Cannes #1: Up, up and away, in my beautiful, my beautiful balloon

I am one of those faithful readers, and as such I am aware of your apathy toward even recent 3D technology. Speaking for myself, however, I find that 3D is a medium waiting for its Wizard of Oz, and then many will be convinced like myself. (My first thought coming out of Beowulf 3D was regret that The Lord of the Rings trilogy wasn't filmed in 3D -- read my thoughts here.) I suspect that James Cameron's Avatar has a high probability of being such a film, but we shall see.

Up sounds promising, but it looks like it still has that "Pixar tone" that, despite their high-quality nature of their films, sometimes rubs me the wrong way.

I had the pleasure of watching a restored print of The Lost World (1925) the other day on the big screen at the SF Int'l Film Festival, with an original score performed live by the band Dengue Fever.

I saw the Up trailer again a few days later, and I noticed something.... Take a look at the plateau with a gap at the 1'13" mark of the YouTube trailer above. Now take a look at the plateau with a gap from the third (yellow) still on this review page:
http://animated-views.com/2007/the-lost-world-1925-1960/

That plateau and gap played a prominent role in the Lost World.. and now that you mention them going to a lost world in Venezuela (where the earlier film was also set), there's no mistaking the homage! :)

I highly recommend that everyone try to check out the restored 100 minute print of The Lost World (as compared to the previously available 60 minute print). It's delightful (well, with the exception of a minor character in blackface speaking in racistly-written language... but he only plays a small part). I especially love how they hand-tinted the frames for different situations.. blue at night, red by the campfire, green in the forest, etc.

Ebert: You have a good cinematic memory and are no doubt correct, because you know they screened that film. I remember as a child staying up late at night, my eyes glued to the pages of the Arthur Conan Doyle novel.

I'm so glad there's at least one serious critic not slobbering all over this 3D nonsense. This stereoscopic trend is distracting to the point that I find the effect discourages my eyes from exploring the screen rather than simply settling on the focal point.

I'm dying to see Up though. I'm jealous of everyone who has already had the experience.

Roger,

I have read your posts for a short time now, along with the many comments they attract. I fear I could not compete with the insights that many of your followers share, so I will simply say that perhaps more than the topics that you choose and the wisdom that you lend them, I enjoy most of all your writing style. I truly enjoy your turn of phrase and must admit to secretly collecting the odd phrase in the hope that a situation might arise in which I could 'borrow' it.

Thank you, it has been most enjoyable thus far.

Roger, I've seen Laputa: Castle in the Sky many, many times, and I have never grown tired of it. It is actually one of Miyazaki's works that I love best. But then again, there is nothing in Miyazaki's works that anyone can hate. I share this sentiment with the rest of the population in this small island nation of ours.

I have to say, the first thing that came to mind when I saw the trailer for "Up" was that it was most probably inspired from The Twenty-One Balloons, a juvenile novel by William Pène du Bois. The plot involved a San Francisco explorer who chanced upon an uncharted island in the Pacific. It had these mines of huge diamonds, and twenty quite-dotty families who were guarding the island's treasure. I have this Newbery Medal book sitting on my shelf, the pages now turned musty and brown with age.

Ah, I had pleasant memories of reading that book, along with Tom Sawyer.

I can't wait to see this film. After seeing the masterpiece that is WALL-E I can't wait to see what they've done next. I also love that they like to take risks and push the limits of storytelling. I compare them (Disney-Pixar) to the Coen Brothers: they tell the story THEY want to tell, not what people necessarily want to see.

A 4-star Pixar film that wins the Best Animated Film Oscar? Predictable. Call me when they make a bad movie.

Hi Roger-
Normally I agree with most everything you say, but I part ways with you in your opinion of the new 3-D technology. I've watched about 5 or 6 recent offerings from "Journey to the Center of the Earth" to the more recent "Monsters vs Aliens". As a certified stereo fanatic from the 50s Realist format to more recent formats (including the Real 3-D currently in theater use), the technology is a giant leap from the headache-inducing analglyph (red-blue) glasses used in the past.

Yes, the polarizing filters do absorb some light, but I've never been put off by a "dingy" image, or "muted" colors. And I have taken off the glasses during the show - yes, the unfused images are brighter, brighter, in fact, than a normal 2-D screening, so perhaps the issue you have is local to your screening and projector settings.

We live in a 3-D world, so why not take advantage of the technology to better enjoy the cinematic experience? I'm sorry to disagree, but the recent products are easily worth the extra $2 over a $5 first-show Matinee (Tucson prices) for me to be part of the show...

-Dean

Ebert: I made it a point to view "Journey" on 2D DVD. It looked a lot better. The 3D screenigs I've sen have been state of the art.

It is just me, or does seeing a film in 3-D actually seem to make the film-going experience smaller. Let me see if I can explain what I mean. For me, instead of opening the film up, the 3-D experience seems to shrink the scale of whatever it is I am watching. It doesn't matter how big the screen is. I have seen 3-D films in the IMAX format and after a while I feel as though I am watching the film on a screen the size of a small monitor placed inches from my face. Perhaps by pulling me inside the 3-D world, my focus becomes so narrowed by the process, that I am experiencing a kind of a tunnel vision. I lose all sense of scale, which, for my money, is one of the main reasons I go to the movies--to be lost and carried away by the expansiveness of the image on the screen. Instead of being larger than life, the image seems reduced to a small, quite puny, imitation of life on the screen. Maybe others have experienced or can explain what I mean more effectively, or maybe it is just me.

I agree with you, Aaron. It is Pixar's audacity impresses me the most.

Oh, and "SQUIRREL!" Divine.

For anyone who loves either the book or silent film adaptation of The Lost World, I heartily recommend Greg Bear's delightful novel Dinosaur Summer. For that matter, I recommend it to anyone who especially loves both dinosaurs and movies.

I'm counting the days until Miyazaki's Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea gets its North American premiere. There's precious little being released this summer which genuinely piques my interest.

I also caught an early screening of Up and found it amazing. It's surprisingly really emotional and moving...ie. I cried and choked up a good three times. It was also much more "laugh-out-loud" funny in the middle then I thought it would be. I hope Roger can delve into the film a bit more in his review with the themes and symbolism that seem to be everywhere in it. I think there is a lot to mine and talk about in this one...including one rather large thing I thought about afterward....hmm, don't want to give anything away, so I'll just wait for what Roger has to say about what happens to Carl at the beginning of the movie between when the cop drops him off and then the retirement home guys come to the door in the morning. I think there's something rather interesting that happens there.

"There is also the annoyance of 3D itself. It is a marketing gimmick designed (1) to justify higher ticket prices, and (2) make piracy harder. Yet as most of the world will continue to use 2D, pirated prints will remain a reality. The effect of 3D adds nothing to the viewing experience, and I have never once heard an audience member complain that a movie is not in 3D"

Roger, don't you think the same things could have been (and probably was) said about sound? And color? Isn't 3D just another tool in a filmmaker's arsenal, that can be used well or not-so-well?

I find that your outright dismissal of any possibility of 3D emerging as an artistic tool, just as puzzling as your dismissal of any possibility of computer games being a possible art form.

"Call me when they make a bad movie."

I left you a voice mail in 2006.

I kid, I kid.

In any case, I've hated 3D ever since Captain EO at Disneyland and all of its 3D theme park successors. It never looks good and is always gimmicky, only this gimmick has lasted a few decades. I wish 3D would die already.

I was worried this may be Pixar's flop, but this blog lifted my spirits. Actually, it kinda slapped me and said "You moron, Pixar knows what they're doing!"

Oh, Roger, you don't know how this review breaks my heart. I'm currently attending school in Japan, where they don't screen the yearly Pixar release until December. I come home to the States in September. Surely Up will be out of multiplexes by that time; or, at best, relegated to the third-run theater with the postage stamp screen and half-broken sound system. What should I do? I just can't imagine that a DVD version could compare.

Having watch such films as Superman Returns and Bolt I noticed that my eyeglasses were always a problem. My glasses and the 3D glasses never fit comfortably on my head, and for the most part of the viewing I am constantly fixing my eye ware. Have you ever watched a 3D film with contacts?

I've yet to be won over by the concept of 3-D as the next standard of cinema (and doubt very much, if only for the costs involved, that it will ever catch on fully), but I have to admit I'm still looking forward to the experience of watching "Avatar" in 3-D. Every person that has seen footage from the film, including Steven Soderbergh, seems convinced it will "change everything." The fact that we're half a year from its release with zero promotional material has only piqued my interest even more. (That, plus the fact that it's the most expensive film ever made, with a reported budget of $350 million and upwards -- that's just crazy. Just to pass breaking even, it will need to surpass a large number of the highest grossing films of all time.)

As for "Up," well, at this point it's almost impossible for me to lose faith in Pixar. I was one of few people who didn't love "The Incredibles" and yet it was still better than most animated movies. "WALL-E" was incredible. More than "Up," however, I'm looking forward to "Toy Story 3" -- the original Toy Story is the first film I remember seeing in theaters as a kid, and it's one of few films I loved as a child that still holds up just as well (albeit for fairly different reasons) today. Pixar movies work on so many levels, which is one of my favourite aspects. I don't know how they do it, but actually investing time and faith into their stories and characters might be a start. I'm pretty sure it was John Lasseter who saw a copy of Disney's "Tinkerbell" last year and literally forced the division of the company handling the film to re-do the entire project (which included replacing Brittany Murphy's voice talents with those of another actress). His reason for doing this is because he felt the movie wasn't deserving of its affiliation with the original Disney film, and I just found that notion of honor and respect for audiences to be unique in today's age when they're putting out sequels or remakes or prequels to any franchise that has shown revenue. Looking at someone like Harvey Weinstein, notorious for his butchering of movies in production and post-production, and comparing his tactics to those of Lasseter -- at least in my opinion -- reveals the problems with most studios and the people in charge of them. You can tell that guys like Lasseter actually love what they're doing, and that's what marks the biggest difference.

@ crazymonk

The main problem with your claim that 3D is a technology that is waiting for its Wizard of Oz is the Wizard of Oz never charged viewers a premium for the right to view films in colour (as far as I am aware). Likewise with talkies, cinemascope or any other 'magic bullet' technology that the industry has proposed to save cinema over the years.

I would like to believe I am typical of many moviegoers, passionate about film, but on a budget. I cannot see myself paying any amount of extra cash for an experience that does not offer a major improvement in the cinematic experience. Speaking personally, I believe sitting in a darkened theatre for a movies already provides a more than adequtely immersive experience, and strapping a pair of goggles to my melon will detract from that, if anything.

The commonly stated reason for price increases for 3D films is the cost of the glasses. However in the case of all of the previously mentioned technological advances, the increase in admissions was expected to cover the shortfall for the costs of exhibiting their films in new ways. If the increase in admissions is not sufficient to offset the costs of a new technology, surely it is not sustainable to persist with such a technology?

(Of course this is all based on assumptions that past technical advances have not gone hand-in-hand with price increases. If this is not the case, feel free to rebut my argument, I always have a helping of humble pie in the refrigerator for such occasions..."

Up sounds great. I am reassured. I saw a trailer before Star Trek last Thursday night and some parts of the trailer worried me. Wall-E is one of the best films I have ever seen because of how well it fits me and my past experiences. Wall-E gets extra points for the melancholy perspective punctuated with hope. How common is that in a kids film? Maybe common I don't know. I can't wait to see Up.

I happen to be one of the very few who haven't really connected with some of Pixar's output. I loved the Toy Story movies, as well as The Incredibles and Ratatouille. I enjoyed Cars and Finding Nemo, but really found myself indifferent to A Bug's Life, Monsters, Inc. and Wall-E. That's certainly not to say I don't appreciate the glorious animation, or the wonderful attention to detail, it's just hard for me to connect with the stories, sometimes. With A Bug's Life and Monsters, Inc., I felt that they were tailored too much towards children, and despite the stunning cinematography, Wall-E lost me when they went up into the space ship and we see all of the obese and unproductive humans.

Yet, with Up, I have to say I'm eagerly awaiting experiencing this one. The trailers are delightlful and the characters really look like the kind I can rally behind. Not to mention the animation--some of the most stunning I've yet seen from Pixar. Which brings me to the question of whether I'll go and seek this one out in 3D.

Now, the only recent experiences I've had with 3D were The Polar Express, Beowulf, and Superman Returns all in IMAX 3D. The Polar Express was a revelation, whereas Beowulf was ok, and Superman Returns was an absolute waste of my time. Chances are, I'll simply stick with the standard 2D experience. After all, the glasses are uncomfortable, the 3D is oftentimes distracting, and yes, I too notice that the colors are washed out. I'd rather just sit back and watch a movie unfold, rather than feel like I'm floating in the sky with the old man. 3D just may revolutionize our movie-going experiences, but I'm going to hold out a little bit longer before I give it another shot. However, there's no question in my mind that I'll be lining up to see James Cameron's Avatar, 3D glasses and all, come December.

"It is the responsibility of parents to explain this useful truth: If it ain't broke. don't fix it."

Nor silent neither black and white films were broken. Does this mean that we should still watch films without colors and sounds? The "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" sentiment is against development.

I think you should give the new 3D a chance roger. While it isn't a necessary element to enjoying a movie, it definitely adds a sense of wonder to the experience. I had the misfortune of seeing "My Bloody Valentine" and while the movie itself was so-so, the effect the 3D had on the experience was enormous. The movie used the 3D to toy with the audience and to truly engage us. I can remember one scene where a character points a shotgun at the audience slowly and laughs. The entire theatre erupted in nervous laughter at the thought that we would be afraid of the man on screen. Maybe it just works well for horror movies, but I have to say that I've seen alot of great movies this year, but my most memorable theater experience thus far has been at a 3D showing.

Also, I wish Toy Story 3 would come out sooner. The original has always been close to my heart and I can't even begin to imagine where the characters will be now.

I have to say I too was skeptical about 3D, until I saw Coraline. I was floored. It wasn't hoky or distracting at all. It was just awesome. It was something above and beyond a normal movie experience. 3D done right, not added on as an afterthought to generate revenue, or buzz, or whatever, but done for the sake of art, will elevate a movie to something far greater than 2D.

Just wanted to give Coraline its due. Looking forward to UP

I recently saw Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" on DVD. There were some unusual composition choices that I noticed at the time, lots of objects (lamps etc.) in the foreground, often right between two characters having a conversation. Obviously this was deliberate, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out why he was doing it. It was only after I watched the Special Features that I found out that the film was originally shown in 3D. Apparently in the 50's no director was safe from the 3D fad.

Still, it was an interesting use of the technique. "Dial M for Murder" was an adaptation of a stage play, and essentially the entire movie takes place in an apartment. The lamps and things were Hitchcock's way of giving the room a sense of depth; he chose to project the third dimension into the screen instead of throwing things at the audience as so many other 3D films do. (The one exception is during the murder scene, but this may have been effective as well--an added shock to the audience at just the right moment). This more subtle use of 3D was designed to simulate the experience of the theater; I don't think I've ever seen 3D used in this way before.

Of course I've only seen the film in 2D, which is just fine with me. It's still an excellent movie. And I agree with you that 3D usually distracts from a movie more than adds to it, calling attention to itself and away from the story on the screen. On the other hand, I wish I could see what a 3D film from a master director like Hitchcock would look like. If anyone could use the technique to its full potential, in service of the movie, surely it was him. I wonder, have you ever seen "Dial M for Murder" in 3D? Do you think it can ever be an asset to a movie, or must it always be a liability?

Ebert: I saw it in 3D, and so what. Hitchcock hated the process.

People ask if I would have been against sound and color. I don't think so. But silent films have a special magic, and I actually prefer b&w to color. It appears that 3D is about to devour the field of animation, and that would be a tragedy. I can see that sound and color bring something to the table. 3D is simply a distracting element coming between the audience and the movie.

I feel that 3D is being introduced not because of higher ticket prices and piracy (although that is part of it), but because the in-theater experience is getting worse and worse while the home theater experience is getting better and better (and cheaper and cheaper), and they're looking for ways to keep people going to the movies.

With my fairly meager income, I've set myself up with an LCD projector, a screen, and decent speakers for under $1000. DVDs come out after a few months. Should I watch a movie in the comfort of my home with this setup, or go to a theater where I'm treated like livestock, the tops and bottoms of the screens are cut off, the image is blurry, and my fellow attendees are rude? I love the theater experience but the home experience is becoming more tempting.

Basically: the studios need to regain some control over the theater experience, if not owning their own theaters outright. I know why theaters were not allowed to own exhibition houses, but that seems outdated now. With this 3D technology, they seem to be hoping for some control over how people experience their movies. It's time to give them full control again.

I like pointless frippery as much as anyone, but if it requires me to squint through glasses then it's inadequate by definition in cinematic terms.

Also, based solely on the trailer I want that dog to get a spin-off movie.

What good is 3D? This is all I've got: When I was in college, one of the residence centers showed Creature from the Black Lagoon on Halloween. Everyone got the glasses, and admission was free if you showed up in costume. Bill and I went and sat in the front row--for the express pleasure of looking behind us during the picture at the sight of a few hundred college students wearing masks and Steve Martin-inspired arrows through their heads and fake beards--all wearing those glasses. Curiouser and curiouser.

By the way, I wanted to include a balloon-movie film festival list, and tried to think of the Australian film where the guy floats away on his--wait: Danny Deckchair? Anyway, I must warn you: Don't Google the words "balloon movies"--unless you want an instant education in a fetish weirder (albeit less creepy-crawly) than the one Cronenberg imagines in Crash. As Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide puts it--lambasting another Cronenberg movie, The Brood--"It's a big, wide, wonderful world we live in!"

I saw Coraline in 3D. In that case, I think that the 3D helped the story because it made the surreal fantasy world that much more surreal and fantastic. I can't see 3D enhancing a story unless that's the case.

I can't wait for Up. Every time I don't see a Pixar movie in the theater, I end up kicking myself when I watch the dvd at home.

right now is there a more bankable name in hollywood than pixar>

Wonderful as always, Rog. I think the biggest lesson to take away from Miyazaki (and the best Pixar movies) is that they were making movies; they were approached by people who saw their jobs as filmmakers and artists, not cinematic bricklayers.

I'm also not chafing to see this in either 3D or IMAX. If the picture is good, it only needs to be as big as the movies always have been. More isn't better.

I think it is wonderful what Pixar has done for film. Not since Disney movies over fifty years ago have animated movies been so anxiously awaited. And like those Disney films, Pixar doesn't equate to 'for kids', they are stories for all ages, just made in a more child friendly medium. I've been waiting for 'Up' for quite awhile, and can't wait to take my daughter, 13.

I agree with you that 3-D is a failure, but disagree with your forecast. I don't think wearing fancy glasses will end up being as key as everyone thinks it is, though. I do see a more immersive film experience coming down the road someday, the visuals being what equates to surround sound today. I just hope that when that day comes they don't abandon story for the novelty of being 'in' the movie. I would rather sit next to Charles Foster Kane, as he rests on his death bed, than be cornered by Jason Vorhees in some Summer Camp love shack. I think we both know what will happen first though...

I largely agree with you about 3D - that it's a gimmick and is already over-used (and that we'll probably have to suffer through more and more of them in the next couple years). However, I saw "Coraline" in 3D and felt it actually added to the film. That's because it was stop-motion, so the things are actually real, three-dimensional things, rather than pixels and bits and bytes. So it gave it a bit more depth. (That, and they didn't resort to cheap 3D "jump in your lap" gimmicks. Well, maybe once.)

Ebert: Your observation about stop-motion is probably key to the look of "Coraline." It was a 3D picture of a 3D reality, not a 3D picture of a 2D reality.

I agree with you on the whole 3-D thing though I felt it actually improved my viewing experience of Monster vs. Aliens. That film was special because it seemed designed for 3-D and it seemed to work for it's story. I actually think I enjoyed the film more than I would have in a standard 2-D theater. I saw the 3-D previews of Up and was disappointed with how flat and uninspired it looked. There is just something about the Pixar film's details that demands to be seen on a traditional nicely textured projector (I for one can't stand those digital screens at movie houses--they make the movie look like a damn DVD home video blown up on a 70 foot wall). I like my films to have that "film-look". It brings back a lot of memories.

I am always struck at how good the Pixar films always are. While their trailers are always terrible, they somehow never fail to disappoint. Movies like Wall-E are so good that they almost catch you off guard. You don't soak it all in the first time. Year after year Pixar comes up with some amazing stuff that is almost always entertaining on some level. I look forward to seeing Up on the big screen. I won't see it in 3-D. I don't believe that 3-D is totally a corporate gimmick in some cases, however, nine times out of ten like you said there's usually no good reason for it.

My favorite animated works of all time are probably (in no particular order):

1) Beauty and the Beast
2) Akira
3) My Neighbor Totoro
4) Grave of the Fireflies
5) The Secret of Nimh
6) Finding Nemo
7) The Wings of Honneamise
8) Cowboy Bebop (T.V. Series)
9) The Iron Giant
10) Steam Boy
11) They Were 11
12) Princess Mononoke
13) Kiki's Delivery Service
14) Paprika

Probably noticed a couple Miyazaki films. With good reason.

Actually, they're really not stylish in the least. http://www.amazon.com/XpanD-Stereoscopic-Emmiter-Active-Glasses-Pc/dp/B001CR6DY2
At any rate, I'm looking forward to this film.

Ebert: And only $699! The ones in theaters must be toned down.

Roger, your comments about 'Up' make me anticipate the 2D experience even more than I had been since I saw the first teaser trailer about a year ago. I'm glad to hear that Pixar hasn't missed the mark. Their track record is impeccable, and kind of hard to believe. Can you think of any other major studio that has never made anything less than a stellar film that garners unanimous praise from both the critics and the public? Their ability to make excellent films exclusively is unparalled, and I'm grateful my three kids (all under the age of five) are growing up with the Pixar films as their introduction to fine yet accessable moviemaking. I'm in my thirties, and as a child had to settle for the nadir of Disney's animation and live-action output of the late '70s to late '80s. Then again, we DID have 'E.T.' and 'Star Wars,' so I guess everything balances.

As gorgeous as the Pixar animated films are, nothing impresses me more than their stories.

Perhaps their obvious dedication to writing is equal to the stunning, life-like visuals is because--and I am not an animator so I am guessing--so much labor is involved with animation that to leave scenes on the cutting room floor or discover there is a plot-hole requiring re-shoots is far too costly. I imagine 8th, 9th, 10th drafts being poured over at the Pixar offices, ensuring that no detail is missed, that the evolution of the film's story stands on its own merit.

I suppose it would be easier (cheaper? faster?) to try and wow the audience with striking images alone, but I have to hand it to Pixar: no matter now beautiful their films look, underneath it all they know that it's still always about the story.

(noticing a second 'Matt K' on the last thread, we'll have to distinguish somehow)
The Disney-Pixar folks are really just creating something of a Renaissance. They're creating a kind of answer to the early Disney animated masterpieces of Snow White, Bambi, Dumbo, Fantasia, Etc... Consistency is definitely one of the most difficult facets to maintain, but their team or community of filmmakers have created so many revelations over the past decade or so. I'm so pumped about "Up" and I won't pay extra to see it in 3D.

so, it seems yet again a pixar movie is filled with all male characters? a fatal flaw that I have grown very tired of witnessing.

Ebert: Ellie plays a central role. And the bird gives birth.

I remember watching your show, Roger, when Joel Seigel chose "Pokemon" as the worst film of 1999 and lamented "The first film I ever saw in my life was "Pinocchio", a kid's first moviegoing experience should be that magical. I feel sorry for kids whose first movie was Pokemon".

I can smile now at the prospect that a kid's first experience going to the movies would be any of the magical films coming out of Pixar. The folks at Pixar tell stories worth telling. They have imagination and a generosity with their visual landscapes. These films are going to be remembered and watched 50, 60, 70 years from now because they are ABOUT something.

As for the 3D issue, I think these films are going to be viewed in first run in the 3D process but the process will be lost once the film goes into it's second and third week and when it goes on DVD.

Also, the kids who experience these films a generation from now will most likely see these films without that intrusive 3D process. So all hope is not lost.

This is going to sound blasphemous, but WALL-E, at least in the second half, disappointed me. The first half half was absolutely brilliant and enchanting, reminiscent of Clifford Simak's City (and that is a book ripe for an anime adaptation along the lines of Robot Carnival or Neo-Tokyo). But in the second half, the magic dissipated as the film makers insisted on hitting us over the heads with a big message, one which isn't particularly original, and which we had been told before, and better, by the likes of Frederick Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth. And I groaned at the utterly cliched ending. It would have been improved for me if there had been no human characters appearing at all, and their existence, or rather, prior existence, only implied. It would have made the attempted message both less heavy-handed yet more powerful.

I can't name a single Pixar movie with an all male cast. They tend to have male protagonists (which you could probably attribute to the people at Pixar being mostly male) but the female characters always have more prominence than they do in the majority of mainstream movies. They're never merely "The Love Interest", they tend to be just as fascinating and well developed as any of the men.

I loved Wall-e more than any film in 2008. Silly me feared for Up as the original trailer felt mawkish and overly sentimental. Could Pixar have been delivering it's first weak movie?

Once I saw that Cannes had signed on, heard from friends at the studio and now read your piece, I'm revved up to see the movie. I will search it out in 2D though.

Thanks as always for the wonderful posts. As an aside I recently watched "Man With A Movie Camera". Anyone with any interest in film, animation and magic should seek out this Russian 1920's masterpiece. I hope you agree. When the tripods moved I literally shivered!

Rob

Ebert: The Alloy Orchestra will present a new print from Russia with their original score at Ebertfest 2010.

I wanted to respond to Karen Bowers and her entry regarding Pixar films and all-male characters (May 12). I have only casually seen Pixar films over the years, and for the most part I've enjoyed them. I agree that some of them have a preponderance of male characters, but some names that stick out as central female characters in these films include Bonnie Hunt, Ellen DeGeneres, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Phyllis Diller, Annie Potts, Elissa Knight, Madeline Kahn (God rest her oh-so-hilarious soul), Holly Hunter and Allison Janney. And I'm still missing quite a few. I've never seen a Pixar film that gave me the impression they had any kind of male-character-domination agenda. But then again, I'm male, so maybe I just don't notice.

Roger, I discovered a copy of Hayao Miyazaki's Porco Rosso in a bargain bin a few weeks ago, and what a bargain! My kids have seen it five times, and I am surprised how often I never tire of seeing its glorious images. My kids have seen most of Hayao's works, except Princess Mononoke, which I've added to their must-see viewing list.

Boy, do you have a serious hate-on for 3D.

I do appreciate and hear your argument, opting for the purity of your movie watching experience, which closely mirrors Steven Spielberg's argument against digital cameras. However, I do have a fond memory of seeing my first 3D movie in the mid-80's before all the techno-hubub took over our movie viewing pleasure.

It was an exclusive screening of Vincent Price's horror classic, House of Wax. I saw it with the also classic 3D glasses with one red lense, and the other blue. As a teen, I thought it pretty cool, and didn't feel it distracted from the film. True, it can be argued that the movie could stand alone just fine without it, but I found it quite kitschy along the lines of other 50's gimmick movies like House on Haunted Hill, and The Tingler! Those are just plain fun.

My take on it is this: see the 2D version first, then for the fun of it, see it in 3D if you've become a real fan of the film. Otherwise, the gimmick takes center stage, instead of the story, as you've aptly put it.

P.S. - I have to ask this. How is it that you could go to Cannes, and still be commenting in your blog? I mean, if it was me, I'd leave my computer back home, and spend all my time soaking in the experience that is Cannes with all it has to offer. Then again, as I think on it more, it must be the journalistic instinct in you to post back what you've seen and done. It's just not in you to keep cool stuff to yourself. You desire to share with others. God bless you for that.

John

Ebert: I'd love to just soak up the experience, but I have a job and the paper might not enjoy it as much as I would.

You are right. For me having to visit a theatre to see a movie and to watch it in one go (rather than in "quanta" of ones choice and the choice of back-and-forthing along with the luxury of subtitles ) seems hard in itself ( I can reasonably claim to be a cinema lover if not a connoisseur) but having to put on Batman glasses to boot seems going too far. I share your chuckle---black ties and those glasses!

The best animation I saw was possibly Grave of the Fireflies.

Animation is to ordinary films what the brush is to the lens----at least paralell and certainly not subordinate and one can only regret the futures one may miss unless one believes in other possibilities.

Thank you kindly for the advance comments on this movie. Pixar films hold a special place in my heart, not least because of their wonderful colour palette. I agree with your childhood opinion of their realism!

I made a deal with my husband that I would see Star Trek in Imax with him if he'd see UP in 3-D with me, but had begun rethinking it over the last several posts about 3-D and other film technology, and now will see it in regular 2-D.

By the way, I vividly recall reading Conan Doyle's Lost World at around age 10 because it scared the crap out of me- I dreamed there were dinosaurs coming in through my windows for weeks. I'll have to track down the film and exorcise the creatures from my mind.

Roger,

As a viewer of 3D versions of films like BEOWULF and CORALINE, I too fail to see the value of 3D - at least the glasses, which make vision darker and hazier than it is without them. I found that if I took the glasses off (usually because they hurt my ears), the screen was brighter, but also a bit blurry and I'd get a headache after a few minutes of watching without the glasses. All of this is my way of saying that you have convinced me to seek out the 2D version of UP when it hits theaters; I wasn't sure if I wanted to see it until I read your blog.

Roger, I think you are one of the most informative critics writing reviews. I have thought your reviews were exactly right in all but a couple of films, Star Trek was one, but maybe it's because I love the Star Trek franchise. Anyway I have to sort of disagree about 3D, while all the flash of poking objects at viewers eyes and making things jump out at you is quite annoying and of no additon to a film's storyline or conveyence, if a film is done correctly 3D can add so much. A 3D film should give the picture depth, it should take the image and not necessarly make it jump out at you but, go back into the screen as if you could reach into the screen. I do have to say 1 thing, 3D in the IMAX or digital IMAX MPX is far superior to 3D in regular auditoriums. Regular 3D (Real D, Dolby 3D Cinema) uses 2 images projected from 1 projector (this can make the images dim and loose color and resolution) on the screen using polarization to seperate the images for each eye. IMAX projects each image with a seperate projector giving you a bright image with excellent color fidelity and shaprness. Because of the geometry of the IMAX screen being so immersive to your view, the image does not seem to be limited by the boundries of the screen. I think we need to look at the films idividually and see if they are really condusive to 3D. While I do not think UP will benefit from 3D in a normal theatre, if it is remastered for IMAX 3D it will add a dimension to the film that will be enjoyed by all. IMO there's gimicky 3D, and then there is a subtler 3D which adds a great dimension to a film. I would ask of you, Roger, that if UP is available in IMAX, that you go and see it and then give a review of it in that format.

Ebert: I love the IMAX format, if I don't have to sit too close.

Roger, I must admit I've been skeptical about your views on 3-D films, but I've realized that's mostly because I really WANT to like technology. Having watched a couple films in 3-D now (mostly Imax, notably Superman Returns, Harry Potter 5 and U23D), I am starting to lean towards agreeing with you about 3-D.

What I've noticed about 3-D is that it either stands out to the point of being distracting, or you hardly notice it. In either case the question is the same - "what's the point?". Also, I find that it takes my eyes some time to adjust between 2-D and 3-D viewing, which is jarring in movies where you have to take the glasses on and off (I'm looking at you Superman). I thought U23D handled this well by having a slow, extended credit sequence at the start so our eyes can adjust to the 3-D effect without any fast distracting motion.

Furthermore, I came to another realization while watching U23D: 3-D images are the most convincingly realistic when shot with a 'normal' focal length (about 50mm for 35mm film). When the shots go either wide angle or telephoto, the image distorts and the 3-D immersion is broken. Wide angle shots make the scene look like it was a miniature shot with people out of scale with the surroundings, and telephoto shots compress the space to the point where there is no depth for the 3-D.

I think this is an inescapable aspect of 3-D films that cannot be reasonably overcome because of the physics of light and the way cameras work. Any shot that does not match the focal length of a human eye is going to look fake and break the illusion of being in the picture, which is the whole point.

Wow. The lead character looks exactly like an animated Spencer Tracy. Nicely done! If you need an image that instantly says "curmudgeonly old man," go with the best.

After reading this, I have to reflect on the fact that all studio screenwriters are fishing in the same pond.

John Truby has compiled a list of traits that separate Hollywood blockbusters from ordinary movies.

http://www.truby.com/radiointerview.html

Q: what are the most common mistakes writers make?

Truby: 4. They don't know how to hang the story on the 7 major story structure steps, so the plot doesn't come from the character and the main character doesn't change. 7. They fail to give their hero a moral as well as an emotional weakness at the beginning of the story

When I first read about "Up," I wasn't enthusiastic about the main character, voiced by Ed Asner. He seemed to be all about "emotional weakness" just so he could change by the end. And because of his age, there were only so many ways he could change. ie, no surprises.

Ebert: Two of the three central characters are cranky old men, which is a wonder in this era when the captain of the Starship Enterprise must be three years out of school... "Up" doesn't think all heroes must be young or sweet, although the third important character is a nervy kid.

Actually, you can buy a DVD set of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" where the captain of the Enterprise is a cranky old man... and indulge to your heart's content. The new movie uses the one approach that hadn't been done to death by TV shows. The Story Line that fans ranked Number One on their list, Spock's experience at Star Fleet Acadmey.

One key to Pixar's success appears at the end of Truby's list of major structure steps: the creation of an original Story World.

In "Shrek," the story world assumed that fairy tales like Cinderella and Snow White were real. Fiona was a Princess waiting for her Prince to come.

"Toy Story" had a story world where toys could talk and had inner dialogues about their purpose.

"Jurassic Park" combined the beauty of Hawaii with dinosaurs.

"Cast Away" had a story world set on an island. Same for "Lost." (Trivia: dialogue was written for Wilson the Volleyball, to help Hanks have a more natural interaction with the inanimate object.) (More trivia: at a Q&A session at USC, Roger Zemeckis revealed what was in the unopened package: A waterproof, solar-powered, satellite phone.)

Pixar's idea was, "a daring adventurer named Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) uses his gigantic airship to explore a lost world on a plateau in Venezuela. The exterior is a really big zeppelin. But the interior, now, is one of those movie spaces you have the feeling you'll remember. With vast inside spaces, the airship is outfitted like a great ocean liner from the golden age, with a stately dining room, long corridors, a display space rivaling the Natural History Museum, attics spacious enough to harbor fighter planes... a solitary life shared only by robotic dogs."

I have a script with every one of those points... oh, well. Creating a Story World that the audience would pay to come back and visit a second and third time... is just as important as creating likable characters. My impression is, Pixar's score card reads

Story World 10 out of 10
Characters 4 out of 10

I'll revise the score card after I actually see the movie... but that's my impression from the trailer.

Roger - I've seen three recent films in 3-D and enjoyed each of them, without noticing any kind of muting of colors. I wonder if many years ago an older critic once said of color "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Same thing might have been said about "the talkies." Couldn't one have said the audio and color were simply ways to charge more for a ticket? I think those two things have worked out pretty well....

Not a big Trek fan; based upon your review I went to see Star Trek with some apprehension. Not sure what move you saw, but the one that I saw was very, very good. Well written, well acted, well done period. All science fiction is flawed; it has to be. Someone is imagining something that hasn't happened, yet. In "The Day The Earth Stood Still", who doesn't get stuck in the circular reasoning of Gort using violence to stop or prevent violence. Anyway, within 5 minutes of viewing, I knew that I would like this re-telling, much as I did during my first viewing of "Casino Royale".

Hoping all is well with you.

Dan

yes I should be careful commenting about a movie I haven't seen, but you say a bird gave birth, doesn't sound like a major role,and Ellie has no voice- so how major a role can that be? I liked the pixar movies I have seen, BUT I am very very tired of all these movies being like the smurfs- all male with at best a token woman(smurfette).What message are we sending to our children, the same old tired message that men and boys are the protagonists and women and girls either don't exist or are only there to be the backdrop and witnesses to what is going on. I know I sound strident but I think this is at least as important as the 3d question.

Ebert: It's actually a very major role, and very sweet.

Roger, on the subject of Pixar, why do you think it is that many (most?) people consider "Cars" to be an inferior film? I am a grown man and Cars is one of my favorite Pixar films, even more so than The Incredibles, which I didn't enjoy as much.

Pixar is fantastic, and so is reading your blog. Thanks so much.

Ebert: I liked it although it lacked even a single Studebaker.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060608/REVIEWS/60606002/1023

For what it is worth, I have two children; girls ages 9 and 11 and they both dislike 3D. I've taken them to three films (Bolt, Monsters vs. Aliens, and something else).

After Monsters vs. Aliens my 9-year old said "I don't want to see any more 3D movies. They give me a headache and I can't sit however I want to, I have to sit how they want me to." You see, she likes to lean against my shoulder, or sit on my lap and lay back against me. When she does this the 3D effect goes wonky.

The first few minutes the effects absorb them, then it begins to irritate them. They start fidgeting, taking off their glasses, putting them reluctantly back on because not wearing them is worse.

I don't mind the idea that eventually 3D will be the way we experience movies, and I don't mind the R&D into the technology, but we are a long ways away from a tolerable, pleasant experience in 3D.

I'm finding it hard to understand what would be gained by placing such importance on the gender of the lead in a film, out of a studio that has only ten films under it's belt. As has been pointed out, Pixar films have many strong, and important female characters. You couldn't have told the story of the Incredibles the same way had Mrs. Incredible only been there for backdrop.

Collette, in Ratatouille was a fully fleshed out character which ended up providing one of the more poignant and touching moments of the film, as she was the only other one in the kitchen capable of coming close to understanding Remy's situation.

Jessie, in Toy Story II also was a fully realized character, completely sympathetic, and involving.

Eve, in Wall-E, practically exudes assertive strength.

Contrast these with the recent "Monsters vs. Aliens". The makers, in interviews, made a large point that their film had a rare female lead in a CG animated film. Having seen that film, she and many of the other characters, were not nearly as well defined, and her path seemed less defined by her character, and more by necessities of the plot.

It seems to me that characters, male or female, are better served by well-rounded characterization and fleshed out personalities, than which sex gets top billing. If the demands of story dictate a female lead at Pixar, odds are you're going to get one (and in fact we will, when the Bear and the Bow is released in a couple years).

How could crazymonk have a problem with Pixar’s tone? The theme of UP seems like it may be about getting tied up with something powerful enough to carry you away. As cowardly as I am seeing those balloon strings go taught makes me feel very alive. Crazymonk, RWA, intrigued me actually. Dissenting opinions are so interesting.
Roger, smart Bill Hays keeps on saying that you should direct. I think so too. Roger Dodger could be an OLD paper boy who can’t (or won’t) believe he’s got himself promoted up to the editor’s desk. Imagine Tom Wilkinson staring down a stack of copy. What’s a dodger supposed to do with responsibility anyhow? Thank you Roger, for everything. I feel like I’m going to be busy all summer following up leads.

2D or not 2D, that seems to be the question. But what is the answer? 3D?
Any chance of writing the next column in 3D?
Lets see if the 3D is better then the 2D.
And Goddammit if the 3D is better, then maybe its time to start thinking about the 4D and then the 5D and then the 6D and D idle D and D eedle Dum and by the way thanks for pointing out the youthfulness of the the current Star Trek genearation, I was beginning to think that Alan Parker had done a Bugsy in Space...I will now have a little night cap in my 3D world and bid adieu.

Ebert: I love the IMAX format, if I don't have to sit too close.

Hear, hear! That's how I saw The Dark Knight: front row left! The pisser was that I'd gone to the theater and talked to the manager a couple days earlier, explained that I'd been an extra in it, a few trivia-playing friends and I were planning on attending the midnight IMAX showing (since the only slight possibility of spotting me would be on an IMAX screen, we correctly assumed), and asked if there was any chance of reserving 5 seats. I was told no. Well, we get there 10:30ish, and the only seats we found -- together, at least, presumably because no one else wanted to sit there -- were in the front row. They did, however, have two blocks of seats marked "Reserved": one block of six for Jamie Foxx and his posse, and one block of three just a couple rows behind us for Michael Jackson and his kids. Since then, I've given Brenden Theatres exactly zero dollars.

IMAX is wonderful, though, if the seats allow you to take in the whole screen. There's just too much visual information to sit up close and take it all in.

Aside from maybe three or four of their films, I've never really been all that attracted toward Pixar. "Toy Story" has a special place in my heart, though. Still, their cinematography's always been fairly interesting - to me, anyway. But, UP! looks like they're really starting to experiment with it, which is good.

Incidently, what are your thoughts on this increasing 3D trend? Thus far, we've had "Coraline," in 3D, "Monsters and Aliens," in 3D, and I'm sure we'll have more by the end of the year.

News having just come in, George Miller's sequel to "Happy Feet" is to be released November 2011, under the title "Happy Feet 2 in 3D." And, that's the one that hurts most of all.

Ebert: It's a mistake.

After reading "Irving! Brang 'em on!" I'm happy to see there's an newer journal entry - as hearing happy recounts of Edy Williams back in the good old days, just depressed the hell out of me. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge you your past, but I never liked the circus, even as a kid. I always felt sorry for the creatures on display.

Kren Bowers wrote on May 12, 2009 4:08 PM - "...I liked the pixar movies I have seen, BUT I am very very tired of all these movies being like the smurfs - all male with at best a token woman (smurfette). What message are we sending to our children, the same old tired message that men and boys are the protagonists and women and girls either don't exist or are only there to be the backdrop and witnesses to what is going on. I know I sound strident but I think this is at least as important as the 3d question."

That was actually my first reaction to the trailer when I saw it months ago. Here we go again etc. Imo, men are so accustomed now to seeing themselves at the center of the universe, that they don't notice the disparity as much because for them, it's normal. But I always notice it - so too, the shape and form it takes for being sensitive to it.

WOMEN@THE BOX OFFICE - A Study of the Top 100 Worldwide Grossing Films. Last year, the president of production at a major studio allegedly pronounced that the company would no longer produce films with female leads. He suggested that such films are bad box office bets. In response, Manohla Dargis, film critic for The New York Times wrote, "it is hard to believe that anyone in a position of Hollywood power would be so stupid as to actually say what many in that town think: Women can’t direct. Women can’t open movies. Women are a niche" (May 4, 2008).

http://magazine.women-in-film.com/Home/Articles/ViewArticle/tabid/89/Default.aspx

After examining the numbers, the author's conclusion? The bigger the budget the bigger the return, and men, more so than women, are featured in big budget productions. And so the mental math is: male protagonists generate better box office. And Hollywood follows the money - be it a cartoon or live action.

It's an issue for me because I grew up with Ripley - the Alien series, you know? And Katherine Hepburn (happy posthumous birthday, by the way) and Buffy the Vampire Slayer and role models like that. Whereas now? Feminism lost its momentum and it gave rise to "half-naked" D-cup Laura Croft and "Sex and the City" and all that. Which kinda sucks. Note: people have a right to their choices but it doesn't negate the fact that collectively, choices help to enable the forces behind them; ie: you can choose to follow Martin Luther King for example or Rush Limbaugh eh? And why I don't feel good about the choices being made these days by young women - for seeing little girls trying to emulate Bratz dolls and dressing-up like hookers without realizing it. Eeww.

But I digress....

I haven't seen the film either and when I do, it won't be in 3D. The glasses pinch my head for starters, and the lenses are tinted and dull the screen. The fog in Coraline was an interesting effect, but I noticed it as an effect which pulled me out of the film - and I already have enough distractions in my head.

If you've worked in animation (Marie waves) part of your job was paying close attention to detail so as to catch any mistakes in your work. And it trains your eye to look for them, whether you inked cels or animated. And consequently I don't watch animation the way I used to as a kid. I catch every bad inbetween (poorly animated increments of subtle movement) every "iffy" bit of timing etc. And so 3D just makes it worse. It's one more thing to pull me out of the story. Moreover, it's got an agenda; it's about grabbing the video game generation while lowering your overhead as the two are increasingly related now.

Pixar just announced they're opening a Studio in Vancouver! Their feature films will still be made in California but the shorts will be done up here. They're planning to tap into Vancouver's talent pool (Gaming studios are to Vancouver, what motion pictures are to Hollywood) while taking advantage of our tax breaks and the lower dollar. Note: The worldwide gaming market is projected to be $65 billion U.S. Core demographic? 18 - 35 yr males.

Games are everywhere. In the past, you were asked to observe. Nowadays, you get to interact. But when you do, what are you "virtually" experiencing when you interact? What is the basic dynamic at work? What's the objective? What are the tasks? Action is the nature of gaming, and the action is in geared towards male sensibilities.

And so for me, the rise of 3D is about more than just trying to attract people to go see a film with bells & whistles. It speaks to larger issues a work as they pertain to girls and boys.

The current pop-culture is determined by Marketing, which takes advantage of psychology, pathology and behavior sciences - ie: study your customer, figure out what makes them tick and target that, by conditioning them in advance to WANT the thing you're going to sell them; the XBOX version of the movie.

