There's no question that you will see Up, the sublime Pixar animation about a septuagenarian grouch and a pesky kid who sail to the Orinoco in a Victorian house hoisted by a bouquet of helium balloons. The only questions are when and how.
When is up to you. How is a more delicate matter. Should you see it in 3-D? I chose not to. For me, while 3-D glasses deepen spatial perspectives, they wash out the evocative colors of animated films. (For this reason, I vastly preferred Coraline in its "flat," or 2-D version, than in 3-D glasses.) Many others have experienced the same problem. Although Roger Ebert is agnostic about the preferable format, here's what he has to say:
"But let me gently mention one of the film's qualities that is likely to be diminished by 3D: Its subtle and beautiful color palette. Up, like Finding Nemo, Toy Story, Shrek and The Lion King, uses colors in a way particularly suited to its content."
While the so-called "Pixar guys" -- John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird and Pete Docter -- are avowed fans of the legendary Japanese anime master Hayao Miyazaki, Up is the first Pixar movie to approximate the watercolor transparency of Miyazaki's images.
Your thoughts? Consider this an open thread to talk about your experience of 3-D, animation and Pixar v. Disney and Dreamworks.
I am still planning 3-D at King of Prussia. Just wondering if the screen is big or it is one of those small "false" IMAX theatre.— Seed- If it's the KoP screen where I saw "Bolt," you will be very pleased by its proportions.— carrierickey
- For me, 3-D's merits are outweighed by the various discomforts it imposes. (And the ads at the side of this webpage are really irritating at the moment also. David Byrne looks like a pretentious idiot and why is Diana Krall standing that way and who is she looking at?— ccjroberts
- I thought "U2:3-D" did an excellent job of utilizing the 3-D format. I feel that that's the closest a concert film has ever come to approximating the concert experience. As for other movies, though, I really can't say. I've only seen "Spy Kids 3-D" and "Superman Returns" on IMAX. I have to admit, I did notice that the colors were dulled a bit but that didn't hinder my enjoyment.— taitdog
- I'll probably end up taking my kids to see it more than once, and will view it each way. Looking forward to it!— I. M. McLovin
- My 5 year old is terrified of 3-D, so we will see it old school. however, I can use this article's perspective to help me convince my older boy that seeing it without 3-d might be a good thing.— lulu
- All I know is that even though 3d can only be shown on 28% of the screens for these movies, almost 60% of the people who go to these films choose to see it in 3d. These 3d showings are limited to larger cities right now that have the 2d version easily availible as well. Most multiplexes have both the 2d and 3d version of these 3d films. We have 3 mutilpexes in our city and they always show both 2d and 3d versions. I noticed at one of them starting with Monster Vs Aliens and now Up they have been showing the 3d version in two rooms (double showing times for it) and only one room for the 2d version. They are doing this to handle the 3d ticket sales. This is how it has gone since Polar Express came out in 2004, high ticket sales for the 3d movie version. Since then several 3d movies have come out and the ticket sales for them have consistantly sold more tickets. So I guess the answer for now would be a lot of people are by passing the 2d version to see the 3d versions of these movies, and just think how many more would go if the 3d screens were more widely availible and not so limited as they have been so far. Also this has now become the longest 3d wave ever so far. The big one of the 1950's only lasted two years. In about five months this one will have lasted 5 years.— tonhogg
- VIEWED
- Commented
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
