Seriously, the first two movies had BEAUTIFUL cinematography with breathtaking visuals, but this movie's cinematography was lackluster and amateur at best. Nearly every shot was either a shaky close-up or a dizzying tracking shot, and it was annoying as hell. Also, mostly all of the shots were completely off-angle, and never centered on the point of interest. I miss the first two movie's cinematography.
www.hi-pointetheatre.com
You are kidding me, right? There are some shots that are just absolutely gloriously beautiful. Some of them looked like they were beautiful pieces of art. Don't understand this thread at all.
shareMaybe you aren't meant to understand this thread. The dialogue scenes were horribly shot, and the only "gloriously beautiful shots" were completely CGI, and looked like *beep* Especially the VERY FIRST SHOT of the film...that building looked like it was straight out a video game cutscene.
www.hi-pointetheatre.com
I forget what camera they used to film this movie but it was definitely not in the standards used in the first two films. It's quite a letdown. It's because of the given budget. It was lower than the first two and it was evidently worse in quality both in CGI animation (the serpent) and camera quality.
I didn't get as much of the 24 frames per second feel either. It looked to 'motion-flow blurry' (and no I don't have a Sony TV with that horrid feature).
Still, I think it's watchable and there are some gorgeous scenes but nothing like the first two. I also wished they that keep the aspect ratio at its original frame. Few scenes were cropped while the majority remained intact whilst showing more picture (or too much - like Aslan's shadow - that bugged me so much)
They used Arriflex 35 III, Arri 235 and 435, Panvision Golds and Milleniums for the first two...aka FILM. This one was shot with Sony F23, a digital camera.
I got the same feeling watching the new Hobbit movies compared with The Lord of the Rings. Everything, particularly people's faces and motion, seems artificial.
That motion flow esque appearance is the camera they used (I believe it is a result of shutter speed but am no photographer). Their is the occasional well shoot moment but for the most part it looked like a mid to high end tv production in many regards. I felt the serpent was actually one of the better cg creations, the star and everything early on was rather horrid.
Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/
Although I agree with your comments regarding the dialogue scenes (very few if any closeups), I just disagree otherwise. Some of the shots looked like paintings. Very gorgeous. The scene of them rowing through the orchids--stunningly beautiful. Oh well.
sharewhy do you have to use two words to describe everything? do you even realize how stupid you sound when you say "gloriously beautiful"?
shareI may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that first building is a real one in New Zealand somewheres.
shareI'm with you. Wonderfully well done.
Can you fly this plane?
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious,and don't call me Shirley
I have to disagree I thought this movie was also beautifully shot. And I think you also missed the point that they are on a boat most of the movie, hence the sort of tight hand-held camerawork.
Check out my videos! http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=FilmMiracle
Also, mostly all of the shots were completely off-angle, and never centered on the point of interestYes indeedy, it just takes sooooo much energy to move your eyes and look somewhere besides the dead centre of the screen. How utterly inconsiderate of the filmmakers.
I agree with the OP, totally. The first two films felt epic. This crap felt like a TV movie, a syfy movie, a bad one!
It really doesn't feel like a sequel, especially quality wise. Not even close to Andy Adamson's vision. The CGI was horrible too. Thanks FOX, and the director...
Such a letdown.
"You built a time machine....out of a DeLorean?"
[deleted]
Oh stop trying to be funny! It was beautifully shot. I would say it was gloriously beautiful, but some poster is going to criticize me if I say that!
share[deleted]
@CitizenCairParavel, we appreciate that you like this series but I don't see why you're fooling yourself into saying this film was beautifully shot.
The CGI was subpar, the cinematography was tacky and cheap looking and it completely lacked the flair and beauty of the first two movies.
I *know* you can see the drastic change in cinematography and quality between the first two and this one and you know the reason - the change of studio, director and budget.
And to the poster who said it looked like a syfy original movie at times, couldn't agree more.
i didnt even read the book yet when i watched the movie i realized that they threw so many piles of badly written *beep* inconsistency is absurd. i could list a dozen examples of stupidity that im sure C.S. Lewis hasnt written.
shareI disagree. I loved the scene of the stars while they were camping on the beach, the white orchids/lilies at the end of the movie, etc. I felt like it captured the beauty of Narnia far better than either 1 or 2.
share[deleted]
Although I loved all 3 movies, I don't remember a single shot from the first 2 movies which were really beautiful, whereas I can think of at least a handful from DT which were:
1. the white orchids
2. the snow scene in the magician's house
3. the starry night
4. the shot of the DT at dusk with the sun setting to the left of the frame (blue/orange streaks in the sky
5. Lucy at the ship's stern
6. Aslan's table all lit up
7. Lilliandril's descent and walk to the cliff's edge.
Really lovely, lovely shots.
I agree, part 3 had the most beautifull scenes.
shareI think you are confusing beautiful photography with beautiful subject.
Sure there were pretty things to look at in the film. The issue is the cinematography - that is, not what is being shown but how it is being shown. Whatever else one might think of the film, Prince Caspian had beautiful cinematography. VoDT, not really.
Now I am really confused. The scenes I mentioned were beautifully shot and yet you say it was the subject. The exact opposite is what is true, not only of DT but also of PC. PC had great subject but few if any beautiful shots, whereas the exact opposite is true of DT.
shareI agree with OP - this movie was SO non-cinematic! I want Adams back!
shareadams and wally pfister. that would be something.
sharefilip-capuder-1^
As do I (want Adamson back).
Unfortunately, reportedly they feel they can't afford him anymore.
To me, though, nothing beats the first film.
Absolutely magical, and Adamson was wise enough to include enough breathtaking real 3D places with the CGI and other special effects (which also were done better), so that the viewer felt totally carried away to a magical yet real place.
Adamson was also much better at character development, pacing, and taking the time to allow viewers to emotionally connect with the characters.
He allowed the viewer to discover along with the characters, and didn't feel the need for the characters to narrate and spell out everything, like we are all a bunch of 4-year-olds, as was done in this film.
~~ The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what fiction means ~ ~ Oscar Wilde
I don't know Prince Caspian's photography was too dark with the night scenes that took away my enjoyment. I guess that's how they want to interpret making Caspian "darker" in a literal sense.
Voyage is nicely shot but nothing groundbreaking. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is the best.
-----
Giving you a slow-clap, Señor Chang style.
I noticed issues with several of the closer shots as well. They had that annoying motion blur look that some movies have, and also the sharpness was over-emphasized (very noticeable in the scene where Eustace gets on the boat and asks why it won't row itself). I'm guessing they shot with a different camera for these scenes. It's too bad because I sometimes skip movies that have this look, as every time a character's face moves it has this distracting blur effect. I watch on a CRT television, so this isn't something related to LCD televisions either.
share