P.S. I hate mindless chic-flicks with a passion. If I see Kate Hudson in the trailer it means "avoid it like the black plague". I have to live vicariously through non-offensive male fantasies because the bulk of what's out there for women insults my intelligence and makes me want to push the so-called heroine into oncoming traffic. They're making stuff for girls, but it's mostly STUPID stuff! Whereas I want to kick ass while being fully dressed and saving the planet from the evil corporate suits! :)

"It's actually a very major role, and very sweet."

SWEET?! That's it? That's her contribution? And if so, would you be content with it? Here lies Roger Ebert; he used to write a bit but he's best known for being likable while supporting his co-workers. Chuckle; sorry, I spent the day flipping through some books I've got by Pauline Kael, the critic I followed prior to discovering you and Gene, and now I'm in a brash frame of mind. :)

"I see little of more importance to the future of our country and of civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist. If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him." - Kael

Notice she said artist, not marketing dept.

Ever see her interview with Canadian reporter Brian Linehan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtGCjGgecOs

Grin. Okay, I'll leave you alone now. :)

As far as Kren Bowers is concerned, Elastagirl/Helen Parr, a great character who holds The Incredibles together, her daughter Violet, Dory, Eva, Colette, Jessie, Sally the lawyer Porsche, and Roz don't count. They're all supporting characters, with the possible exception of Elastagirl in the Myrna Loy second lead. Bowers's beef, and that of the others who have said this about Pixar, is that Pixar hasn't applied their immense story talent to creating a female protagonist. Well, so far they haven't. Maybe they don't want to compete with their partner Disney on Disney's home ground.

I think 3D will be obsolete when the next phase of digital comes out. The detail and contrast in current great films are almost lifelike. There is only a matter of time when those attributes become so real looking, the 3D factor will naturally come to its own. I wouldn't be surprised if people like the Coen brothers and their use of cinematography(see the incredible Texas imagery of "No Country For Old Men") for their future films will bring out more 'realness.'

With films like James Cameron's "Avatar" and Spielberg's "Tintin," which are filmed IN 3D FOR 3D, how will you be viewing these?

What if you don't get a choice between 2D and 3D? (oh no!)

And, even though I understand your love for "Polar Express," what would it take for an upcoming 3D film to receive a 4 Star Rating?

I don't think a character's amount of spoken dialog has much to do with their importance to the story. Consider Wall-E, who hasn't a single line of dialog, all those stoic Mad Max/Clint Eastwood types who hardly say a thing, and obviously the silent era. I think that telling a story with as few words as possible is the essence of good filmmaking.

I don't at all think Mr. Ebert's comments regarding stereoscoping film viewings are negative. Like Mr. Ebert, I don't have a problem, per se, with "3D," but it is a simple fact that it diminishes the color, brightness, and contrast up to 35% (the average is 20%). Why would a film maker work so hard making a film look great only to have this process create a lesser experience for the audience (who get charged more for it)? I'll be happy with 3D when they fix this problem--but I doubt it'll be fixed soon. Thankfully, the 3D fad is already fading--helped immeasurably by the bush economic meltdown. Theater owners are less interested than ever in investing in a very flawed gimmick. At the very least, they're gonna wait until it gets better. Since no 3D film has turned a profit (with 80% of profits still coming from traditional projection), they've got most arguments on their side.

I saw a screening of "Up" in Boston. Brilliant film-so far the best this year. Not as "flashy" as Star Trek, but a much better, mature, and more memorable film. No live action film in recent memory has more believable characters as this film.

I saw Coraline in 3-D and, as far as I remember, at my theater at least, the tickets cost only the regular nominal price (read: way too much, but not more than other, non-3D movies). I found the experience a good one; the 3-D had a bit of novelty at first (did anyone notice the lattice around the edges during the beginning credits had a different depth-of-field than the writing?), but soon I wasn't thinking about it and I was getting lost in the bleak 3-D stop-motion world they created.

Why not film more films in 3-D? They can be made 2-d more easily than the reverse process; and some movies are really enhanced by the process. Those who wish to enjoy them in 2-D can see them in the other theater, and/or on DVD.

Some here have said that stop-motion animation is suited well for 3-d because it is "already 3-d". I agree, but at the risk of sounding like an even bigger nerd, I need to point out that all modern CGI animated features are inherently 3-D as well. They may not have existed outside of a computer, but in the end their 3-d space is as real as that of a stop-motion picture, or even a live picture: being beamed onto a giant, flat screen in a theater.

I'd bet large amounts of money that when color film was new but becoming common, there were people who still claimed it "adds nothing meaningful to the experience". If I met one of those people, I might try to explain to them that images seen in real life are in color. But then I'd have to explain that real life images are also seen in 3-D.

Well, the semi-optimistic news, 3D went threw a similar wave in 50's cinema which is the only reason why "Dial M. for Murder," was shot in the duel strip 3D format. Though people soon became bored of its obtrusive and rather annoying nature where as it took away from the actual story. I'm sure the same will happen today... well, I hope.

P.S... can you PLEASE do something similar, when Inglourious Basterds (assuming your there) comes out?I've read the script, or excuse me, Novel, and I find myself almost too excited.

For those of us who aren't at Cannes (which is undoubtedly all of us on this blog), thank you, thank you, for taking us along with you. It may be the closest any of us will ever come to actually being there. What a wonderful treat it is to experience Cannes via this blog. Merci!

Roger, I recall many, many times you have stated and/or written there has never been a great movie that includes a hot air balloon (I forget your reasons but I think you've also stated "The Wizard of Oz" doesn't count).
So would "Up" be the greatest movie that employs helium filled balloons that transport a house?

Ebert: Definitely the greatest movie that employs helium filled balloons that transport a house?

Roger -

I'm really enjoying the site; thanks for your contributions.

About your "muted color" problem: There now seem to be two ways of doing 3D in theaters these days. One is passive and involves the viewer wearing crossed polarizers, i.e., a polarizing filter in front of each eye whose axes of polarization are oriented at right angles to each other (and 45 degrees to the vertical, as I recall, because some movie screens were made from narrow vertical strips). The absolute best way to effect this kind of 3D would be to have two co-mounted cameras and two projectors, each fitted with appropriate polarizers, but I don't know if anyone actually does it this way. You could pull some stunt with using half the film frame for each eye's image (at the expense of resolution) and get away with one camera and one projector, each with an elaborate optical arrangement fitted to it (note that film doesn't "store" polarization; it just stores light that's been polarized).

Even in the optimum two-camera/two-projector case, though, you're going to have a dimmer picture. A perfect polarizer, just by the nature of what it does, would block half the light going through it - the equivalent of what a photographer or cinematographer would know as a "stop." So in this case, the viewer would perceive a loss of one stop of picture brightness from the same arrangement in 2D.

What you describe with the active liquid-crystal glasses would put you TWO stops down, effectively - one projector, alternating frames per eye, and then the polarizer. Too dark!

or every other frame with some kind of alternating polarizer

Tintin will be filmed for 3D in 3D? Bummer. I started reading the stories (in English only; so far my French has never been up to it) in serial form in "Children's Digest" in childhood, and was so looking forward to it. I can't even watch movies or TV shows with a jerky camera ("Southland" and "Friday Night Lights" come to mind) without getting carsick.

The only 3D I ever saw that was worth anything was the Terminator 3D at Universal. But it was made for that theater, and it was a live-action show with 3D, not a movie.

One thing this thread has made me realize is that I am way behind on my animated film viewing. I used to be crazy about cartoons, and there are too many older ones I haven't witnessed for myself. Better get cracking.

I've pretty much acknowledged at this point that 3D is a gimmick and perhaps a way to as you said drive up ticket prices and curb piracy but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it admittedly a bit entertaining. Now with Coraline I felt it worked well as one of your other commentors said because it was a 3D image of a world that was actually 3-dimensional. With Monsters vs Aliens I felt the film itself was so kind of sloppy and reliant on action sequences that the 3D gimmick only added to it as it seemed to really have no emphasis on characters or story so much as just wowing the crowd with visuals. That said I wasn't exactly as wowed by as Coraline and maybe for this reason, I just didn't find that the 3D sucked me into the world of the film where as I felt completely overwhelmed by it seeing Coraline and especially through the portal into the other world.

I've been debating with myself for awhile now what to do with Up, I think that as a theater experience that I'll have the chance for with Up in 3D I might do it but at the same time Pixar films have been something very special for me ever since I was still a child. I've had a very intense emotional reaction to nearly all of these films and I'm worried that the 3D might detract from that first experience with the film.
After reading this I think it finally swayed me, I might see Up again in theaters in 3D if I go with friends or family but if it's my first time seeing it, I kind of want to make sure that first screening is in 2D.

I usually don't even think about going to the new animation films. I am of the age that thinks the old time cartoons we used to see at the beginning of movies were the best. But now I am curious about UP and plan to take my 22 year old daughter to see it. I noticed that someone above listed their favorite animated movies....I was shocked to see that Fantasia was not on the list. For baby boomers this was our introduction to animated classics, who among us doesn't remember Mickey dancing with his broom? By the way while you are in the French Riviera have you ever gone to the Hotel Negresco? My parents took us there in 1967 and I still remember dining on the veranda overlooking the Riviera, one of the most beautiful spots in the world.

here's why video games can (and occasionally are and will continue to) be art:

Immersion. You're not watching a character on the screen, you are the character. It can be just another form of storytelling... one that engages the viewer directly.

I imagine a day when the opening feature at Cannes is an interactive experience

Ebert: How will that work? Every audience member sees a different image?

I believe video games will never be great art. Whether I'm right or wrong, video games are not movies.

The problem I have with 3D is that two of the three people in our family can't see stereoscopically, Unfortunately, I've been finding in Toronto that the movies released in 3D (Coraline, Bolt, I'm sure the same for Up) tend to get the large downtown theatres, best projection, best sound; you have to go much further afield to find a good-quality 2D showing on a large screen. I don't find the glasses too annoying at least, (though the colours are somewhat dimmer), but it's a pain to pay extra for a gimmick I can't even see!

Its subtle and beautiful color palate.

Please, Mr. Ebert. You meant palette, I'm sure - the thing an artist uses to hold and mix colors. A palate is the roof of your mouth.

Sorry, I'm an editor and this makes my teeth curl.

Ebert: Duh!

Roger, aren't you being inconsistent when it comes to 3D? When the Polar Express came out, you praised the new glasses and the sophistication of the 3D. You said it was a big improvement.

I agree with you, though, that it is usually an awful gimmick and just "allright" at best. When it's bad, it's awful and when it's good, even very good, it's so so and might as well have been in 2D.

It can be a lot of fun, though- for about 30 seconds.

Ebert: Those were the new glasses. Also, I saw it in IMAX, with better light. It was a wonderful experience.

I used to be a big proponent of 3D movies, but now have my doubts. 3D can be wonderful in short bursts, such as in theme park rides (where the chair moves along to the movie), but that may well be the limit of its ideal use.

I still maintain, however, that the world cries out for more stereoscopy. How wonderful would it be if the major magazines (from Newsweek to Sports Illustrated to Entertainment Weekly) always contained a View-Master reel or two? Without movement, one could appreciate the depth of field without being distracted by the 3D effect. There would be no loss of color whatsoever. Best of all, you could feel as though you were really there.

And how about personal View-Master cameras? 3D has a rightful place in our culture, even if feature-length movies aren't it.

So much of 3-D is the gimcrackery of putting something in the audience's lap and letting them gasp. Most 3-D films just use moments of 3-D and otherwise let the audience sit with goofy glass on for no reason. 3-D is not about story telling. Story telling starts out on the printed page (or computer screen) and from there goes to film.

Lots of talk about "reality" here. Who goes to the movies for "reality"? I already have that, right now, like Chance the Gardener riding in the car, trying to change the world's channel with his clicker. Me, all I want from a movie is the truth, and you can get that with Pixelvision; just watch Nadja (1994).

I recently saw Up _at_ Pixar. In 2D. Suffice it to say, I don't think anyone present, presenting, or projecting thought we were missing anything. ;)

To Kren Bowers : I do not understand what you meant by another Pixar movie with all male characters.

Toy Story 2 had Jessie (the cowgirl)
Monsters, Inc had Boo (the little girl that transformed the monsters)
Finding Nemo had Dory and Flo.
Wall-E had Eve
The Incredibles had Elastigirl, the daughter and Edna
Ratatouille had the other chef teaching Remy
A Bug's Life had the Queen and Princess Ant and other female bugs
Cars had lady Porsche lawyer

So that's more than half of Pixar films with major female characters.

I am so happy you are back at Cannes! I can't be there in person so I rely on your updates. You're great. Thanks!

Up looks to be another sizzler from the pixar team. Pixar films are never less than decent and I have yet to be dissapointed.

I'm not yet jumping on the 3D bandwagon. I find the 3D presentations distracting and less enjoyable. I spend more time fidgeting with the glasses than I do watching the movie. Midway through the movie I start to wonder why I'm not enjoying it as much as everyone else is. Am I looking at it wrong? Is there something I'm not seeing? Is it like one of those paintings with the hidden picture, maybe I should try unfocusing my eyes. No thanks, I will just stick with 2D.

In the stills, Carl reminds me so much of Spencer Tracy in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner that it makes my heart hurt.

I don't know the specifics on cost, but why can't theaters just fix or replace their old projectors with clear digital projectors that are as close as theaters can get to an HD experience?

I High-def cinematic experience is far more satisfying than a 3D one for me. After watching Blu-rays at home it's almost a chore to go to the theater to watch a muted, faded, blurred image on screen.

Using Pixar as an example, Wall-e on Blu-ray was a much more enjoyable experience for me than seeing it in a theater.

I think 3D is just a superficial bandage to draw people's attention away from the real problem with theaters, which is the overall video quality. In this world of High-def it's becoming more and more apparent that theaters do not maintain, care for, or replace their projectors.

Now that you're at a film festival, Roger, maybe you can answer this question: Why is it, when you go to a film festival, you always seem to choose movies that you will see later at critics' screenings in Chicago? Why not use the opportunity to see movies that don't have a distribution deal, and could use the publicity?

I'm really looking forward to "Up" and actually anything that Pixar puts out. They really are amazing, delivering films that continue to be: visually groundbreaking, fun, funny and also quite poignant.
As soon as I heard Ed Asner was in this, I was sold. The man has so much life in his voice because he has lived life. Sure, his casting probably caters well to the character of Carl but it's no less refreshing to see someone at his age carrying a major summer film (animated or not) that everyone can enjoy.

AND NOW for my senior tangent....

Personally, I find myself more attracted to action films where the protagonist (male or female) is over 50 years old. I know I know....there's a shortage of actors doing such work and that's a shame. Ford, Stallone, Willis and Neeson (to name a few) are all over 50 and still dabbling in the action genre....and why not? It's just more interesting to see how it plays out, especially when we can revisit iconic characters like Indiana Jones, Rocky Balboa, Rambo and John McClane. The distance of time "hopefully" adds another dimension to these roles.

It's just too bad we don't see more women protagonists in these type of stories. Imagine how great it would be if we had a film with a storyline where Helen Mirren comes home to her London flat to find that her husband of 40 years is dead. Still in shock, she starts digging around and uncovers the truth about her husband....he was an assassin. Feeling isolated and alone, she decides to pick up where he left off and do what he had done. She starts taking jobs (or hits) that he would have taken all in an effort to find who killed him. She struggles with this drastic change but also become invigorated by it.....or something like that. I know that's kinda generic but you get the idea.
Hey, Taylor Hackford can even direct it!

....END OF senior tangent.

I'm disappointed to learn though that the talent folks at Pixar are going with the 3D approach, it's so unnecessary and have a feeling it won't last that long. I'm disappointed that they will be re-releasing all the "Toy Story" movies in 3D to coincide with the third film. Ah well. It's not that I can't stand 3D, I just find it unnecessary and kinda annoying. I have only seen one 3D movie which was last year's concert film "U23D" and I have to admit, that was pretty amazing. The sound and vision of it all was captivating but I saw it cuz I like U2 not cuz I like 3D. I honestly don't know if anyone sees a 3D film cuz they like 3D.

I hope this 3D thing is just a fad in the end simply for personal reasons. 3D doesn't work on me at all. Literally. I understand James Cameron's motivations for it, give the people a reason to see it in theaters, but I hope I don't need the ability to see 3D to fully enjoy his movies from this point.

I do wonder if they fixed that nausea problem, though. I worked in a theater when Spy Kids 3D came out and that made for a pretty disturbing cleanup. As if a minimum wage job could suck any more.

I think what Kren Bowers was trying to say was that none of the Pixar films have a female lead character, not a major character. There's a big differenct telling the story from the female's perspective and having a female contributing to the unfolding of the lead male's story.

Also Roger, do I detect a resemblance of the photos of the UP character Carl to you?

I have enjoyed reading the commentary on 2D vs 3D. Yes, the glasses are an issue, the dimness is an issue, just getting used to it is an issue. But the reason that 3D may not EVER catch on (unless someone can bend the laws of physics and/or change the way the brain processes information) has to do with realism.

When film discovered montage editing, it increased psychological realism because that's the way people actually view the world: from "shot" to "shot." And by the way, that was probably the most brilliant technological advance ever.

When film discovered sound, it increased realism because most people listen and watch at the same time.

When film discovered color, it increased realism because most people see the real world in color.

When film discovered stereo, then surround sound, it increased realism because most people can hear in stereo and place sounds in the real world.

Now that film is dabbling again in 3D, it is not increasing realism because it must give up depth of field for spatial depth. In other words, in a 2D film, the director can choose what objects are in focus and what objects are not, but everything in a 3D film frame must remain in sharp focus so each viewer can train their eye anywhere in the frame and note its perceived spatial depth. In the real world, our two eyes can do both -- namely, choose what to focus on and perceive how far away it is. 3D films just trade one thing off for another, and for most people, that nets no additional realism.

Also, to respond to someone who asked a question early on, 3D doesn't add to immersion because all objects on the screen really appear from the distance to the screen BACK, not forward. All this marketing hullabaloo about objects seeming to "pop out from the screen" only applies to the people sitting in the front 1/4 of the theatre where the screen fills their field of vision (except in IMAX, where it's about 2/3 of the audience), and EVEN THEN it's only after our brains have clicked over to buy the trick. That's why so many people get that headache: their brains can't make the switch. It's the visual equivalent of those people who get nauseated in motion-control rides where the sensory conflict is too great.

All this to say: until a 3D technology is created that can retain spatial depth without giving up depth of field, it will continue to be something that is just "close, but no cigar."

Meanwhile, I'll gladly pay the extra four bucks and geek out with the rest of the 3D nerds, because let's face it: it's cool.

Didn't we already have this 3-D discussion a while back on another blog? As I recall, the whole business was determined to be a classic gimmick, good for spot use (if at all). Now the talk is "wave of the future" (what, again?) with partisans on all sides up in arms. Well, as long as I'm here, there is something I've been meaning to mention...

(Disclaimer: I know that this should go to Answer Man, but I can never get that one to work right.)

Anyway... There's a movie just out on DVD called IN THE ELECTRIC MIST. It stars Tommy Lee Jones, Mary Steenburgen, and John Goodman, and is directed and co-written by Bertrand Tavernier from a novel by James Lee Burke. As best as I can determine, this picture recieved no theatrical release of any kind, going straight to DVD instead. I can just imagine all the office politics that went ino this decision, such as:

"It's a genre movie (police detective)and nobody goes to those anymore.That's what TV is for."

"Tommy Lee Jones hasn't been able to open a movie in years; he's, what, 60-something now? His last hit was when?"

"Comes to that, everybody in this is old. So they won awards years ago; who cares?"

"And who gives a rat's rear about some fancy-schmancy French director that only Roger Ebert ever heard of?" And so forth.

And thus IN THE ELECTRIC MIST goes directly into stores, with no fanfare, no publicity to speak of, not even so much as a phony blurb to call its own. Meanwhile, you're lollygagging around in Cannes, at what you yourself admit has become little more than a glorified trade show - "Blockbusters Priced To Go! Be The First In Your Market To Have A Billion-Dollar Opening Weekend!Act NOW!!!"You're looking for the next Bergman, the next Truffaut - and you're more likely to find the next Billy Baxter (which wouldn't be a bad deal, I guess, but really...).

I guess the point of this little diatribe is: how many worthy films are getting orphaned like IN THE ELECTRIC MIST, while The Next Big Thing (whatever it may be) is hyped to the heavens, in search of the Big Opening Weekend? Something to think about, no?

I think 3D is only really needed for bad movies so that occasionally something can be thrown toward the audience to wake them up.

But I'm wondering if you don't like even the idea of a 3D movie or is
it just that they don't yet give a good picture? If a play or
concert could be recorded and presented in perfect 3D wouldn't
that provide a better "you are there" experience than 2D?

Actually when it comes to animation, I miss the non-CGI features.
I loved Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Miyazaki's
films and "The Triplets of Belleville" has a special place in my
heart.

so has UP topped the inCredibles as your favorite pixar film?

Because my first encounter with 3D was at a theme park, I associate it more with rollercoasters than I do cinema, and I think trying implement it into film is doing a terrible disservice to the art. Perhaps 3D can be used to make theaters more versatile so that they can offer both movies and 3D ride-like experiences, but I agree with you: it only distracts from the story being told, and that's a big sacrifice if the story's being told by Pixar.

I'm a bit puzzled by your characterization of children: "Kids say they "like" it, but kids are inclined to say they 'like' anything that is animated and that they get to see in a movie theater." Elsewhere, you have insisted that children are smarter than movies assume and that their intellegence should not be insulted by marketing gimmicks. What do you believe about 3D, children, and the movie-going experience?

Reply to: About your "muted color" problem: The best way to project 3D would be to have two co-mounted cameras and two projectors, each fitted with appropriate polarizers, but I don't know if anyone actually does it this way

Here's how IMAX is planning their future:

http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-imax-but-is-it-imax-or-conspiracy?skyline=true&s=x

MWilson: IMAX used to build their own massive theaters in their own buildings. In order to expand, IMAX has made a deals with major theater chains to install a proprietary mix of projectors, screens, speakers and hardware if the theater will foot the bill for the necessary structural renovations.

IMAX installs a new screen that's as little as 10 feet wider than before, but moves the stadium seats 30 feet closer, creating a "sitting too close to the TV effect" The eye is tricked into thinking the new screen is 75 feet wider than before.

(instead of using traditional IMAX film, which can cost $40,000...)

Their new design uses two 2K Christie digital projectors that spit out the same image at the same time. (A slew of top secret proprietary imaging adjustments goes on at all times.) (Some nice photos if you click the link)

IMAX thinks their dual projector system offers a sub-pixel accuracy that, when combined with some extra imaging processing, looks better than Sony's 4K.

IF and when a more suitable base projector becomes available (be it 2K, 4K or higher), the theaters can upgrade... (end)

One potential advantage is that IMAX will have a better 3D projection system.

