Mickey’s (Faliure)magic OR The Non-Repeatability of the Film Theater Shows at the DLR

brb1006

Well-Known Member
The CGI was hugely impressive at the time as it was the first time any of those 2D characters had been converted into 3D models (except for Kingdom Hearts, I guess). I still think they look good.
Especially since the original show came out before Disney themselves decided to make fully CGI animated films. One of Mickey and Minnie's first appearances in CGI form (Not counting Muppet Vision) was in Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas a year after Philharmagic debuted at Walt Disney World. It took until Mickey Mouse Clubhouse for Disney to get more familiar with designing Mickey and Friends in CGI form
 

BasiltheBatLord

Well-Known Member
Theme parks are probably one of the only places where I think 3D is acceptable, never understood the fad of shoehorning 3D into theatrical releases and glad that it's died out.
 

NobodyElse

Well-Known Member
While we're on the subject of films at the parks, though... Remember:

Pre-1983, where the Pinocchio ride is now, the Fantasyland Theater used to show 3 Mickey Mouse short films all day long. At one time it was a "C" Ticket attraction. But this was in the days before home video or cable, so the chance to see Mickey's Trailer, Thru the Mirror and The Band Concert made it a nice little air-conditioned feature for many years. I enjoyed it a lot... along with the other dozen or so people in the theater at any given time. :D (You just entered and exited at any point in the rotation).

...and then you could get an almost ice-cold cup of Welch's grape juice.
 

Rich T

Well-Known Member
This is why it isn't fun to me. If I am watching something I'd like to sit back and relax. I don't see the appeal of having to stand and watch cartoons.
Look at it more as a great little animation/silent film museum, taking you back in time for just a few moments of comedy. I rarely stay to watch an entire short.
 

Rich T

Well-Known Member
Theme parks are probably one of the only places where I think 3D is acceptable, never understood the fad of shoehorning 3D into theatrical releases and glad that it's died out.
When done well, it's amazing. A good film shot with effective 3D shown on a huge screen is a fantastic experience. Take my favorite 3D presentation for a movie--How to Train Your Dragon: The film has a lot of emphasis on texture such as scales, iron, stone, fur, etc. It looked like you could reach into the screen and touch those creatures and surfaces. Not to mention the flying scenes had amazing depth, almost creatiing a sense of acrophobia in spots. Flames looked more real, ashes seemed to drift over the audience. It was fantastic.

I'm curious, though: why do you find theatrical 3D unacceptable? Now, I realize *most* movies released in 3D don't use it well, but the good ones are well worth the extra money for me.
 

BasiltheBatLord

Well-Known Member
I'm curious, though: why do you find theatrical 3D unacceptable? Now, I realize *most* movies released in 3D don't use it well, but the good ones are well worth the extra money for me.
They always felt like a gimmick that didn't add anything major to the picture. The biggest issue I had/have with 3D is the glasses, specifically that they mute the color palette of the film. Muting the entire color palette of the film for 3D depth effects which, imo, do not improve the actual film isn't worth it.

Now in theme parks spectacle is part of the experience, which is why it makes perfect sense for me to see a 3D film in a theme park whose entire point is "look at this thing popping out at you!"
 

captveg

Well-Known Member
Theme parks are probably one of the only places where I think 3D is acceptable, never understood the fad of shoehorning 3D into theatrical releases and glad that it's died out.

There are three types of 3D films for the cinema:

1. 3D used by an auteur who understands storytelling through composition, where the idea of depth to an image is used to contextualize the shot as part of the story experience. Examples include Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, Scorsese's Hugo, and Lee's Life of Pi. And, of course, Avatar (Cameron is masterful at knowing where to place the camera).

2. 3D used to capture the gimmicky nature of it for the pure fun of it, often using pop-out effects as silly moments to purposely break the 4th wall. Examples include House of Wax, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and the majority of the 50s/80s 3D films. The theme park attractions fall under this category.

3. 3D used as pointless add on to sell more expensive tickets. Most of the modern 3D films fall under this category, especially over the last 4-5 years as the majority of 3D movies are conversions not designed to use 3D photography. When I went to see Captain Marvel they screwed up by having our 2D showing accidentally show the movie in 3D. They resolved this by giving us all 3D glasses and not charging us for the extra ticket price, but from an aesthetic storytelling standpoint the 3D did nothing to improve the movie. It was pointless, because the movie was never designed to incorporate 3D into how it decided to tell its story.

Unfortunately, the auteurs have mostly moved on, and unlike the 50s and 80s there isn't a demand for the gimmicky 3D experience for a feature film these days, so we are left with the pointless 3D of category #3 at the cinemas.
 

captveg

Well-Known Member
The biggest issue I had/have with 3D is the glasses, specifically that they mute the color palette of the film. Muting the entire color palette of the film for 3D depth effects which, imo, do not improve the actual film isn't worth it.

This is mostly a projection issue. Movie cineplexes are in the habit of having the brightness levels too low for 3D screenings.
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
The last film I saw in 3D I believe was Last Jedi and the 3D Glasses made the movie so dark I vowed I was done with 3D for a while.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom