful ruler of the throne. It was a story “by the numbers” topped and tailed by some polite English society and some bruhaha of an enforced wedding. The names, characters and a visuals were inspired by or lifted from Carroll’s books. However, the story and script bore none of the truly bizarreness of the the original stories, nor were there any of the clever twists of linguistic logic that he liked so much. There were the occasional verbal reference - such as the “why is a bat like a writing desk?” line, which cropped up a number of times in such a contrived fashion that it felt contrived.

Disney have had two stabs at this, and both have failed. A rather bland cartoon, and this awful psychedelic take on a rejected Dungeons and Dragons script.

As you can tell from this post, I was not at all impressed by it. I’d count this as Tim Burton’s second fail (Planet of the Apes being the first).

Isnt this set beyond the books i.e. Alice goes back years later?

Yep.

Mark

I won´t be seeing this film, as I´ve never seen such annoying looking posters, if the big heads infuriate me on a poster, I don´t think I could take a full film. Went to see The Book of Eli and Shutter Island instead Both very entertaining in their own way, but both flawed also. The Hurt Locker is by far the best film I´ve seen recently.