I saw an interview with the writer (Ben Bird? Director?) of "UP" who described his own adventures in Venezuela, where he said "I've got to make this into a movie."

Here's one thing about writers: They ALWAYS think their own stuff is great. Why? Because they are judging it using the same priorities as they used to create it.

Roger complained that the bridge of the Enterprise looked like "take your kids to work" day. Here are the writers:

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/transformers-roberto-orci-and-alex-kurtzman.jpg

And here's the new Chekov:

http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos/anton-yelchin-teen-vogue-young-hollywood-party-xwE9GZ.jpg

And Scottie:

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/peggstartrek.jpeg

I'm always looking for guinea pigs. I like to sit down with strangers and tell them my script ideas, and watch their faces. And, wow. If you made a list of the last ten movies released into theaters, no one would react favorably to hearing their story lines without actors attached.

ie, Matthew McConaughey as a player who realizes that the girl he wants to marry is about to marry someone else.

Most of the movies being made... are either based on what sets the director has available, or something he saw on TV last week. No one is making movies that people really want to see. they haven't figured out how. How many people still list "Cary Grant movies" as their guilty pleasure?

"Titanic" did it right. A real historical event. Not something "made up" or involving "aliens who came through a black hole," but something ordinary folks think they'd enjoy watching.

It's very difficult for a writer to look at his own work and judge it. The result is usually something like "Treasure Planet."

Oh, yeah. The beagle. In "Star Trek," Scotty got put in the doghouse because he sent a beagle through the transporter and it never arrived anywhere. That's a set-up, and the beagle was supposed to appear on a transporter pad on the Enterprise at the end of the movie. So, just in case you were wondering, Scotty didn't kill the beagle. It came through safely, just a few weeks later than expected. I was waiting for that scene, and maybe I missed it.

Ha! i can't remove the image from my mind of that first night's Cannes audience in Black tie and 3D glasses staring up at the screen... except I see them all wearing white gloves...

I see in your response to "TheFilmist" that you are passing judgment on Happy Feet 2 in 3D, a movie still in production. Shouldn't you wait to see the first 8 minutes before drawing conclusions?

I won't be seeing very many 3-D movies. In Toledo, Ohio, the nearest multiplex, a matinee is $7.50, but for a 3-D movie, they charge $11.25. Too much. (I always go to matinees. smaller audience.)

I saw both Coraline and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3-D. 3-D was not a must for MVA.

What I want to know is: why hasn't that last great innovation of the 20th century found its way onto the big screen, replacing the musty old 3D glasses technology? Yes, I am talking about those Magic Eye pictures that "ignited the world-wide 3D craze of the 90's", according to their website. They hold the patent for their "cutting-edge stereogram algorithm".

Want to see what UP would have looked like if it used Magic Eye technology? Click here

This may sound totally irrelevant, but I just wanted to know if you've seen 'Happy Feet'. And if you did, could you briefly tell me what you thought about it? I understand that you didn't review it, as I couldn't find a review of the film on your website.

Thanks a lot!

(P.S. I dislike 3-D too... it's either too much of a distraction in some scenes or totally unoticable in others.)

Who wants to be "immersed" anyway, to lose oneself or to forget that a movie is a movie !

Thank you Dale Haas!

I generally share the view of some commenters here that 3D should be viewed as merely another tool in the filmmaker's toolbox, with the the potential to be used for good or for evil.

However, I must thank you for providing such a clear and rational explanation of the technical tradeoff the director must make when 3D is employed: while the director can take control of the virtual spatial depth of elements in the stereo image, there is still only one plane of focus where the image is actually projected onto the screen. Audience members can control the position of their gaze, but must not literally adjust their focus to try to accomodate for the virtual 3D position of the element they are looking at: they must remain focused on the real physical position of the element on the observer's reference plane of focus (the screen). Because of this, the director will create potentially conflicting (and nauseating?) visual cues to the viewer unless he renders every element in sharp focus, regardless of virtual spatial depth.

Your explanation prompted me to do some hunting on google, and I discovered this excellent article from slate.com that explains the biomechanical tug of war that happens in our eyes due to this limitation when we watch 3D movies:
http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/

And yes, despite this I will still be seeing Up in 3D for the "wow" factor. ;-)

I had the privilege of seeing 'Up' about a month ago at a pre-screening here in Houston which, you'll be happy to hear, was in 2D.

Like any Pixar project, I thought it was a powerful, heartfelt story and I enjoyed it immensely. However, I found myself put off by some of the artistic liberties that Pixar took with some of the characters.

*Spoilers Ahead*

I know you're a fan of animation, Roger, so you may be familiar with Pixar's belief in "truth to materials", which is to say that subjects on screen should be restrained to what their materials allow them to accomplish. (i.e. Lightning McQueen operates like a car, WALL-E operates like a robot, Nemo operates like a fish, etc...)

In the same way that the subjects on screen are restrained to what they are physically capable of, they should be restrained by what they are mentally capable of. So, when villian Charles Muntz' army of dogs began flying airplanes, engaging in aerial combat, the story lost alot of credibility with me.

Dogs do not have the mental or physical capabilies to perform such a task. Now, if the dogs had been established as having super-canine capabilities early on in the story, I could let it slide. But the dogs in this movie are established as being more or less real dogs, with real dog capabilities. I didn't buy it.

Also, towards the end of the movie, Carl Frederickson is holding on to one end of a water hose, lifting up Russell, Doug and Kevin the bird, who are dangling off the side of the blimp. That would be several hundred pounds. This is the same Carl who earlier in the story couldn't walk down a flight of stairs?

*End Spoilers*

Heheh, I don't mean to be hard on Pixar, but it's hard not to expect perfection from those guys.

Take care, Roger!

As an animator I'd just like to thank you for treating animation with respect.

It seems like the vast majority of movie critics and reviewers don't pay attention to the process and how much work is involved, or they assume knowledge of the process and regard us as hacks.

They either don't know what we do -- which is fine except they don't care to find out, either -- or they think it's magic finger-snapping instead of fits of inspiration accompanied by mind-numbing levels of tedium and elbow-grease just to get anything looking half decent.

There are reviews I've read this year about animated films that have the awareness of what goes into animation that someone might reasonably have in the late 80s.

The only taste I had of 3=D was in 1972 in New Delhi in a short "demonstration" on a circular or semi circular screen as I remember. Probably or certainly it must be very different what you are discussing. But the question (apart from the discomfiture of having to wear glasses) is whether its desirable or possible to be led into forgetting that a play is a play, a box a box or a window a window. My preference(necessity too admittedly) for the small screen home experience is to avoid over immersion. Psycho was immersive enough that way. And Rosemarys Baby is long waiting its turn in the Q!

Perhaps the Academy will take a lesson from Cannes and discontinue the category 'Best Animated Feature'. Pixar has proven (with Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, WALL-E and now Up) that an animated film is just another technology of telling compelling stories, and not a different film form really. But then you cannot expect much from an organisation that considers 'Chicago' and 'Slumdog Millionaire', as great films.

Allow me some envy in your beautiful Cannes balloon voyage---Cannes is a word which conjures up the magical sublime in the world of film--up and up and up!! Bon voyage and happy ballooning!

eric wrote on May 13, 2009 9:51 AM - "here's why video games can (and occasionally are and will continue to) be art: Immersion. You're not watching a character on the screen, you are the character. It can be just another form of storytelling... one that engages the viewer directly. I imagine a day when the opening feature at Cannes is an interactive experience."

Ebert wrote: How will that work? Every audience member sees a different image? I believe video games will never be great art. Whether I'm right or wrong, video games are not movies.

It wouldn't work. The minute you can control something on the big screen, you change the story for everyone else - it would be chaos. If you have your own screen (say, mounted on the back of the chair in front of you) then you've reduced said interactive experience to the equivalent of being at your desk at work; as what's the difference?

When you read a book, your imagination fills the screen inside your head with everything your mind can see on the page; you mentally produce the story and cast all the parts. Films on the other hand, do that for you. But they still engage your imagination by asking you to "picture yourself" in someone else shoes. The story may speak to you, but it's not literally about you. You're engaged directly and participate in the story but on an emotional level by feeling your way through it, frame by frame.

Whereas video games speak directly to the reward center inside the human brain. You're handed a task or objective and if you succeed, what you get in exchange is "feeling good" about having won. Which, big surprise, reportedly really appeals to men:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/dailydose/11/20/video.game.brain/index.html

That said, I do think "some" video games can be viewed as Art, but more so by accident than design - as first and foremost, a game is meant to be played for the action; not contemplated or discussed like a book or a film.

Note to Roger: games often incorporate what's known as "cutscenes" in between the action - ie: animated scenes at the end or start of each new level, which advance the plot or provide further character development. And in some rare but admirable cases, those segments when combined, actually play out like little movies.

"Star Wars: The Force Unleashed" is such a case. The game itself is rather repetative, but the story behind it - now that's noteworthy! All totaled there's an hour worth's of storytelling and imo, this is the movie they should have made and didn't! Not to be a geek about it, but it'll be confusing otherwise - the time line:

Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith (the last movie Lucas shot.)
Okay, now insert "The Force Unleashed"
Star Wars IV: A New Hope (the 1st movie shot in 1977.)

So that's when this is taking place. It connects the two trilogies.

Plot:

Having crossed over to the dark side, Anakin is now Darth Vader and together with Palpatine (that evil Emperor dude) they're looking to kill the remaining Jedi knights in hiding. Darth manages to locate one - and murders him in front of his young son, only to then spare the boy for sensing he's special; the child of two Jedi, the force is strong in him - Darth sees he can be of use. And so he takes him, and raises the boy as a secret apprentice schooled in the dark arts.

His moniker is "Starkiller" (only in the novel version will he have a name: Galen Marek) and he's dispatched by his master Darth Vader to kill the remaining few who survived Palpatine's Jedi purge. Although acting as a villain, Starkiller is really just an emotionally damaged young man, and the focus of the game is to allow the character to evolve into something more heroic, greater. One of the directors David Collins, saw a physical resemblance between the character's concept art and his friend, actor Sam Witwer. Long story short: he secured the role by showing a deep understanding of the character's pathology; it was Witwer who brought new ideas moreover, to the portrayal of the character and imbued him with a sense of humanity. Note: the character's name is a homage to "Annikin Starkiller" the original name for the character that eventually became Luke Skywalker.

Sam Witwer plays "Davis Bloome" aka Doomsday on Smallville. That's how I know this stuff, it's all connected, chuckle! I've seen the cutscenes - it's brilliant. I loved the story, it's so poignant! He regains his humanity and dies a hero's death worthy of Joseph Campbell! He does not get the girl he loves. There's no victory party. He dies because he chooses in the end not to kill the one who taught him how to hate; he chooses not to kill Darth Vader.

Game Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asvKQOJZXcs

I mention all this because I agree and disagree with Eric while agreeing with you, Roger! Yet at the same time and not to be a Gemini about it or anything (smile) there's a damn good movie in there if you just get rid of the game! And the actors hired to play the characters for the animators, somehow managed to leave a bit of themselves behind in the data recorded by all that technology. And so I admire what there is to; while the game itself is too tedious for my liking (see it, kill it) despite looking really good - excellent graphics.

Georgette wrote on May 13, 2009 4:36 PM - "I think what Kren Bowers was trying to say was that none of the Pixar films have a female lead character, not a major character. There's a big difference telling the story from the female's perspective and having a female contributing to the unfolding of the lead male's story."

EXACTLY.

And even Coraline was a petulant brat. The only female in a starring role right now is Hannah Montana - which is enough to make me want to shoot myself. Or better still, grab a light saber and just go berserk.

Chuckle!

Well Roger - You are a persistent fellow aren't you? Interesting that you spend HALF your review talking directly or indirectly about 3D. But here is the kicker - you DIDN'T SEE IT IN 3D!

How on earth you can claim to be a critic (other than vast tomes of past efforts) when you have nothing to criticize about UP's 3D? Honestly, give it a rest. You saw it in 2D - fine. Perfectly acceptable and yes, most will see it in 2D (soon to change of course). So comment on what you saw, not what you imagine the 3D would do to it! Talk about exasperating!

You are right in that it is a heckuva story. And it is a powerful risk they took - but they succeeded. And the 3D? It excels! It brings you INTO the story and frankly you forget you are watching it in 3D for vadt parts of the movie. The scene where Russell is flung off the cliff hanging on the rope is simply SPECTACULAR in 3D! My jaw dropped open. Like you were really there - in an animation no less!

So, here I am giving you advice again on 3D - hoping that you are not destroying your legacy of fine work by a huge misstep later in your career. I applauded your recent achievement at ShoWest and your resiliency vs. what life can throw at a person. But I implore you, consider your fans before spouting off about a movie's format that YOU NEVER SAW. And even if you did see it that way, temper your comments to your opinion and not a sweeping, all-encompassing statement against stereoscopic 3D because you will be proven wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. Especially when AVATAR comes out for all to witness. There will be no hiding then Mr. Ebert.

Respectively,
Jim Dorey
Editor & Founder, MarketSaw.com
3D Movies & Technology

Ebert: I gave four stars apiece to "Polar Express" and "Beowulf" in 3-D and am looking forward to seeing "Up" and "Avatar" in 3-D. You do not address my points. Is the light indeed dimmer on the screen? Is 3-D necessary?

off-topic: your review of the Chorus Line documentary was excellently written and inspirational.

>I was worried this may be Pixar's flop, but this blog lifted my >spirits. Actually, it kinda slapped me and said "You moron, Pixar >knows what they're doing!"

Heh, I felt the same way.

I'm really looking forward to this movie. I hope I can get it in 2D somewhere...

"Up, up and away, in my beautiful, my beautiful balloon"? Why Mr. Ebert, I never pegged you for a fan of The Prodigy.

"Hotride in my air balloon/Slipping fast right around the moon/On a bullet train out of town/Walkie-talkie, one hand down".

It's either that or someone's picking your review and blog post titles for you. Emerson!

Ebert: My headline. The Fifth Dimension, I believe.

I was privileged to see some of the concept art for Up! a few weeks ago at Pixar and I have to agree with you that the colors and design of this movie are stunning. I am disappointed that the marketing for this movie has not hinted at the emotional depth that is obvious once you understand the motivations behind Carl's journey. I was only half-heartedly interested in seeing the movie until I began to fully understand that it was a psychological journey as well as a physical one. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here!

Mr. Ebert:

Your's is the second review I've read that has suggested forgoing the 3D movie and take UP in 2D. I think 2D is the route that we will see it. My 3yo hates the glasses! ;)

This is a film that my whole family has been waiting to see! The trailers and snippets we've caught are hilarious!

It's funny that there is criticism out there that most of Pixar's leads are male when their inspiration -- Hayao Miyazaki -- produces epics with strong female leads.

Have a grand time at Cannes!

At the Four Word Film Review, I've described "UP" as "Inflation creates housing crisis."

Roger, I agree that 3D technology has been mostly a distraction up until now. Both the technology and its use have been equally at fault. Awful, headache-inducing red-blue glasses and picture-ruining polarizing glasses have been used to needlessly throw objects at the audience and distract from the story.

This new 3D technology _will_ solve at least one of those problems. Shutter glasses work not by filtering the light, but by exploiting the natural cycle of film projection. I'm sure you know how it works, but for those who do not, films are projected at 24 frames per second, with each 24th of a second broken up into quarters. For the first quarter of that 24th of a second, the frame is projected. For the second quarter, the light coming out of the projector is blocked, showing a black screen. For the third quarter, the light is allowed though again, showing the same frame for a second time. For the final quarter, the light is blocked again and the frame advances. The picture appears steady due to the rate at which this occurs.

This new technology projects the same quality film at the same frame-rate and brightness, only instead of leaving the second and 4th quarters of each cycle black, the alternate frame for each eye is shown. The glasses provide the alternating black frames for each eye every other quarter of the normal projection cycle.

By interleaving the frames L-R-L-R before advancing the action, ghosting and other strange 3D artifacts (caused by one eye lagging the other) are eliminated. Since the glasses aren't filtering the light, there are no problems with color saturation or brightness. There's no added flicker because your eye is already used to the frame-black-frame-black cycle used by every 2D movie you've ever seen.

The only problem is with the high per-seat cost of the glasses. Well, that and properly using 3D to enhance a film. But I'll leave that part of the problem to filmmakers.

By Georgette on May 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Also Roger, do I detect a resemblance of the photos of the Up character Carl to you?

I thought the same thing, Georgette! Great minds yadda, yadda, yadda...

Ebert: I should sue.

Ebert: I gave four stars apiece to "Polar Express" and "Beowulf" in 3-D and am looking forward to seeing "Up" and "Avatar" in 3-D. You do not address my points. Is the light indeed dimmer on the screen? Is 3-D necessary?

Hi Roger

When you take your glasses off during a 3D movie you see an overly bright overly saturated version of the movie as it is color timed to offset the light loss through the glasses. Yes we want more light and technology has a habit of solving these temporary problems.

Is 3D necessary?
Yes if you have decided to tell your story using spatial film making as a component then it is . If you have decided to tell your story as a flat art it is not. If you have decided to tell it around a campfire then you need nothing but a voice and an audience.

Movie making is not story telling. Movie making is a technique used to tell a story. Some would argue that movie making is an unnecessary gimmick and a book is better.

Ebert: Your observation about stop-motion is probably key to the look of "Coraline." It was a 3D picture of a 3D reality, not a 3D picture of a 2D reality.

Computer generated movies are not 2D they are geometry with 3 dimensions inside a computer. Live action is also a 3dimensional reality as is stop motion. So I agree that 3D films are a good match for 3D reality in either live action or the computer.

The only true 2D movie is probably traditional animation where the art is conceived flat and projected flat.

Cinematography is the art of converting 3D (live action) into 2D (flat movies). In the past it was the art of converting a colorful world into one of black and white.

When we learn to do it properly, the future cinematographers will be experts in taking a 3D reality and creating a 3D fantasy world inside the theater.

Today we have a clash and this is what I think you object to so strongly and where I can agree...

Movies created using the skills of 2D cinematography/editing/composition which also have stereoscopic space applied can look broken. Like a painting turned into a sculpture.

If 3D movies are bad it is because we have not yet developed the skill to create good ones. When I first started learning to drive it was not a pleasant ride for others. That did not mean that the car was faulty.

Looking forward to the day you enjoy another spatial movie.

phil mcnally
(Stereoscopic Supervisor at Dreamworks Animation)
These are my personal points of view and not specific to my work at Dreamworks.

Ebert: I should sue.

That would be the Dem thing to do, don'tcha know? You know how we love frivolous litigation, (ex)-Senator Coleman...er...Roger.

:D

wow, i've got to wait until october to see this film in the uk-it's a painfully long time to wait! the 2 week gap between Wall-e released in the US and UK was hard enough to tolerate.

many people have said this is pixar's most emotional film yet, would agree with that Roger? i couldn't hold back a tear twice at Wall-e and i can't for the life of me stop crying EVERY SINGLE TIME i see the Monsters Inc ending and that heartbreaking Toy Story 2 song. let me just clarify i am a 21 year old boy...one of my mates laughed at me in Wall-e. am i to suffer even more humilation at the hands of this film?!

During "Monsters Vs. Aliens", I took off my glasses for a few minutes. Yes, the picture was blurrier, but I just wanted to settle back and enjoy the film.

I'm disappointed UP will be in 3-D. Instead of watching the movie, you're waiting for something to fly out of the screen (nobody really cares about depth of field). And a few days later, you still remember the film, not the visual stunts.

>>I see in your response to "TheFilmist" that you are passing judgment on Happy Feet 2 in 3D, a movie still in production. Shouldn't you wait to see the first 8 minutes before drawing conclusions?

While I agree, I don't think he was referring to the film itself, but the 3D phenomenon which, I also agree, is a mistake. I mean, what is this, 1995?

Personally, as far as Happy Feet 2 goes, I'd like to hear Roger's thoughts about the first film, given how much he's enjoyed Miller's previous films.

eric,

"I imagine a day when the opening feature at Cannes is an interactive experience."

The Alamo Drafthouse has interactive experiences going on already at their theaters. My sister worked there, and I've seen some things there: I've seen two guys with microphones do a live comedic commentary of "The Lost Boys" a la "Mystery Science Theater 3000", but more interactive was a Braveheart parody movie that required all attendees to wear scottisch outfits (some of them were dirty jokes, like a fake lamb attached to the front...never mind) that also had musical aspects that had dances for the audience to perform and drinking games (the Alamo Drafthouse is a theater that serves food and alcohol.)

Ebert: That's not interactive. It's participatory.

i'm sorry. were you saying something? i was having trouble taking my eyes off the fabulous picture of the woman with the incredible, um, you know, in the adorable black dress. go ahead. i'll listen this time. looks like tippi hedren from that angle. i - uh - um - oh. your name again, sir?

Yes, what I meant is "none of the Pixar films have a female lead character, not a major character. There's a big difference telling the story from the female's perspective and having a female contributing to the unfolding of the lead male's story." thank you Georgette. And of course Pixar is far from the only company guilty of this. I too am discouraged by how dismal movies are in the U.S. for female characters. We have the female as witness to the events,and/or the victim, and the the brain-dead vacuous romantic comedy characters.Most films that are not romantic comedies have a token female or two. Of course many have written much more eloquently than I about this subject. Check out Women in Hollywood,an excellent blog if anyone is interested in this subject. I am no longer a young woman and I am impatient with the sorry state of women's issues and as it pertains to the topic of this blog, how we are portrayed in the cinema. What think you about this Mr. Ebert? I would love to see you address this, although most men do not seem to consider this to be topic of value, as reflected by the men who responded to my post.

natalie wrote on May 14, 2009 11:28 AM - "It's funny that there is criticism out there that most of Pixar's leads are male when their inspiration -- Hayao Miyazaki -- produces epics with strong female leads."

Which speaks volumes about Pixar given what they "don't" take from their inspiration; as Miyazaki's films do indeed reflect the filmmaker's feminism - his protagonists are often strong, independent girls or young women.

"Most of Miyazaki's characters are dynamic, capable of change, and not easily caricatured into traditional good-evil dichotomies. Many menacing characters have redeeming features, and are not firmly defined as antagonists. In Princess Mononoke, Lady Eboshi destroys the forest for industrial raw materials without the concerns for animals' life; however lepers and former prostitutes that she shelters have great respect for her. The film culminates in reconciliation, rather than the vanquishing of some irredeemable evil. Miyazaki stated in Spirited Away, "the heroine [is] thrown into a place where the good and bad dwell together ... She manages not because she has destroyed the “evil,” but because she has acquired the ability to survive."

Miyazaki has explained that the lack of clearly defined good and evil is because of his views of the 21st century as a complex time, where old norms no longer are true and need to be re-examined. Simple stereotypes cannot be used, even in children's films. However, even though Miyazaki sometimes feels pessimistic about the world, he prefers to show children a positive world view instead." - Wiki

Ie: Pixar is American, and the studio mindset is male.

In Pixar's defense however, my issue with them is basically limited to the supporting role given female characters in their films - as otherwise I loved Wall-E and the Incredibles! (despite "super mom" getting on my nerves.)

Note: if you're a woman and you've chosen not to have children (Marie waves!) there's nothing out there for you as female (vicariously speaking) except characters who are: husband hunting, a hooker, wall flower, misery aunt or villain. Whereas James Bond is NOT married and he does NOT have kids - and yet look at what he gets to do, eh?

phil mcnally wrote on May 14, 2009 12:57 PM - "When we learn to do it properly, the future cinematographers will be experts in taking a 3D reality and creating a 3D fantasy world inside the theater."

Speaking for myself, the more "real" an environment gets, the easier it becomes to wander off and explore it thanks to various elements now drawing my attention away from the story. Once you guys perfect 3D and recreate a fantasy world inside a theater, I'm going to resent being dragged away from something "I" found interesting. I'm going to resent the filmmaker making choices for me, after initially introducing me to a world which felt like one I had the freedom to move around in. So too, resent having things I'm not interested in shoved in my face - for deciding what you want me to interact with. Isn't this cool? Isn't this awesome? What if it's not? What then?

In an effort to recreate reality, you end up playing God with my imagination - and I do not have a poverty of it, Phil. It's because I can imagine SO much, that I get so frustrated whenever something or someone else winds-up doing too much of my thinking for me.

The creeping fog effect in Coraline for example, was really cool. I could have sat there for 30 minutes just watching it roll over various forms and textures - as that interested me, as an Artist. Whenever the camera moved OFF the fog, or panned up to Coraline's face, I got angry. I wanted to grab the freakin' camera and pull it back down to the fog - as I didn't care about the story anymore at that point.

In real life, if you were to mentally wander off every time you observed spatial relationships, you'd never hear a word anyone said. In "reality" we actually do the exact opposite of what 3D is aiming to do - we ignore it. We ignore what would otherwise be too many stimuli, too many distractions. It's the only way to focus.

3D will indeed engage the viewer - but at a cost. Imo, something else will have to turn off, in order to experience it. And I think it's going to be curiosity, as the desire to explore what you can see would ironically get in the way of the story. You'd have to turn off half your brain.

And so you're describing (such as I conceive it) what for me, would be akin to smoking a huge bong. I'd just be sitting there like a wide-eyed 2 year old gazing at everything around me and marveling at how trippy it all is - and then getting really cranky when you moved the bright shinny red ball away; as I wasn't done playing with that, dude! You know..?

Note: For what it's worth I liked "Flushed Away" and "Kung-Fu Panda". So I don't have anything personally against Dreamworks Animation. And if people want to go see a 3D film, I certainly don't begrudge anyone their pleasures. To each her own.

Rather, from where I'm standing, it's just another nail in the coffin of storytelling I can relate to, for serving to increasingly shift the focus onto "how" you see a story as opposed to broadening the parameters of what that story can be.

Ie: I wish studios and filmmakers would evolve first, before then trying to push the evolution of their medium.

Ebert: My headline. The Fifth Dimension, I believe.

From "Up Up And Away". You're right, my mistake. Still, it would have been such a surprise if you actually liked electronica. I like movie scores, so it would have been a fair trade-off.

Hi Roger! I'm from Venezuela and I'm looking forward to watching this movie very soon :) if you are curious about the region of my country which is featured in this movie we call it "La Gran Sabana", you can look it up at wikipedia or you can also try this very nice website --> lagransabana.com/english/

Marie's Wiki: However, even though Miyazaki sometimes feels pessimistic about the world, he prefers to show children a positive world view instead.

Yes, Marie, which also explains why Miyazaki's works almost always have an abundance of greenery, or an affinity with nature, all done in the essence of simple storytelling. Even the very urban Studio Ghibli animation Whispers of the Heart seems to pay him a nod by way of the song Country Road; as well as Only Yesterday by way of returning to the fields (veggies taste best when picked fresh!)

His works resonate sweetly because they primarily deal with matters of the heart and emotions (without being maudlin in the process). And, he uses nostalgia to balance pessimistic feelings that we more or less have within us. A return to former things, where everything is quiet (My Neighbor Totoro), untethered (Porco Rosso), natural- as in natural manifestations (Spirited Away), mythical (Laputa: Castle in the Sky), and easy for those who are enterprising (Kiki's Delivery Service). You will notice, too, that the jingles stay with you long after the viewing. Our neighbor, the Japanese, are such masters with this. Sample this and this.

Ebert: That's not interactive. It's participatory.

Right. Thanks.

eric,

"I imagine a day when the opening feature at Cannes is an interactive experience."

Mike Figgis did something that was kind of like that, but not exactly. He did a live audio mix for his movie, "Timecode", which was a 90 minute movie done in one uninterrupted take with four split-screen quadrants with sounds dictating where to watch the screen in real time(earthquakes were on cue simultaneously, so the audience would know it was all in real time, actors all reacting together; one can't assume one camera shot has anything to do with the other, as the surrealist Bunuel and Dali film exploited; for fun, with every cut in movies, I like to imagine different times of the action taking place, even though the movie wants you to conveniently imagine it's all happening in real time, or something like that.

eric,

"I imagine a day when the opening feature at Cannes is an interactive experience."

I forgot the link to the Mike Figgis live audio mix of "Timecode." http://splicedwire.com/00features/figgis.html

By Marie Haws on May 14, 2009 8:33 PM
It's because I can imagine SO much, that I get so frustrated whenever something or someone else winds-up doing too much of my thinking for me.

Hi Marie
From what you say I feel books are the best option for you as I pointed out the technique of movie making is one huge and enjoyable gimmick that has the sole purpose of showing you how someone else has imagined the story. You go to the theater to see the directors version.

Taking it further, reading a book is to experience the authors version. Only your own imagined stories are truly personal.

3D is no different. It is merely a technique that is either handled skillfully or not. All stories can be told with it or without it.

phil mcnally

Mr. Ebert,

I can't wait to read your review of the latest Hayao Miyazaki film, "Ponyo". I saw it in Japan last year and it almost destroyed me.

I was very disappointed to see so many Japanese moviegoers shrug it off as "okay".

Akira Kurosawa reportedly considered Miyazaki's "Totoro" one of the greatest films in existence. I'm of the opinion that Miyazaki's latest is clearly his best work, and Japan, with its complete dearth of film critics (in short, film distribution is handled by a branch of the mass transit authority, which also happens to run all the TV networks and magazine publishers), was simply not prepared to realize its greatness.

As someone who has seen the Sistine Chapel and the Mona Lisa, I feel no lack of confidence at all in declaring "Ponyo" one of the greatest (terrifying, beautiful) *things* I have ever seen.

Seriously, you could show it to a DOG and it would learn something tangible by the end.

A friend of mine was in France last week and he said Ponyo is playing in cinemas there. You should go see it while you're there! If it's dubbed in French it might be even better!

I could understand an argument that with computer animation, the original objects are not 2D images as they are in traditional animation, but 3D sculptures. So a 3D film of computer animation is a more true representation of the animator's art.

But to appreceate a sculpture you have to move your head to look around it. This runs counter to film language where everything you're shown is determined by the director. We don't have the option of popping our head in the scene and looking around the corner at the monster hiding there. So I'd say I'd have to agree with you that 3D is not necessary. I can't imagine how in the language of film a director could possibly use it in an artistic way.

The shot I saw that most makes me want to see this film, is in a trailer that I've only seen once. As the balloon-lofted house rises, it passes between a skyskraper and the sun. The shot is from inside a room of the building, and as the balloons obfuscate the sun, the room is filled with a joyous burst of kaleidoscopic, shifting colors, which made me gasp, tear up, and intone: "I have to see this movie." Pixar always pleases. It would be interesting to see a collaboration with Miyazaki, wouldn't it? Or, would that be too much of a good thing?

As per "Star Trek," I enjoyed my time watching it, even though I had a few twinges. Then, when I went home, I kept thinking about it, like a cow ruminating its cud. Finally, at two or so in the morning, I had my epiphany: I felt cheated. Sure, it looked great, was well acted, had good pace, but it was missing growth. The opening sequence was, to me, the best part of the movie, even if it does have one of the fastest labor-to-delivery scenes of all time.
Cut to Kirk as a punk kid (nine or ten?) wrecking a 1960's model Corvette (talk about your collector's items. It would have to be a 150, 200 year old vehicle-GM sure built 'em to last in those days!) and listening to what would probably be considered ultra-classic rock (Beastie Boys? Really? How last century...). He drives into what looks like the Grand Canyon, but, since I live only a three-hour drive away from the GC, I know it is impossible, so I think it was a really big rock quarry. All to say, he's a punk kid.

Cut to him picking a fight with Starfleet cadets in a dive bar, being a punk kid with no direction and a chip on his shoulder and blah blah blah. Short inspirational speech by a dude with an awesome voice. thirty seconds of moodiness, followed by an act which, I suppose, was supposed to symbolize putting away childish things and becoming a man. Cut to his last year at the academy, where you see the result of his changing the "Kobiyashi Maru" test, without the fun of seeing him "Mission: Impossible" the rig. Or, the satisfaction of seeing him grow as a cadet. Or a person, for that matter. But that's OK, because we can see by his maverick attitude and smug self-satisfaction that he hasn't changed a bit from the snotty twerp who drove an antique into the "New Grand Canyon of Iowa: We Gots More Than Corn, Now!"

No, what he needs to grow is a crisis of unimaginable proportion. So, he stows away and somehow becomes the third in command of the flagship of the fleet! Highly illogical, as one character might say.

That's not even accounting for the boring villain, or the mysterious "Red Matter." What is that, anyways? I've heard you complain, correctly, about the science of black holes, and space elevators, but what about the stuff that creates a black hole in this movie? And how did the smaller, one man ship from the future cause more damage to the Romulan ship (before the "red matter" kicked in, of course) than the larger "Kelvin" did, since both rammed at about the same spot. Hell, why was Spock the only one who could deliver the stuff in the first place? And, hey, if the Romulan miners are so smart as to figure out a plan of revenge, why didn't they just go back, warn the planet earlier, and take care of the star before it went supernova? Because, then, we might actually have gotten a movie with actual character development, I suppose. Instead, we get a starship captain who didn't even graduate before he was awarded command, so the geeks would be happy. A promotion, I would understand. But captain? I'm not in the military, but I do understand rank structure somewhat. There is a reason that it takes years to build up to command. If nothing else, it's helpful to know what forms to fill out when the ship needs more toilet paper...

Kren Bowers wrote on May 14, 2009 7:11 PM - "Yes, what I meant is "none of the Pixar films have a female lead character, not a major character. There's a big difference telling the story from the female's perspective and having a female contributing to the unfolding of the lead male's story." thank you Georgette. And of course Pixar is far from the only company guilty of this. I too am discouraged by how dismal movies are in the U.S. for female characters. We have the female as witness to the events, and/or the victim, and the the brain-dead vacuous romantic comedy characters. Most films that are not romantic comedies have a token female or two. Of course many have written much more eloquently than I about this subject. Check out Women in Hollywood, an excellent blog if anyone is interested in this subject. I am no longer a young woman and I am impatient with the sorry state of women's issues and as it pertains to the topic of this blog, how we are portrayed in the cinema. What think you about this Mr. Ebert? I would love to see you address this, although most men do not seem to consider this to be topic of value, as reflected by the men who responded to my post."

I'd enjoy seeing it addressed too, Kren.

Although the blog is open to all regardless of gender, it nevertheless has one and it's male. You can see it reflected in the "mental math" around you, the comments posted by men often containing observations and subsequent conclusions that miss the bigger picture for want of considering additional emotional factors while crunching the data; ie: their focus tends to be narrower and as a result, more concerned with understanding how systems work while debating various arguments in support of a point of view - giving rise then, to the competitive male dynamic. It's most pronounced in Science or God related topics and manifests itself in what I like to describe as "trying to nail Roger's jello to a tree". :)

And so imo you're right when you say most men don't seem to be interested in the topic you've raised. I've raised it myself in various forms on and off, in this or that thread since I began contributing to the blog; only for it to be met with dead silence.

But I think I know why...

Ever hear of a 3 part German documentary called "Beautiful Minds: A Voyage into the Brain"? It's by ColorFIELD. In an attempt to better understand "how our brains work" the world of savants and the autistic is explored, revealing new and amazing discoveries on a genetic level, especially regarding the differences between men and women and how we process information. Our brains have a gender - and we are not the same (while still being equal and necessary to the other's survival: men have one lens, we have the other and together, it makes a pair of glasses.)

The irony is that women can see that, and men often can't or if they do, don't want to admit it aloud for thinking it's akin to losing a point. :)

Note: to his credit, Roger knew he couldn't explain HOW his wife Chaz knew he was "still there" inside his body back when he was seriously ill (at the hospital) but he could wrap his head around "her" being able to do that - however mundane it struck another.

I tried posting about this 2 times actually in another thread, but the spam filter either didn't like the link, or their site didn't allow linking to a blog; it's in English too, by the way. Part three of the film is "Beautiful Minds: A Matter of Gender" which revealed that we do indeed as women have different skill sets, and Chaz was likely using one of them.

Part one of "a matter of gender", can be found at you tube. I'm cutting the link in half in case I need to trick the spam filter:

http://www.youtube.com/ (then add) watch?v=WjDPx3u-UPw

At any rate Kren, if you want to discuss the topic of gender disparity as it applies to roles for women, I can't speak for Roger, but I'll explore it with you! I'm not young anymore either, and I too have lost patience with the powers that be, at least in North America.

Robert of Taoyuan City, Taiwan wrote on May 15, 2009 10:20 AM - "His works resonate sweetly because they primarily deal with matters of the heart and emotions (without being maudlin in the process)."

Yes, exactly; sweet but not sickly so. It's also ironic that the work is Japanese, given how huge the hentai market is; the darker side of animation which is essentially violent child porn. And why his films stand out even more - once you have that crap to measure them with. I confess, I was astonished. I didn't think it was possible to find an animated Japanese film without little girls being raped by monsters. Or at the very least, including a standard "panty shot" alla Sailor Moon and hence its cult following amongst male university students.

See what happens when you let women inside the blog, Roger? :)

P.S. I'm glad to hear you're enjoying yourself over at Cannes.

Kren,

I think the reason I find it hard to understand your reasoning is that I rarely if ever go into a movie thinking about how a movie will appeal to my gender, but I almost always (except perhaps in cases of comedy, parody) go in expecting the film to appeal to my humanity - to make me care about the characters, their struggles, etc, regardless of which sex they happen to be.

One of my favorite aspects of Pixar's films is their consistent appeal to what makes us human.

Reply to: KBowers: "There's a big difference telling the story from the female's perspective and having a female contributing to the unfolding of the lead male's story."

So, we're brainstorming a movie that will open at Cannes and take the world by storm.

Now here's the problem. Most of the writers are men. If you want to create a movie told from the woman's point of view.... the guys might need some help. Guidelines, if not actual rules.

What's important? Cate Blanchet played the villain's role in "Crystal Skull." Was that enough? Or does the motivation have to be changed?

Reply to: I too am discouraged by how dismal movies are in the U.S. for female characters.

Go into a video store, or check the menu on Hulu. Most movies are dismal.

Reply to: I am impatient with the sorry state of women's issues, how we are portrayed in the cinema. ... men do not seem to consider this to be topic of value, as reflected by the men who responded to my post.

sorry. We haven't quite worked out the rules for responding to comments as opposed to the original blog entry.

There are some recognized genres;

(1) A male detective solves a crime.
(2) A young man mourns the death of his father and takes his place in the family business.
(3) A solitary man fights the forces of Evil.

Now, to write a movie from a female perspective:

(1) A young girl goes through a crisis where she realizes her mother should be treated with more respect and they become best friends.

(2) A mother tries to keep her daughter from marrying the wrong man.

(3) A woman encounters a monster that scares us silly, and survives.

A movie should be based on the Hero's Journey. The hero's life is full of obstacles. Each time he or she overcomes an obstacle, they change in a significant way. In Titanic, Rose realizes that she can't fulfil her Mother's dream of marrying into a wealthy family.

Is the journey of a Heroine different from the journey of a male Hero? In what important ways? is there bonding instead of competition and conflict?

Casablanca came down to a single moral choice: who gets on the plane with Ilsa? Her husband? Or the man who holds the letters of transit?

I was working on a story. A guy at college sleeps with a lot of women. Five years after he graduates, the government comes after him for child support. One of the women became pregnant, but she never wanted her daughter to know how she was conceived or have any contact with her biological father. It's not until the child applies to college, and circumstances require her to go to her biological father for help, that the man has to face that fact that he doesn't want anything to do with his daughter. Until he meets her and gets to know her, of course. If that plot is told from a woman's perspective, how is it different? What changes?

You can't expect Hollywood to write great movies with great Heroines in the lead role... unless you can explain in detail how the rest of the movie needs to be different. We understand that James Bond does whatever it takes to protect the interests of Great Britain. Is that enough for a Heroine?

Hope that's enough of a reply. While I agree that many women would love to see more movies with Heroines, unless there's a story worth telling, it won't happen. the Lord of the Rings with female Hobbits? Lara Croft instead of Indiana Jones? A female Captain of the Enterprise? obviously, Hollywood doesn't know how to do this. You can't just plug in Ripley instead of a male crew member, like Ridley Scott did. You need a plot that organically grows from your Heroine's journey in life.

All the militant feminists here might be interested to know that Pixar's Christmas 2011 release, The Bear and the Bow, will feature a female protagonist. It is also being helmed by a female director (Brenda Chapman) who is apparently basing the story on her real-life experiences with raising her daughter.

Happy now?

Hi Marie,

Hentai and Sailor Moon? (aarrgghh...)

Have you already seen The Tower of Druaga: Aegis of Uruk and its sequel The Sword of Uruk? I thought that maybe as an animator you might enjoy the visual beauty of this anime from Gonzo Studios. The story is a spin-off of the ancient tale of the Sumerian king Gilgamesh, though he is not the main protagonist. And yes, it has that panty shot at the very beginning in what looked like a perfunctory spoof of hentai; that's about it. The sequel and conclusion (Sword of Uruk) were a bit weak and disappointing, but what I found very enjoyable was the first-part journey (Aegis of Uruk).

Why are the Japanese so good at robotics? I have a theory that anime plays a no small part in the evolution of Japanese society. It's easy to conjecture this because of the constant, decades-long bombardment of anime over the Japanese youth. All those stories about mechas and robots surely were not just for entertainment value. In some ways, a society looks at itself through the movies it produces; and vice versa, it largely produces films of how it sees itself. I have no doubt that future historians will study us through the movies that we make. Anyway, back to the subject of the Japanese being good at robotics or some such topic on a similar vein, I wrote to Roger in his Answerman column about some of the wishes I have for the next Star Trek installment. I don't know if Roger will publish my Answerman comment, since not all letters make it to the Answerman Page or his Reader's Mail page. Just in case it doesn't, and since we're already on the topic, here are the last two paragrapsh of that letter:

... However, I realise, too, the fears of the very erudite Jim Emerson. The black hole of popcorn singularity is indeed looming overhead over this one. There is a sequence in Star Trek where Spock turns down the Vulcan Science Academy for the Federation. This scene seems to augur J. J. Abrams vision for the movie, of which brawn and adrenalin rule over intellect. It also seems to be a testimony to the director's vision of finding a path independent of previous Star Trek canon (parallel to Spock's resolve to be his half-human, half Vulcan self; to be himself contrary to what others expect). I cannot tell whether or not this is a good thing, In my humble opinion, to look for originality inside the Star Trek canon is a good thing; but Might over Intellect is bad, unless the franchise finds its original self that is only its own, and not Aliens, Starship Troopers, or Space 1999.

The film feels like a beginning of new things, in ground zero. A trilogy, perhaps. As such, I am of the opinion that one cannot rush yet into things. As a very simple Trekkie, I'm just happy in seeing an old friend revive (not that it died for me, anyway). For me, I guess, that is enough reason to love the film. I consider this a first step; but whether or not into the right direction, only my future self knows. I just hope that subsequent instalments after this one do not prove me wrong. I also wish that future Star Trek installments are able to spark the scientific curiosities in people. I have no doubt that a lot of current scientists found their way through inspirations in sci-fi movies. Sci-fi movies shouldn't only be about firepower, excitement and polemics in philosophy, they should also cater to the budding science geniuses waiting in the wings.

This is directed to Paramount, and I hope the studio sees this. A sidenote: I am not disparaging Starship Troopers, Aliens or Space 1999. I just happen to think that these exist in another universe from the one in Star Trek. No offence meant to their fan bases.

phil mcnally wrote on May 15, 2009 1:01 PM -

"Hi Marie, From what you say I feel books are the best option for you as I pointed out the technique of movie making is one huge and enjoyable gimmick that has the sole purpose of showing you how someone else has imagined the story. You go to the theater to see the directors version..."

Yes, people do indeed go to the theater to see a director's version of a story; which of course, is not to be confused with wanting to have a gimmick shoved down your throat while being told to like it or leave. It is possible to love movies as much as books Phil, and still resist the siren call to worship at the alter of 3D. :)

Again, if others want to see a film in 3D, okay dokie! To each their own. And I hope those who do, genuinely have a good time with it; I take no pleasure in the disappointment of another.

My personal issue with it, is that it tends to be a mentally invasive form of technology. A dislike I'd accounted for via "whenever something or someone else winds-up doing too much of my thinking for me" etc.

Ever see Dexter? I love Dexter! I love the camera angles and how they show a thing without showing too much; meaning you can imagine something even worse now, God bless 'em. How about "The Fall"? Have you seen that? That's a director's version of a story too - and yet your imagination can breathe through every frame. Tarsem Singh made a film that allowed my imagination to create a three-dimensional world for itself, inside my own head! It was awesome! Hell, a part of me is still wandering around the blue city and the infinite staircase and swimming with an elephant in the sea!

Don't let my Canadian dissident-mindedness trouble you, though. I was never going to jump on your 3D ship, but I wasn't trying to sink it either. I assume you're working on "How to Train Your Dragon" and wish you well with that project.

And better aim. :)

Marie, thank you for your very interesting post. I will check out the documentary you mention. Justin, I dare say you always see protaganists that ARE your gender, "so to make me care about the characters, their struggles, etc, regardless of which sex they happen to be." means they happen to be your sex. Check it out in the movies you watch, and see if I am correct.
Billy"Now here's the problem. Most of the writers are men." You then go into a long discussion of how to train men to make a "woman's" movie. I think perhaps the problem is that most movies that get produced are written by men. They are many women writers, they just have a much more difficult time getting movies produced.
Lets jsut have more movies written, directed and produced by women, and problem solved:-)

To Marie Haws and Kren,

I just want to say I am with you, fervently. I generally avoid crap in general, which probably includes a lot of the movies you are talking about, but the last Pixar movie I saw, "Ratatouille", I thought had a wonderful female character who outshined the male character--a bumbling moron, although the male rat was the lead--so, I'll give you that. She was tough, but feminine, and rode a motor bike and was independent. Mike Figgis who made "Leaving Las Vegas", which Roger picked as the best movie of the year, had a great character with Elizabeth Shue who gave the performance of her career--unexpectedly--playing a hooker. But he also made "Internal Affairs" which had another good female cop role played by Laurie Metcalf (from "Roseanne"); he's a feminist film maker for reasons you've described.

Just a week ago in the recent blog, Go Gently Into That Good Night, I wrote, in response to Roger saying he wouldn't like immortality:

"I think I'd like immortality if it could be with only me and the girl of my dreams."

Ebert: And what dreams are dreamed by the girl of your dreams?

"Art, making movies, becoming really famous for doing something great, and hopefully me-if not, we'll both have to make robot android copies of ourselves and let the robots have a go at it. Or so, she'll let me think."

I added that last part to say that if in immortality we didn't make it, that we'd both make robot copies of ourselves to let them have a go at it, which was a subversive way of saying maybe we ought to just have a fake relationship...illusion to despair.

You might make the argument that the world is too feminized (he doesn't mention movies, of course), if you are Bill Maher(go to 36 minutes into this) http://search.msn.com/video/results.aspx?q=bill+maher+victory+home&docid=663117234252&mid=E56D53F70E7BAF22B4F3E56D53F70E7BAF22B4F3&FORM=VIVR23 Sorry, for the 180 degree detour. Like or hate Bill Maher, he is the greatest communicator in politics. There are so many great liberal-political communicators, and I'd be interested to know who you think is the greatest woman liberal speaker in politics. I think it's Janeane Garofolo.

Reply to: think perhaps the problem is that most movies that get produced are written by men.

Actually, that isn't the problem at all.

The problem is that no one has made a move with female leads that teenage boys want to watch.

Reply to: They are many women writers, they just have a much more difficult time getting movies produced. Lets jsut have more movies written, directed and produced by women, and problem solved:-)

Nope. By itself, that wouldn't solve the problem. Several reasons.

Let me start with a woman, Susannah Grant, who was hired by Sony (Columbia) to write a script for a story that Julia Roberts wanted to do, about a woman named Erin Brockovich.

After working for 15 years, Grant was offered a chance to direct her own script. The result was "Catch and Release." She hired Jennifer Garner because a friend told her "Jennifer Garner is the actress version of you."

You're welcome to read Roger's review, but Grant makes the same mistake that most women make. She thinks a weak premise and story line "about a woman in real life" will make a successful movie.

Real life does NOT make a successful Hollywood movie. You need a Hero who struggles against overwhelming obstacles, and as a result, becomes stronger. Finds new ways to achieve success.

In "Catch and Release," the heroine was about to be married. Her fiance dies the day before the ceremony. At the end of the movie, she moves into the $7 million Malibu beach house of a photographer who obviously has no intention to ever settle down with one woman. the heroine learned nothing and changed nothing in her approach to life.

It doesn't matter whether the writer is a man or a woman. A weak script is a weak script.

It's extremely difficult to write a great script about a Heroine because in real life, women like to nest. They like to make friends and help each other.

And second, Roger is the only one here who can walk into the offices of Creative Artists Agency or William Morris, and get a movie made from an original script. Roger can't change himself into a woman.

But.... tell him what you want to see, what would make you happy. I have a couple.

(1) Women LOVE to be scared. Women went back to watch "Jaws" four or five times, even though it was a story about "3 men in a boat." OK, maybe the shark was female, even though they called it Bruce.

For many women, the scarier the movie, the better. They loved the idea of the Titanic breaking in half and the heroine being thrown into the icy water. They loved seeing her suffer... in a movie.

(2) Today's women want the heroine to be the President of the Company, or a CEO. The premise of "His Girl Friday".. or Charlie's Angels... isn't what women want to see.

Most studios won't invest $120 million in a female-oriented film. The assumption is, women will go to see a film with "3 men in a boat," but teenage boys will NOT buy tickets for a movie about "3 women in a boat." So, the script has to be BETTER. It has to be powerful enough to attract men aged 14 to 26. That's the only way a studio will... well, the budget of "Star Trek" was at least $120 million, possibly as much as $140 or $165 million. Paramount thought it was a wise investment because they own "Star Trek," in the same way that Time-Warner owns Superman and Batman and Disney owns the Pirates of the Caribbean.

Maybe the secret is to start with a Theme Park attraction, like Cinderella's castle, and build. Some of the most successful movies come from using established characters, like "Mask of Zorro" and "Aladdin" and Godzilla.

I'm losing my train of thought... but the current problem is, teenage boys don't want to go to movies with Heroines as the lead characters. Women don't know how to write such scripts any more than men do. If they did, it would not still be a problem. Every time a woman screenwriter turns in a weak script, it convinced studio execs that "only action movies" are worth the big budgets. And they ignore the fact that James Cameron took out everything that didn't fulfill a young girl's fantasy when he made "Titanic."

Jonathan wrote on May 16, 2009 2:35 AM - "All the militant feminists here might be interested to know.... Happy now?"

That depends upon your definition of a militant feminist, and whether or not you meant to slap anyone down with it. :)

My personal of a Feminist is someone who includes men in their thinking and world view; as for me, it's not about wanting women to run the planet - that would simply recreate the problem of disparity while being guilty of reverse sexism - and what’s fair about that?

Whereas put us together like a pair of glasses and now we cover one another's blind spots. And I don't think a militant would embrace the spirit of co-operation that entails.

RE: going off-topic:

This is Roger's blog and as such, he establishes the topic. But he is aware of the organic nature of conversation, how one thought can lead to another and for that reason, I've seen him allow for a walking bass line or two. Myself, I try and account for why I’m reaching over "here" and pulling something into the center of the room so others can see it too; it's often about providing context and how I’ve arrived at a point of view via show & tell. And if you're restricted to only to the portion of the field that men can see, well gee... that strikes me as attending "The Conference of World Affairs" and missing the point – and I don’t think Roger does. Not according to this:

"Why is this week like lifeblood for me? Once we settle into our life’s careers, most of us charge the line with our heads down. I have a tendency, for example, to think the world revolves around movies. Once a year at the Conference, I am forced to think on subjects not of my own choosing. I get to talk to people from other worlds." - Roger Ebert.

Every once in a while, things not of his choosing come up; again, owing to the organic nature of it all. This is one of those times. But it still relates to film - it just happens to touch upon deeper social issues too. And if those issues don't directly impact men posting in here, it does not make them any less worthy of note or discussion. And I hope Roger will view that with same spirit he displays in the above quote. :)

Kren Bowers wrote on May 16, 2009 11:26 AM - "Marie, thank you for your very interesting post. I will check out the documentary you mention."

The entire film is hosted on youtube and runs about 3 hrs. I found it fascinating and I learned so much, in the process!

Keith Carrizosa wrote on May 16, 2009 5:03 PM - "I'd be interested to know who you think is the greatest woman liberal speaker in politics. I think it's Janeane Garofolo."

I like her too! Basically, I gravitate towards those who include everyone when they speak, be they male or female. It's the underlying message that matters, not whether the speaker can pee standing up; chuckle! Case in point, Colm Dempsey, a police officer in Ireland:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/07/gender.lifeandhealth

What an admirable thing to do! Here's an example of someone trying to make a meaningful difference in the world - and the makings of a great film too! I’d certainly find that interesting and it’s an example of what I'd like to see, as a filmgoer. More of that from men, and simply to better balance the landscape so it's not tilted quite so much in one direction; case in point "Ratatouille" – loved the animation, and the tale of an underdog (aka rat) trying to be chef! However...

Gosh, women are so much smarter, aren't they? Guys are just idiots who can barely walk. BLECH! I didn't like the treatment of the human male character in that film. I saw him as a victim of "over-compensating" political correctness and an insulting caricature of the hapless male. Remember Juno and Michael Cera? He played Paulie, Juno's boy friend. I think that's a much better approach to take - as what makes Juno smart does not come at Paulie's expense. He's not been made "dumber" so she can shine brighter.

Bill Hays wrote on May 15, 2009 10:52 PM - "Is the journey of a Heroine different from the journey of a male Hero? In what important ways? Is there bonding instead of competition and conflict?"

Good question. Best answer? Whatever holds you back or tries to keep you down, is the obstacle to surmount and it defines your journey; although it's fair to say that for women, economics plays an important part owing to what poverty exposes us to. As for bonding, we're more inclined to share the planet, share resources - but so as to avoid conflict and ensure our own survival. If I'm not at war with my neighbor I can make plans for a future, eh? We do compete for men of course, and that can get nasty at times, but generally speaking women are kinder to one another. It's empathy.

And so what stands in the way is less so another woman, than a man. The deeply entrenched systems he's got in place to favor his sex. I see men as the source of many of the world's problems; but only some - and that's an important note, so don't miss it. As others are not only a part of the solution, but in some cases, working "harder" than women; that Irish cop is doing more for the planet than Paris Hilton ever will, eh? But to the extent there's a problem it needs to be addressed, which extends to films too. And in a perfect world...

Ever see the series Battlestar Galactica? The new one? It was one of the most balanced shows I've ever watched. It doesn't ignore gender but rather, expands the parameters of what "each" gender can be. Characters were subsequently rich and deeply layered for being able to move through a script where it’s all up for grabs – no one owns humanity, no gender bias. And in that sense, television is ahead of film making and why I often refer to examples of it. It’s partly the measuring stick by which I can see things are indeed worse for women in film.

A woman can be many things, so too a man - things you can find in one another. That's the point; no one owns the Joseph Campbell journey. For the hero is an individual who may or may not have this or that gender affilated trait. And imo, when we’re allowed to be people "first" it makes for the most exciting, dynamic and satisfying storytelling.

I loved Tahmoh Penikett - "Helo" on Battlestar Galactica and his relationship with "Sharon" actress Grace Park. The balance was PERFECT. Each had his/her strengths and weaknesses and they weren’t stereotypical ones. Each had a journey, a character arch, separate and yet combined; they were epic. It was also totally hot. :) It's a level of equality you rarely see in film - where sex sells from the male point of view, and why my gender so often has to save the world half-naked while running in heels and men get to be James Bond. Whereas on Battlestar Galactica, and with roots going back as far as Shakespeare's Hotspur, another favorite "Starbuck" was played by a woman; Katee Sackhoff. And she got to wear sensible shoes and still enjoy sex with men. :)

FYI: there was no Christianity in the fictional Battlestar Galactica universe. Just spirituality. Gee, do you think there’s a connection?

On one hand I am really excited to see this movie. partially because stylistically i love zeppelins, balloons and biplanes. along with the theme of flight not in the sense of rockets which break gravity but rather floating which more or less ignores gravity. Of course I still haven't seen the movie but I am really excited.

on the other hand.

it would appear that this post has devolved into the already over-argued not enough women in film x. my personal opinion if want to see a movie a certain way with certain themes you should make it yourself and invest your own time and money in it. if not i figure you just don't care that much and you are just wasting my time.

Bill Hays wrote on May 16, 2009 11:10 PM - "It's extremely difficult to write a great script about a Heroine because in real life, women like to nest. They like to make friends and help each other."

You need to see a film called "Precious". :)

Robert of Taoyuan City, Taiwan wrote on May 16, 2009 3:29 AM - "Have you already seen The Tower of Druaga: Aegis of Uruk and its sequel The Sword of Uruk?"

No, I haven't - but I usually get stuff from my library (better on DVD than a download; smile ) and they don't have it. They do have all the Star Trek movies - and I agree about the new one, Sci-fi movies shouldn't only be about firepower. As what's the difference then between that and a car chase/gun fight scene eh?

Note: I thought the first Alien film was the best. And while I continued to enjoy Sigourney Weaver as "Ripley" it wasn't quite the same. Mind you, different directors eh?

jonan wrote on May 17, 2009 9:44 PM - "it would appear that this post has devolved into the already over-argued not enough women in film x. my personal opinion if want to see a movie a certain way with certain themes you should make it yourself and invest your own time and money in it. if not i figure you just don't care that much and you are just wasting my time."

"It would appear that this post has devolved into the already over-argued not enough Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Gays in film x. my personal opinion if want to see a movie a certain way with certain themes you should make it yourself and invest your own time and money in it. if not i figure you just don't care that much and you are just wasting my time."

Sometimes, in order to change things for the better, you have to speak out and rattle some cages...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-189420203914406728

Sometimes, it's harder for having more to surmount...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqey2b6BzVA

Especially when others don't care enough because they've never had to, and consider it a waste of a time to even bring it up. And that being the case, I'm surprised you found the time to mention the topic in your post - as clearly, it doesn't interest you. :)

You are seriously deluded If you think that 3D is only a marketing gimmick. The fact is that 3D is the future of the industry. It is naive to think otherwise.

You talk about 3D simply giving us something unnecessary to look at.
What makes you think that the neccesary image stops at 2D.
The simple fact is that 3D creates depth in the image and enhances believability. How is that a gimmick?

I dont understand why anyone would choose to watch UP in 2D over 3D. You're watching exactly the same movie, only experiencing less of it.

Reply to: On one hand I am really excited to see this movie. partially because stylistically i love zeppelins, balloons and biplanes. on the other hand.
it would appear that this post has devolved into the already over-argued not enough women in film

No, it's just that not enough of us have seen "Up."

And the trailer for "Up" pretty much hides the fact that Carl fell in love with a tomboy named Ellie.

Reply to: Two children named Carl and Ellie meet and discover they share the same dream of someday being daring explorers. Ellie and Carl grow up, have a courtship, marry, are happy together, and grow old. (Ellie doesn't even have a voice credit). It's shown by Docter in a lovely sequence, without dialogue, that deals with the life experience in a way that is almost never found in family animation. This interlude is poetic and touching.

that's NOT the movie I saw in the trailer. Not even close.

I was thinking about George Lucas. He wanted to be a filmmaker in the way Ellie wanted to be a daring explorer. But look what happened to George.

(1) He makes "American Graffiti" and shoots for 29 nights in San Rafael. The National Society of Film Critics awards Best Screenplay.
The Oscars? Nominations for Best Director, Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress.

After the financial success of Easy Rider (1969), American Graffiti was one of five films that Universal Studios decided to allow young filmmakers to produce. The other four "semi-independent" low-budget films were: The Hired Hand (1971); The Last Movie (1971); Taking Off (1971); and Silent Running (1972).

"American Graffiti" was previewed in San Francisco, on a Sunday morning with Universal Studios rep Ned Tanen in attendance. Tanan was not impressed and called it "unreleasable". Francis Ford Coppola, enraged at the comment, offered to buy the film from Universal while the exhausted, burned-out and ill George Lucas watched in shock.
(2) And then, "Star Wars."
(3) And then, "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
(4) And then, "Willow." (where the streak ended?)

Carl and Ellie's story seems rather underwhelming by comparison.

Reply to: Is the journey of a Heroine different from the journey of a male Hero? What stands in the way is less so another woman, than a man. The deeply entrenched systems he's got in place to favor his sex.

My point is, there's no reason why a small, low-budget, semi-independent film can't be nominated for Best Picture and Best Director... if you know what you're doing.

Find a story about a female that is so powerful, it will attract teenage boys to come see it. And that's going to be a challenge. Probably a coming of age movie that offers real insights into the problems of being a teenager.

Would you go see "Spider-Girl" instead of "Spider-Man?" Supergirl instead of "Superman Returns." A Lord of the Rings where Aragorn was played by Sigourney Weaver?

"Alien" did it. And then, a string of disasters. Halle Berry in "Catwoman."

"Raiders" and "Jaws" both showed the right way to do it. Start with a "thing." The Ark of the Covenant, a shark feeding on swimmers. Grab the audience with a powerful opening scene, so they want to see what's going to happen... and give them an ending that answers the original questions.

Theoretically, given a powerful story, it shouldn't matter whether it's 3 Heroes or 3 Heroines in the boat.

In "Up," you've got a retired balloon salesman who wants to explore South America. Is there a powerful reason why we should stick around to see if he accomplishes his goal? Plus, there's the small drawback that he appears to have kidnapped an 8 year-old Wilderness Explorer, and the boy's parents have probably gone to the police.

Reply to: my personal opinion if want to see a movie a certain way with certain themes you should make it yourself and invest your own time and money in it.

Exactly. And you do that by writing a script.

A script that works. That's all it takes.

Any young filmmaker who makes a movie about kidnapping a woman, killing her and cutting up her body... is a waste of everybody's time. IMO.

To Robert of Taoyuan City, Taiwan, I cannot thank you enough for your mention of the novel "21 Balloons". I read this book as a young boy and, for reasons I would never be able to put into words, I have been thinking about it and desperately trying to recall the title of it for about a year now...roughly coinciding with when I first heard of "UP." As soon as I saw that title, "21 Balloons", in your post, tears came to my eyes. That book (as well as Tom Sawyer!) meant so much to me as a child and then over the years I simply forgot about it. In the past year I've had a vague recollection of a story that took place on Krakatoa, and a huge volcanic eruption, and diamonds, and, of course, the balloons...but I could not come up with a name.
I dearly wish that my own boyhood copy was musty and browned and sitting upon my shelf. But now that I finally have the correct title at hand I will purchase a new copy, and begin reading it to my daughters each night. Thank you truly.

And Roger...thanks to you for having the some of the most well-read and thoughtful commenters of any blog on the web...which is a testament to the quality of the blog itself.

Coop

Roger, I really adore you and your reviews. You are my favorite critic. But could you PLEASE not give away major plot points WITHOUT WARNING?

I have been very careful to skip over parts of reviews that reveal too much of the plot of UP. I want to be surprised when I see the movie at the theater. I read reviews and comments mainly to gauge the reaction to the movie. But in your comments to the comments here you pulled a fast one and revealed a huge surprise about the bird that I WISH I HADN'T READ and sorely wish I didn't know was going to happen.

Think how your own movie experience would have been if you knew in advance all the plot points that you reveal so freely. At least WARN before doing so. As a famous critic once wrote:

"Critics have no right to play spoiler."

(http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050129/COMMENTARY/501290301)"

I very much agree about the 3D argument. Some movie I have seen recently make good use out of it in an actual immersive way (Coraline) and a fun, gimmicky use (My Bloody Valentine 3D). The problem is that many studios are likely to ride it as a gimmick, like how many companies rode the CGI animation bandwagon as a gimmick. I CAN be used well, but I can't see it surviving.

ON the other hand, I'd love to see a rise in IMAX development and theaters. That's should be the next step cinema goes. I was lucky enough to see a screening of The Dark Knight when the film was re-released in January (saw it at The Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. of all places) and I thought it was amazing in IMAX. I really regretted not seeing Watchmen (My favorite film of 2009 so far) in IMAX, but it was tough since no IMAX theaters near me had it. Same for Star Trek. That should be the next step and the next big thing in Cinema, not 3D.

Kren,

As has been pointed out, there are simply more prominent male leads than female, so regardless of what films I watch, statistically I'm going to see more male leads. One need look no further than IMDB's top 250 to see this.

But this does not mean the reflections of my own motivations for watching film are biased towards my own sex, because I see what is presented and what is presented is statistically stacked. I cannot control what is produced and I watch only films whose premise interests me, and what interests me has nothing to do with what gender the lead is. I just want to watch a good movie. Does one really need to over-analyze this desire?

To that end, I can offer at least one or two good examples of strong lead female roles that reached me, the first being Ripley in the first two Alien films. The second one especially was reinforced for me by the surrogate bond shared by Ripley and Newt and how that became the motivation for the characters. Another I can think of would be that of Agent Starling in "Silence of the Lambs". Both of these are really awesome films. In both cases, it didn't matter whether the lead was a guy or not, they were just good films and I enjoyed them because the talent on display made me believe in and care about these characters.

And what of films that are ensemble casts, where there are no clear leading roles? I would argue that at least Toy Story II and The Incredibles both qualify under this banner, and both of which endow their female characters with moments that reach the heart and in one case, deeply so.

What more could I possibly say to convince you that all I want to see is a really good film, period?

Bill Hays wrote on May 18, 2009 3:50 PM - "No, it's just that not enough of us have seen "Up."

I've only seen the trailer for it, too. Once it hits local theaters, then I can check it out. Roger liked the film but even if he hadn't, Pixar always had my money as its Animation; just not for the 3D version of it - but while still sincerely wishing those who enjoy that format, a good time. Any other position strikes me as hypocritical. You can't ask others to care about you, if you're not willing to care about them in return, eh? It would also display an element of pettiness in one's character to wish another misery, and I hope that's not one of my failings as a person. As Roger himself noted not too long ago inside a thread, "we're all connected" and what matters in the end is being kind to one another. :)

In regards to writing a script, I take your point but counter with this...

More than once, I've seen Roger told to do just that, too. "If you don't like it Ebert, then go make your own movie, you arrogant opinionated...!" I always laugh at the irony of it - not just because he's a film "critic" (DUH?) but they're essentially using freedom of speech to tell him to shut-up inside his own blog and the only reason we're aware of that is because their displeasure was allowed to be heard inside it, chuckle! In the same way my voice can be heard and yours too, he doesn't tell anyone to "go make their own blog" instead. Which is tolerance in practice not theory, no? :)

Change has to start somewhere. If a dissident voice is restricted to a room filled with like minded people, it tends to be a moot point to have spoken. And because Roger's the moderator and not a large Corporation or their Marketing Dept, they don't control the voices you'll find in here. That is the providence of the spam filter.

And imo, if you raise a generation to buy into whatever you're selling, and in the buying, condition them to want more of the same and increasingly higher doses of it, any research conducted to determine the likes & dislikes of a consumer, will simply reflect a seed planted by the self-interest of another now bearing fruit. Hollywood is a business but it doesn't operate in a vacuum; what effects society, effects it too.

Common scenario: she's got a good script and pitches her idea and they say they like it - but insist upon changes. Changes designed to make it more appealing to young men and in doing so, enable the very thing her script was TRYING to address and change! If she refuses, they won't make it. If she agrees, it's no longer her vision.

If you won't let me make a film about a heroine until you see that heroine works financially, how can you get that film made? It's a catch-22. And if the reason it's caught in one is because certain systems and mindsets are entrenched and refuse to budge, what then? It's akin to: as soon as you can show me a film starring a black actor can make as much money as a white actor, we'll do it. And if you're not as economically empowered to make that movie yourself, what then? If little girls have bought into the bogus idea that self-empowerment in 2009 is pimping yourself out or "Bride Wars" what then? If a deck is stacked when the cards are dealt, what then?

Roger's seen several movies now at Cannes including "Precious". How many men are going to think her story is their story, too? See the threads that connect her to them? See the universality of it? I confess, I don't think it will be many. And so even when a good film gets made, full of emotional action and dynamic stuff happening - no cars? No explosions? No female nudity? How many theaters are going to show it? And more importantly, why not?

Money, they'll say. It won't make as much as another type of film. But WHY? Answer: because because of "who" has more money to spend, and time to spend it. And who's that? Bingo.

The disparity between men and women as it relates to film and the roles we get to play, what each is allowed to do or be, only exists in the first place because certain things are there to enable the disparity. Men enable men, more so than women. In the same way and until recently, whites enabled whites and you couldn't get a black man elected president - it wasn't because they weren't willing to apply themselves and work hard, eh? Something else was in the way too. Had Chaz, Roger's wife, been born 100 years ago, she'd could have applied herself all she liked - there's no way she'd have been allowed to become a trial lawyer let alone a Judge.

Saying that out loud doesn't mean I think all men are the same. I know they're not...

"In 1975 at O'Rourke's, he met Ingrid Eng... Ebert became close to her children and helped one of her daughters, Monica, get a "copy kid" job at the Sun-Times. Today she is a reporter for the Tribune. "I don't think I'd be in journalism if it weren't for him," she says." - "A Life in the Movies" by Carol Felsenthal, the article appears in the December 2005 issue of Chicago Magazine.

Side note: I've seen your baby picture from 1942, Roger. You're so cute! Nice shirt. :)
This also caught my eye - "with a stunning atrium that shows off three large paintings by the British abstract expressionist Gillian Ayres."

But I digress...

I agree with you, when it comes to examples like "Raiders". But only because I can pretend I'm "either" character. I can be Indiana Jones or I can be Marion - but note: describe Marion's character parameters - is she all girly? Also, are you aware that a transcript has been released of the original 1978 story conference for Raiders of the Lost Ark between Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan, wherein they discuss her character?

http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2009/03/raiders-story-conference.html

G — I was thinking that this old guy could have been his mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

L — And he was forty-two.

G — He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.

S — She had better be older than twenty-two.

G — He's thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve. It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.

G — Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it's an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he...

It goes on from there and if curious, there's a link provided at that site where you can download the entire 125-page transcript in PDF.

Meanwhile, actual film dialogue...

INDY: I never meant to hurt you.
MARION: I was a child! I was in love.
INDY: You knew what you were doing.
MARION: It was wrong. You knew it.

So I'll say it again, there are systems in place and things at work and not all of them are obvious or in plain sight. And if they don't effect you, and you're not looking for them, how do you know you're not missing something?

P.S. I initially found that transcript on a feminist site. :)

Ebert: Are you familiar with Gillian Ayres OBE? A great lady and a great character. Chaz and I have three of her enormous oils, one smaller one--and a rug!

http://images.google.fr/images?q=gillian%20ayres&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=fr&tab=wi

To Coop,
Hey Coop, glad to be of some help.

To Marie,
Yes, I agree the first Aliens is the best of the series. But you know what? I like Sigourney Weaver in Dave best. Just look at her turn up at the office of Dave near the end of the film: so understated and a far cry from her stint as First Lady; and yet still so appealing in her gal-next-door way.

Roger,

On the issue of video games as art... there is a title called Braid that was released recently. The game told the story of a man saving a princess from a monster through multiple chapters. At the end of the game, everything "rewound" the story to show how every event and every action told the REAL story - that the "hero" was actually the antagonist and the princess was trying to escape HIM. Filled with beautiful imagery and music, the game told an amazing story and provided emotional experience for the player. Is that not art?

What separates the feelings and inspiration a person takes from a game from the feelings and inspirations he/she might derive from a book, movie or musical piece? I view it as an evolution of those things... first we had storytelling and music, then books, then movies which combined music and images to tell a story, and now videogames - a medium that can combine music and images to tell a story in which the player is an actual participant instead of a passive observer. What potential! Sure there is a lot of trash and I am not making the argument that all games are art, but neither are all movies nor all paintings, etc.

What will keep video games from ever becoming a form of art in your opinion? Is it possible that the right writer/director hasn't arrived to bring all the elements that make art together into a game?

It is my view that almost anything can be art, if it is created with enough passion, inspiration and talent.

Thanks for the great review.

Sorry you're not amongst those of us who love 3D. I travelled an hour and a half to see the wonderful Coraline in 3D, and am glad I did. I'll do the same for this film.

Just as I love color -- I do a lot of photography, and have zero zilch nada bupkus interest in black and white -- I love 3D.

So it goes. Different strokes and all that.

Eagerly awaiting the 29th.

-- stan krute

To Coop:

I share your love for "The Twenty-One Balloons".

If you encounter similar "tip-of-the-tongue" nostalgia in the future, a few keywords entered in a google search can do wonders. Entering the words "krakatoa" and "balloons" (or even "krakatoa" and "diamonds") in a google search returns links to information about the book at wikipedia and amazon.com. I performed a similar search to recall that title a few years ago. :-)

Incidentally, the beloved children's book that jumped to my mind when I first saw the Up trailer was "James and the Giant Peach".

eric,

You didn't reply to what I posted, here it is again:

"I imagine a day when the opening feature at Cannes is an interactive experience."

Mike Figgis live audio mix of "Timecode." http://splicedwire.com/00features/figgis.html

You also said:

"...a medium that can combine music and images to tell a story in which the player is an actual participant instead of a passive observer."

In the live audio mix of "Timecode", he fed off the audiences energy--they can cheer, boo, whatever.

So, the audience was interacting with the sound of the movie, and there probably is a way for the audience to be able to cheer or boo etc. with the images too, like a DJ. If there were some kind of futuristic editing machine that could have it cut and taped or cut by a simple mouse click, then that would be a way for movies to be interactive. If the director (preferably) or someone could edit the movie in real time and the sound in real time in front of a live audience feeding off the audiences energy, that's Interacting with them. To have the audience interact with the movie as a video game...I'd have to go back to what Roger said:

Ebert: How will that work? Every audience member sees a different image?

That won't work. But anyway, there is a possibility of interactive live cinema and it's been done with sound. We just have to wait until someone can edit a movie in front of an audience and have it playback instantly, including sound, which has been done.

Reply to: Marie: If you won't let me make a film about a heroine until you see that heroine works financially, how can you get that film made? It's a catch-22. And if the reason it's caught in one is because certain systems and mindsets are entrenched and refuse to budge, what then? The disparity between men and women as it relates to film and the roles we get to play, what each is allowed to do or be, only exists in the first place because certain things are there to enable the disparity.

Case in point: Pirates of the Caribbean.

A movie based on a Disneyland ride, it was going to serve as an ad for the theme park no matter what. What Disney calls a win-win.

It was written for Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) to struggle greatly in her choice between (1) hunky blacksmith Will Turner (2) dashing Commodore Norrington or (3) trickster pirate Captain Jack Sparrow.

Guess what? Everyone thinks it was written as The Adventures of Captain Jack Sparrow.

Because of the time period, Elizabeth was limited in what the character was allowed to do. She was a kidnap victim, a daughter of the Governor pursued and wooed by men. Boring.

There are fantastic things for women to do in film, especially if set in a modern time period. Instead, we get "Catch and Release," a movie written by a woman, directed by the same woman, that no one at Columbia... well, even noticed that it didn't have a climax.

Reply to: I can pretend I'm Indiana Jones or I can be Marion - but note: describe Marion's character parameters - is she all girly? Also, are you aware that a transcript has been released of the original 1978 story conference?

Already have a copy, but thanks. George hired a director to make "Red Tails" with Cuba Gooding Jr., and Paramount wants another Indiana Jones... but I really like the possibility of LucasFilm making a new version of "Willow," with a heroine in the title role instead of Warwick Davis:

George Lucas: After the theatrical release of American Graffiti, I created three film ideas that I hoped would become profitable film franchises. The third concept, which is Willow, earned slightly over $ 50 million U.S dollars in North America. I had enough story ideas for two Willow film trilogies. It wasn't meant to be and these other Willow adventures will never be published for the public to see.

"Willow" takes place in the Realm of Magic. "Star Trek" didn't bother to create a new villain, just re-cycled a lot of old ideas. Well, that's what George does, too.

George Lucas: Darth Maul is my personal interpretation of Clint Eastwood's legendary Man With No Name from the Sergio Leone Spaghetti Westerns that were filmed over 40 years ago. The Man With No Name is mostly a silent character, who does his talking with his weapons. Similarly, Maul doesn't speak often and instead prefers to do his communicating with a light saber.

George Lucas: Boba Fett was a minor character in the old films with few lines of dialogue and nearly no important scenes. Boba was my interpretation of Clint Eastwood's The Man With No Name from the Sergio Leone Spaghetti Westerns from the 1960's. For some odd reason, the fans are intrigued with silent characters, who are mysterious and whose history remains unknown to the audience.

when Chris Nolan wrote The Joker for Heath Ledger, he played around with this same concept. A villain who is also a mystery and an enigma. Of course, that was already developed in the comic book mythology.

Even if you restrict your analysis to the films of George Lucas, it's easy to see what works and what doesn't. I'm always surprised that no studio has made another "Star Wars." The potential profits are enormous.

It would take a lot of nerve to write a script about a Villain who doesn't speak, who just appears in the Realm of Magic with no backstory. But that might be the best way for a Willowy heroine (like Keira Knightley's Elizabeth Swann) to keep our attention.

The best part of "Raiders" was the relationship between Indy and Marion. Two damaged individuals that no one else would want, but together they make a whole. If the guy has been so damaged that he barely speaks, and there's magic involved, the audience would have a lot to root for.

anyway, that's how I would design a movie with a Heroine in the lead role.

I must say that I completely disagree with your condemnation of 3D. You said that it is just a gimmick to justify higher ticket prices and prevent piracy. While those certainly are contributing factors, I think film makers are genuinely trying to get beyond 3D as just a gimmick and use it to truly enhance the visual experience. For example, except for a couple gags in which objects fly toward the audience, most of Monsters Vs. Aliens takes place close to or behind the screen, not in front of it. It is unfortunate that glasses are still the only way to isolate the eyes. I could see an argument that the glasses are distracting, but I definitely enjoy the 3D itself.

Also, I don’t think it is fair for you to refer to the 2D version of Up as the “truel” version. Unlike a couple years ago when 3D started its most recent comeback, most of the newer 3D moves, including Up I believe, are created first in 3D and then converted back to 2D (probably by using the frames for just one eye). Therefore, the 3D version is the “true” version. Actually, I saw Monsters in 3D and later saw some scenes in 2D. I realized that unlike true 2D computer animated movies, everything in 3D is kept in crisp focus since the images only line up at the viewers focus point. I remember a specific scene in which two characters were close to the camera and other characters were much farther away. In 2D the characters that are supposed to be farther away just look small, but in 3D the scene had depth.

Technology has been used throughout film history to enhance the movie experience. First sound, then color. I’m sure they were gimmicks at first too. It seems to me that to say a movie created in 3D should be only seen in 2D is like saying that it should only be seen in black and white or without sound. I look forward to Up in 3D. I hope you will keep an open mind and review the movie as Pixar intended it to be seen. Only then will it really mean anything if you recommend the 2D version over the 3D.

I'm not sure about 3D. I've never seen it without it being used as a gimmick though as unfortunately I missed Coraline in 3D (wonderful movie though I thought they used Wybie poorly). I've never really felt that a new technology would help engross an audience in a movie. Ebert mentioned that he has been accused of not accepting the change to color or sound. Really one of the best movies made is Casablanca made without color or CG (am I the only person who thinks people look more beautiful in black and white). With all the attempts to to find ways to fake engrossment mostly with computer graphics and now 3D most movies can not match Casablanca. And I can't imagine that Casablanca would be better with CG or in 3D.

Now video games, like everything else most of them are crap but they are simply a different medium. In the way that music is incomparable to paintings however for every Bach there are a thousand NSyncs. For every Michelangelo there are a thousand (cant think of a crappy artist right now). But a truly good game beats a bad movie any day of the week, Myst and Riven are better than Wolverine (actually the better comparison is Myst/Riven to City of Ember but Ember is actually a good movie but puzzles are better suited for a game and the whole time I watched the movie all I could think was that it would make a fantastic game that would be better played than watched). Bioshock is better than My Bloody Valentine. Unfortunately video games have the same huge bureaucracy that movies do so the market is filled with sequels and cheap knockoffs. (that whole argument goes the same with Anime, you should rent Tekkonkinkreet you won't be dissapointed)

Ebert wrote: Are you familiar with Gillian Ayres OBE? A great lady and a great character. Chaz and I have three of her enormous oils, one smaller one--and a rug!

Familiar? You betcha! She's one of the few female artists ever to be short-listed for the Turner Prize! And I've seen her "Antony and Cleopatra" at the Tate Gallery; imo it's like standing inside a stained glass window while dreaming of something sublime. And you've got some of her work; would it be inappropriate at this point to call you a lucky bastard? :)

Note: as much as I enjoyed that article about you by Felsenthal, the minute I read you owned some Ayres, I was like "yeah, yeah, enough about his career - I want to hear more about their Art collection, dammit!" Chuckle! FYI to readers: you need some serious wall space to hang her larger pieces, and that alone informs my visualization of the scale of Mr. and Mrs. Ebert's country house. I can't hate you though - you're spending your money the way I'd spend your money.

I suppose it would be akin to inviting buglers to break in for knowing exactly what you have, but I wish there was a site devoted to your collection of Art. Then I could see all your watercolors and oil paintings and stuff! :)

Robert of Taoyuan City, Taiwan wrote on May 19, 2009 9:27 AM - "Yes, I agree the first Aliens is the best of the series. But you know what? I like Sigourney Weaver in Dave best. Just look at her turn up at the office of Dave near the end of the film: so understated and a far cry from her stint as First Lady; and yet still so appealing in her gal-next-door way."

I liked that film too! And Sigourney in it; imo, she played it as a person, not a 2-dimentional stereotype of a First Lady.

All I want, is to see a more gender balanced landscape, you know? I don't want to see women acquire more political and economic power and suddenly turn around and do to men, what men have historically done to my sex; I don't want men to lose what they enjoy, rather, just not enjoy it at the expense of others. Ie: a world where roles are determined by one's choices and skill sets.

Did you know, that depending upon how much testosterone the brain of a developing fetus gets while in the womb, regardless of that child's subsequent gender once born, their brain will be more or less hardwired with certain skill? And that's why some guys can't operate a fighter jet, whereas some women can. And some women are really good at science while some men excel at music; ex: Paul McCarthy and John Lennon. A lot of it has to do with the brain, not your anatomy.

And for what it's worth, women can make me crazy too. I can't watch "the View" for example with Barbara Walters because for me, it's like sticking my head inside a dryer! I can however, happily watch "Spectacle" with Elvis Costello on Bravo Canada. :)

Ever see "Sabrina" with Audrey Hepburn? I'd like to be Sabrina, and wear this beautiful white Givenchy dress with black embroidered applique and go to the Larrabee Ball and dance with Humphrey Bogart to "Isn't it Romantic" inside the indoor tennis courts - yes, I know that's actually William Holden in the photo...

http://www.theclothingchronicles.com/archives/2006/257-sabrina.jpg

But I also want to be the female character "Starbuck" in Battlestar Galactica, season 3: ep "Unfinished Business" - toss your dog tags in the box, pick your partner and go for a dance; its how the flight crew works off tension, a boxing match open to all genders and ranks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_Fy7nZA80

It all appeals to me, it really does - but you'll see "Sabrina types" far more so than Starbucks in the movies. And that's a pity. It's like being asked to be content with half a box of crayons. What if you'd like to be Audrey Hepburn on Monday and Starbuck on Tuesday, eh? All soft and girly one minute and then the next, you're giving as good as you get.

Men can be all sorts of things, women too. It all depends on the person and there's the rub; who gets to be a person and who has to stick to their "gender".

At any rate, it's been nice to explore it all on Roger's dime inside his blog. I've been getting mail about it from women; they think it's awesome I could take the walking bass line that I have, that I wasn't shut down. I told them they should tell Roger that, but they're more comfortable inside feminist blogs - not everyone's worked with male animators and developed Kevlar. But my mission is complete - I've dropped my pebble in the pond which is all I wanted to do, just like Rosa Parks; you can't change the world over night, but you can make a ripple. :)

eric wrote on May 19, 2009 10:47 AM - "It is my view that almost anything can be art, if it is created with enough passion, inspiration and talent."

I agree! I love the game "Star Wars: The Force Unleashed" on Xbox for example, ie: how it looks combined with the story elements in the cutscenes. It's epic and poetic and my heart aches for Starkiller aka Saw Witwer - who got burned big time by the way in "Doomsday" the season 8 finale of Smallville; as WTF was that, dudes?! The writers just flushed his character's arc down the toilet while jumping the shark yet AGAIN on that show!

*Insert really long rant worthy of the "deep, bitterness society thread" over at Television Without Pity; choke, grumble, snarl!

There's also the "Mad World" trailer for the game "Gears of War"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzn9jbwuobc

There's a sublime beauty to the horror of it all, at least in the trailer. I tried playing the game once; I panicked and shot everything that moved, including my own friends. (Ooops!)

Halo Wars - now there's a gorgeous piece of graphic animation! Shot like a film, with the same scope and cinematic sensibility you'd find in "Lawrence of Arabia" - it's beautiful work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwh2_ssqHIo

I also think there's artistry to working with images in 3D for film - but ironically, it pulls me "out" of the story. But I'm delighted to hear Stanley Krute really enjoyed seeing "Coraline" in 3D - given he had to travel for 1.5 hrs just to reach the theater! Can you imagine the level of suckage if you walk out disappointed, feeling robbed?!

Note: "James and the Giant Peach" was cool too. Actually, now that I think about it, and I'm not sure if it qualifies as 3D, but you know all those Tim Burton movies..? Stop-motion? Corpse Bride? Nightmare Before Christmas? That stuff ironically pulls me INTO a story.

Go figure, eh?

Although Burton can't write decent parts for female characters to save his life. :)

"Ebert: How will that work? Every audience member sees a different image?"

Ok, point taken - as Cannes is currently set up an interactive experience may not work. However, things change and evolve in ways we can't anticipate. Technology advances, 30 years ago would you have willingly accepted the fact that in 2009 people would be wearing (relatively) expensive 3d glasses to watch a computer animated movie to open the film festival? The lines of these mediums are blurring... is it so far fetched to imagine that in 2039 guests will sit down and don virtual reality goggles to enjoy a feature?

And not just the mediums are changing, the audiences are as well. As interactive technology gets better and becomes more mainstream, new generations of people will come around that won't view it as a new gimmick but as another form of human expression. Artists (yes, artists!) will hone their craft to express ideas and evoke emotional responses from their audiences. We live in a glorious age - a new frontier where anything is possible and you don't have to have the backing of billion dollar corporations to produce quality work, just a home computer and some software! Not one piece of great art will come out of all this? No great mind will create a masterpiece that isn't just a one sided artist/viewer relationship but one that actively engages the audience and uses their participation to fully immerse them in the experience?

I see so much potential.

Reply to: Marie: At any rate, it's been nice to explore it all on Roger's dime inside his blog. But my mission is complete - I've dropped my pebble in the pond which is all I wanted to do....

That's not how it works.

(1) The problem is entrenched. If merely describing the problem was enough to solve it, why would we still have child and sexual predators?

(2) If there's a reason why men haven't figured this out... maybe you need to do more than explain. You need to workshop until the guy writing scripts on spec feels comfortable with the new concepts.

And, finally, you need to write a script:

www.oscars.org/nicholl

Write the entire script, submit it, finish in the Top 5, and sell it to a studio that will make it YOUR way. Here's the free version of a program that helps you format and convert a script to PDF:

www.celtx.com

And here's the $249 version

www.finaldraft.com

Reply to: I've been getting mail about it from women; they think it's awesome I could take the walking bass line that I have, that I wasn't shut down. I told them they should tell Roger that, but they're more comfortable inside feminist blogs.

Please don't assume that I'm ever going to read feminist blogs. Tell them to come here.

OK, Pirates of the Caribbean. In the original concept, Elizabeth was supposed to make a choice between a blacksmith, a British Naval officer and a pirate. Not sure how much of that was taken from the Disneyland ride, but what British woman of nobility would choose a Caribbean pirate?

At the end of Casablanca, Rick got to choose which man got on the plane with Ilsa.

Is that enough of a climax? I don't think so. But the climax has to answer the question asked in Act One.

I think women need MORE... than simply deciding which man to marry.

At the end of "Titanic," Rose said, "Jack died, but he saved me. He saved me in every way possible."

By giving Rose the confidence and self-esteem to make a life without marrying a wealthy man she hated.

What we're looking for... is Elation. The ending that lifts our spirits and makes us feel better about ourselves and humanity.

How does THAT ending... the elation.... fit into the theme you've been discussing? Is there some movie that had the wrong ending, that could be easily fixed?

Reply to: Ever see "Sabrina" with Audrey Hepburn? I'd like to be Sabrina, and wear this beautiful white Givenchy dress with black embroidered applique and go to the Larrabee Ball and dance with Humphrey Bogart to "Isn't it Romantic" inside the indoor tennis courts ...But I also want to be "Starbuck" - a boxing match open to all genders and ranks...

One reason Indiana Jones worked (and Batman) was the Dual Identity. A Playboy billionaire AND a costumed crime fighter. Audiences really love characters who have two complete identities, and can switch back and forth. As a college professor, Indy wore a bow tie. As an adventurer, a fedora and a bullwhip. You couldn't carry the bullwhip into a college classroom, or use it.

But a boxing match, where a woman feels she can put on gloves and step into a ring with men...?? Definitely a Fantasy life there. Lots of ways to do it. The robot from "Bicentennial Man" and the Japanese sex toy who goes on a walkabout.... or a female Terminator who arrives in 2007 looking for a boxer? So many possibilities... If you want to write a great script for a movie, I'm thinking you need a list of 100 possibilities. A very long list, because you don't want to send out a script that isn't the very best you can do.

I haven't seen "Up" yet. There may be a twist at the end that would make the ending work. But discovering that your childhood hero is actually a villain? No elation.

Roger,

I've read many of your reviews over the last 15 years or so. I enjoy your writing very much. I'm 24-years-old, and I just wanted to tell you that I completely agree with your opinions of 3D. I hate it! I enjoyed Monsters vs. Aliens more than I have any other 3D, but if I could have seen it in 2D, I would have. I'm weary of James Cameron's upcoming 'Avatar'. The premise sounds like it may be a great story, but I do not look forward to the 3D aspect at all. I can deal with it in animation if I have to, but I hate it even more in live action. I wish studios would ditch the technology for the most part, but I'm sure it won't happen. They see in dollar signs. Oh well! I can't wait to see Up, and hopefully I will be able to view it minus the 3D. Thanks!

Bill Hays wrote: Even if you restrict your analysis to the films of George Lucas, it's easy to see what works and what doesn't. I'm always surprised that no studio has made another "Star Wars." The potential profits are enormous.

I think that's exactly what the Harry Potter franchise has done. I've always thought of the Harry Potter books and films as a cross between Star Wars and The Great Brain.

I think quite a few (jealous?) wannabe screenwriters have railed against J.K. Rowling for the similarities between Harry Potter and the Star Wars films.

"A female Captain of the Enterprise? obviously, Hollywood doesn't know how to do this."

And yet somehow they did seven years of a Star Trek series with Kate Mulgrew playing the captain.

eric,

I don't see the potential in audience members wearing virtual reality goggles, because then they are no longer an audience, unless you count one person as an audience member, which wouldn't need an entire theater. But as I mentioned, if a director could edit movies and have it playback instantly, and do it with sound too, which was already done by Mike Figgis with "Timecode", then you have a live movie. And also, movie goers don't just passively watch the screen, they also applause, or if it is a really good movie, then it will require an active viewer.

Marie wrote, But I also want to be the female character "Starbuck" in Battlestar Galactica...

Marie, are you serious?! Starbuck is a freakin' Ceylon hybrid. (sniggering) And yes, I had seen both versions of Sabrina. Don't you just love Hepburn and Binoche? The former version is especially distinct to my mind because it had Humphrey Bogart jumping over a sheet of plastic during the days when it was still considered novel. Ah, those were the pre-Tupperware days...

Btw, what do you think of the female characters portrayed in Babette's Feast? God, I love that film. At times when I'm glum and my imagination is in need of rattling (and I do need a lot of rattling), I just slide the disk into the machine and slip myself into another life: perhaps that of an artist, a gourmet, or a chef, which ironically are not what the movie is about, but nonetheless. Unlike in most films, the women in Babette's Feast do not come across as aggressive. They are women who have come to terms with themselves and their lots in life (however ludicrous it might be, as in the case of Babette). What is potentially jarring about the film is that these women do not have any statement to make at all. The sisters Martina and Philippa, especially, seem to be teetering between filial obedience and breaking loose of their vestal lives, and then finally getting nowhere. Because of these, the film seemed pointless to me at first. But then, I gradually understood that there is also beauty in their inertness; and finally, I accept their small liberation through Babette's feast, reluctantly at first, even though it came much too late in their lives.

Of course, the film is much more than the women who inhabit it. Just look at Babette go her way through the kitchen! The film also pokes at our dashed expectations with the question, "What were you thinking? Shame on you." After all, chastity belts do not come cheap.

Bill Hays wrote on May 20, 2009 1:39 PM - "That's not how it works."

Subtext: "It's over when "I" say it's over, Marie!"

Really? :)

"If merely describing the problem was enough to solve it, why would we still have child and sexual predators?" - Bill Hays

Roger Ebert does not write scripts. He nevertheless manages to make a valuable contribution to the medium he so dearly loves, and has devoted much of his life to. He is a canary in the mine. And along with being a dissident voice, one which also conversely champions all there is to admire and support in Film. Each journal entry, a pebble in the pond. Hundreds and hundreds of pebbles dropped each year, and touching upon shores of influence who knows where.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avDICF6tuCE

But that's me. If Roger really wants to see better films being made, shouldn't he be writing/pitching them and or making his own? That seems to be your position and thinking on the issue, so shouldn't you be telling HIM to "go here, do this..?" If you ever have I must have missed it. :)

And if words can never be actions and you're not unwittingly part of a problem for failing to see it, shouldn't you be taking your own advice now - not standing on the outside looking in, but participating in activities, knowledge of which is often spread through social-networking sites such as Feminist blogs, so as to be more informed at a local level on how best to contribute in a meaningful way to solving the problem you mentioned?

"Please don't assume that I'm ever going to read feminist blogs. Tell them to come here." - Bill

Oh but wait, that's right - it's not up to Bill to engage, just tell others to and how. :)

Subtext: "You (female) need to workshop until the guy (male) writing scripts on spec feels comfortable (tippy-toe around his ego) with the new concepts."

"There is a stubbornness about me that never can bear to be frightened at the will of others. My courage always rises with every attempt to intimidate me." - Elizabeth Bennett

Re: Pirates of the Caribbean, I didn't like Elizabeth's character. I didn't buy Knightly for a second, not even as fiction - token girl power crossed with eye-candy. As for Titanic, my brother-in-law is an Englishman and history buff; I've sat through many a documentary devoted to it as a result. The romance may have appealed to countless girls, but they're also freaking out over Twilight. The juxtaposition of romance against a backdrop of immanent death for want of a surprise ending, was for me too akin to "Beyond Borders" with Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen; a romance set against a violent backdrop of war - 'cause war makes sex hotter right? Roger doesn't like A Clockwork Orange, I don't like Titanic. Sometimes, stuff just bugs you.

"But a boxing match, where a woman feels she can put on gloves and step into a ring with men...?? Definitely a Fantasy life there." - Bill

Rebuttal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pHg5AMtYNw&feature=related

You're missing the point - seeing only the surface. It’s about pushing yourself mentally and physically and daring to boldly go where girls usually don't Kirk - to cross that line, break that barrier, carpe diem! Boxing is a sport and girls (not all) like to play it too! And if you partner with a man, it's akin to moving up to the next level on your XBox game, dude! :)

Note: a friend of mine has a black belt in Taekwondo; she trained with men. I'm too lazy to train - that's why it's a FANTASY. Chuckle! I just want to play with all the crayons you guys get to - including a light saber! And since everything's technically possible in the movies, why it's even more galling and offensive to my sense of self-worth that I have to limit myself as a human being on the planet to a tiny room another has built for my gender, because they can't share a bigger sandbox even when it's FICTIONAL!

"But discovering that your childhood hero is actually a villain? No elation."

Is that what you'd took away from it? It means Indiana Jones isn't as nice as guy now? It's not about him. Who was speaking? What do their comments reveal about what THEY think is interesting? And how they wanted to approach the female character? It's about men in positions of power in Hollywood. Imo, it sheds insight into some of what goes on behind closed doors - ie: it's not as easy as writing a script, it's about who'll likely being looking at it and whatever agendas they've got; knowingly or otherwise.

And having read the transcript of their conversation, it doesn't change how I personally see Indy. Heck no. Moreover, I'm not about to let those clueless goof's take away my happy girlhood memories without a fight! And you shouldn't either if he meant anything to you! Where's your loyalty?! Man down - help him back up, dude! It's not Indy's fault, he didn't write that crap! Focus on what matters. Indy was covered in spiders (SHUDDER) and still got the job done and didn't puke, dammit!

You'll always be my hero, Jones. :)

Reply to: think quite a few (jealous?) wannabe screenwriters have railed against J.K. Rowling for the similarities between Harry Potter and the Star Wars films.

I see no reason to complain.

You can't rope off a certain territory and say "That belongs to Star Wars and we can't use it." (Well, maybe a sword that uses a blade made of plasma.)

Great Britain had a tradition of Merlin, the Lady of the Lake, ie, the Realm of Magic and/or Camelot, before George even thought of going to film school.

(2) George created two original heroes (Artoo and Threepio) and a villain (Vader) who were not identifiable as any ethnic group. The audience always draws a connection between the villain and some group, and says, "That's not fair." Even in "Shrek," when the villain was identified as (a) extremely short and (b) a British Lord.

About the same time, Steven gave us Bruce the Shark. What a fantastic villain.

When Victor Lazlo told the band to play "Les Marseilles," that's how you connect to an ethnic group. 'La Marseillaise' is, musically, the most rousing national anthem in the world. On 25th April 1792, Claude-Joseph Rouget de Lisle, a Captain of the Engineers in the Rhine Army, was stationed in Strasbourg. France had just declared war on Austria and Prussia and the army was preparing to go to Paris. The Mayor of Strasbourg approached de Lisle about composing a marching tune for this march to Paris and de Lisle composed it during the night. The song was originally entitled Chant de guerre de l'armeé du Rhin (War Song of the Army of the Rhine).

Arise children of the fatherland
The day of glory has arrived
Against us tyranny's
Bloody standard is raised

If you're going to write a movie specifically for Cannes, you could show the heroes walking into a hopeless battle singing it.

(3) The idea of a wish coming true.

The best thing the original "Star Wars," now episode 4, did, was giving us a farm boy who felt that life was passing him by. ie, if there's a bright center to the galaxy, I'm on the planet farthest from it.

How many people in American feel that way? They read about Roger's adventures in the south of France, or George Clooney's odyssey to Los Angeles, where he slept on the couch of his famous aunt Rosemary Clooney, and they think, "If only I could...."

Luke Skywalker saw his dream come true. He got to strike a blow against the Evil Galactic Empire. Destroyed the biggest threat to peace, a battle station that could destroy an entire planet. He got a medal, two new friends, and became a Hero. So much elation.

Not to mention the second most important thing. His victory confirmed the existence of the Force, so everyone in the audience who knows their own religious beliefs are false can pretend they're real. that's why "The Exorcist" resonated. That underlying theme of "the Catholic church has the answers if you'd only listen."

Or, Indiana Jones, where an ancient Jewish legend was shown to contain power beyond imagination. For Hostel films director Eli Roth, who steps out from behind the camera to play one of the Basterd sergeants, "Being Jewish, this is definitely for me like Kosher porn," Roth joked. "It's something I fantasized about since I was a very young child."

Find a fantasy... that a large group shared, as young children... and use it. ie, Saving a princess from a dungeon or a castle tower.

I'm posting this in the "Up" blog entry... because it's the only film from Cannes that remotely works for me. Than has Elation. The moment when a Hero decides to abandon a life that isn't working for him, and rise up into the clouds.

There was a movie called "Lethal Weapon." Martin Riggs as a LA cop who loses his wife in a traffic accident. he finds a new family in Roger Murtaugh and wife (and kids.) A lonely man finding a family... even if it's his own family in "It's A Wonderful Life".... is also a moment of elation.

The bottom line is, Star Wars was a Myth with fantasy aspects, and it did many, many things right. And if you want to make a movie about an entirely different Myth, you still have to use many of the same elements. Filmmakers should BRAG about stealing from Star Wars, not apologize for it. Especially the music. And if Harry Potter could destroy Lord Valdemort's battle station with a fleet of fighter jets instead of riding on a frickin' broom stick, that would be a great end to the series. With a bumper sticker on Harry's fighter that reads "I stole this idea from George Lucas... bite me."

Ha, mix-up, Roger! It seems you're not the only one making mistakes (e.g., typos). Julia Ormond for Sabrina (1995), not Juliette Binoche. Geez, how did I get this one wrong? No wonder I was kinda restless last night.

I guess the resemblance was strong. (^_^)

Robert of Taoyuan City, Taiwan wrote on May 21, 2009 4:44 AM - "Marie, are you serious?! Starbuck is a freakin' Ceylon hybrid. (sniggering)"

Chuckle! Season 4 doesn't count - they jumped the shark! I had no idea what the frack was going on!

Besides, it all comes to crayons. Boys get to be any color in the box they want; Iron Man to Darth Vader and everything in between. But dreams don't have a gender, you can be a girl and want those things too - to be "Spaceman Spiff" and stuff like that!

Moreover when men watch a movie, they get to see themselves painted in all sorts of colors (every imaginable character you could think of) from the nicest neighbor to the most evil of creatures. You guys get to be Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Richard III! It's your voices I hear:

"Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried."

And part of the fun of watching a movie is getting to live vicariously through the characters on the screen, finding some means into them through empathy or understanding - and for a moment standing in their shoes! Example: "Le Samourai" 1967, is the story of Jef Costello (Alain Delon) a Parisian contract killer who realizes he's being double crossed by his employers and seeks revenge!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joZRgs4Df1A&feature=related

Or how about the original Talented Mr. Ripley aka the French thriller "Plein Soleil" - Purple Noon, with its haunting theme by Nina Rota! It was brought back as part of Scorsese's revival of underseen foreign classics; the character is a charismatic sociopath who lies, murders and manipulates without a shred of remorse. English DVD trailer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6dOZJP6UT8

Note: I have it on DVD. I love Ripley; he's such a sneaky bastard! Chuckle! But that's the thing - as fiction. Dexter, Ripley, The Phantom of the Opera, Leon The Professional, Jess Spicoli...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf5rIuJPTt0&feature=related

Look at the FUN you get to have, dude! And what do we get?! "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" - blech! We get inane chick flicks! There's a reason guy's hate them - they suck! Sleepless In Seattle : Recut as a horror movie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frUPnZMxr08

Isn't that better? :)

True, we got La Femme Nikita -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igh1O_UOSFk

But it amounts to a drop in the bucket. It's just more fun and exciting to see the parts guys are getting in the movies - even video games: The Force Unleashed! :)

At least there's TV - Starbuck is a glorious fück-up. An imperfect character who doesn't do what she's told and gets into trouble and every once in a while, if you're a girl, it's nice "not" to be lady like. You guys got Marlon Brando in the Wild Bunch, right? Okay she's our version of that, sorta. :)

"And yes, I had seen both versions of Sabrina. Don't you just love Hepburn and Binoche? The former version is especially distinct to my mind because it had Humphrey Bogart jumping over a sheet of plastic during the days when it was still considered novel. Ah, those were the pre-Tupperware days..."

OMG! The plastic sheet scene! I love it when David later sits on the champagne glasses stashed away in his pockets and needs stitches in his bum - and Linus has a big HOLE cut into the sheet so it can serve as a "secial custom" hammock. Chuckle!

Btw, what do you think of the female characters portrayed in Babette's Feast? God, I love that film...

I love that film - it's so poignant! She blows ALL the lottery money on making this amazing meal for people who at first don't seem to appreciate it. They're so stiff and self-contained and then slowly but surely as the magic of the meal begins to work itself upon them (the wine too; smile) they loosen up and finally start to live.

The story about the two sisters of course, is especially moving; they had their shot at happiness but their father expected them to "tend to his needs" and so they rejected their suitors - and we see how that stupidity turned out. As they'd loved them, and been loved in return.

The menu responsible for their pleasure features "Blini Demidoff au Caviar" (buckwheat cakes with caviar and sour cream); "Potage à la Tortue" (turtle soup); "Caille en Sarcophage avec Sauce Perigourdine" (quail in puff pastry shell with foie gras and truffle sauce); "La Salad" featuring Belgian endive and walnuts in a vinaigrette; and "Les Fromages" featuring Blue Cheese, papaya, figs, grapes and pineapple. The grand finale dessert is "Savarin au Rhum avec des Figues et Fruit Glacée" (rum sponge cake with figs and glacéed fruits). Numerous rare wines, including Clos de Vougeot, along with various champagnes and spirits, complete the menu.

"The sisters assume that Babette will now return to Paris, and when she tells them that all of her money is gone and that she is not going anywhere, the sisters are aghast. Babette then happily tells them know that dinner for 12 at the Café Anglais has a price of 10,000 francs. Martina tearfully says, "Now you will be poor the rest of your life", to which Babette replies, "An artist is never poor". - wiki

And neither am I. Just occasionally tormented by all I can see my mind's eye and must settle for in dreams.

I can, however, and thanks to YOU having me made me hungry now Robert, enjoy some fresh raspberries on vanilla ice cream. :)

Ebert: Marie, it may be your link to your blog that the spam filter is flagging.

Reply to: Is that what you'd took away from it? It means Indiana Jones isn't as nice as guy now?

Actually, I was talking about the villain in "Up," and how it didn't seem to add to the story for Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) to search for his wife's childhood hero, and discover he's gone bad. In the trailer, the guy who looks like Kirk Douglas, voiced by Christopher Plummer. After playing Captain von Trapp in "Sound of Music," how could Plummer be believable as a villain?

I know you've seen "The Godfather." When he goes to Sicily, Michael corleone falls in love. Francis Ford Coppola chose a 16 year-old actress (Simonetta Stefanelli) to play Michael's bride - which is why the girl's father carries a shotgun - and no one thinks twice. (Born Nov. 30, 1954 - some sites say she was 17)

Reply to: If Roger really wants to see better films being made, shouldn't he be writing/pitching them and or making his own? That seems to be your position on the issue, so shouldn't you be telling HIM to "go here, do this..?" If you ever have I must have missed it. :)

Call it a grey area. Francis Coppola didn't have any qualms about adapting a novel by Mario Puzo. Marty Scorsese has completed a movie called "Shutter Island" - or possibly "Ashecliffe" - from a novel by Dennis Lehane. Spielberg hasn't made a movie from an original story since ET, and he hired Matheson to write the script.

My thought is, wouldn't it be fun to go to Cannes and win the prize? Show them all why "story is king"?

Reply to: Roger: (1) Cannes 2009 awarded the honor of its opening night, which traditionally goes to a French film, to Pixar's 3D "Up." (2) There's electricity in the air. Every seat is filled, even the little fold-down seats at the end of every row. It is the first screening of Lars von Trier's "Antichrist," and we are ready for anything.. . (3) This is how Cannes works. At home, you read about the films and directors, but the moment you arrive in town the buzz takes over. (4) There was once a world, much deprecated at the time, of patriarchal studios, star machines, genre movies, fan magazines, searchlights, and filmmakers who wanted their movies to play big to everybody all over the world.

How can you read about Roger's adventures at Cannes... and not want to play in that sandbox?

Would it make sense to hire a French woman to direct? Play all the odds?

Here's another POV:

SITE: My contacts tell me that the studios are completely risk-averse. They only want packaged scripts with very simple stories. They're afraid of complex stories. They don't want the audience to have to think too much. They really want scripts that lend themselves to having a hot new director brought on board to rewrite or tinker with the script and make it "filmable."

If the major studios aren't putting out complex stories, that leaves a gap. Anyone who makes a movie with a complex story won't have to fight six other movies in the same category.

"The Godfather" cost $ 6.2 million to make. Brando got some back end, so the end cost was a bit more.

I just finished reading "Shutter Island" in paperback. A bit more to the plot than I expected, but one huge problem.

There isn't a relationship we care about.

Let me just speculate for a moment. Let's say there's a female nurse at the mental hospital, since we've been talking about writing meaningful roles for women. One of the patients has psychotic delusions. The patient imagines that the nurse is actually his wife Slips in and out of a psychotic delusion, in the same way that Russell Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind" has Paul Bettis as his Imaginary Friend.

"The Godfather" showed Michael as a tragic hero because he couldn't form relationships. He married a Sicilian bride and she was killed. His older brother Sonny was killed. Michael ordered the deaths of five or six people responsible for other murders.

If you're a patient at a mental hospital.... how do psychotic delusions affect your relationships? That sounds like a movie that could win a prize at Cannes.

It's true that it is harder for some people to see the 3D effect even with today's technology, but I for one have no such problem, so I thoroughly enjoy such a feature. from BEOWUF to JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, I took in the gimmick with total abandon. I would love to see UP in 3D if it should be available at my local cineplex. I also enjoy a great story and Pixar still have its magic, therefore I will go see whether it be 3D or not. BTW, 3D is coming back in a major way, as some studios are already seriously planning to release all of their future endeavor in the format.

Ebert wrote: Marie, it may be your link to your blog that the spam filter is flagging.

It's just a simple website featuring some of my artwork; which you've been to, so you know there's no icky porn over there or anything; chuckle! But I agree, I'm getting flagged a lot for some reason.

I used the "f" word in my last post; I described "Starbuck" as a glorious f-up. But here's the thing - I tried in advance to work around the Spam Filter, using a German letter instead - ie: I used ü.

It still caught it! Even though you can see the full uncensored F-word being used by others in some of the Cannes threads.

I think your spam filter is paying "extra special attention" to my incoming posts and it's now become my life's mission to find out why. That's right, the gloves are coming off Spam Filter! You finally pushed me too far - I'm gonna "take it to the mattresses!"

I'm going to introduce myself to the Webmaster dude at the Chicago Sun-Times and find out where you live!

And I shall show no mercy. :)

"Whatever happened to Patient 67?"
-teaser poster for Scorsese's "Shutter Island"

"Why so serious?"
- Teaser poster for "The Dark Knight"

Reply to: Part of the fun is getting to live vicariously through the characters on the screen. when men watch a movie, they get to see themselves painted in all sorts of colors (every imaginable character you could think of) from the nicest neighbor to the most evil of creatures. And what do women get?! "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" - blech! We get inane chick flicks! There's a reason guy's hate them - they suck! Sleepless In Seattle : Recut as a horror movie...

A female character... whose life is so exciting, we want to go back and watch the movie again. The whole two hours.

Ask yourself, How much FUN can one person possibly have?

Reply to: It's just more fun and exciting to see the parts guys are getting in the movies - even video games: The Force Unleashed! :)

If George would make more movies, it wouldn't be necessary to rip off his best ideas. But he doesn't. LucasFilm is a small, privately owned company that earns a billion dollars in a good year. George said he's going to make a TV show, and if it last for ten years, he'll be happy.

Start with the idea of a Sith Lord. Learn how to tap into the Dark Side of the Force. It gives you unbelievable power, but it also destroys your physical body. You become weak. So weak you can barely sit up in a chair. But when you make the connection to the Dark Side, you can shoot lightning bolts out of your fingertips. You can levitate cars. You get visions of the future.

This was done badly with Doctor Doom in "Fantastic Four." So, it's not a slam-dunk. but, yeah. Nobody needs four goodie two-shoes like Mr. Fantastic and Sue Storm. Go right for Lord Malfoy and the House of Slytherin. Death to Muggles!

The Vatican has a secret underground vault where the secrets of the Dark Side of the Force are hidden away. Tom Hanks knows how to find it.

After "Batman Begins," the Illinois Film Commission got on board. An expensive hotel in downtown Chicago allowed the film crew to take over their penthouse.

http://www.desktopexchange.com/gallery/albums/Batman_the_Dark_Knight_wallpapers/Dark_Knight_5.jpg

FROM A REVIEW: TDK is not a movie for children. It is intense. We saw many children at our showing, some of whom were crying and wanted to leave. Heath Ledger’s Joker is an evil god of chaos. He’s a psychopath. He’s scary. All he wants is pain and disorder. He wants to watch people eat each other alive and there’s nothing you can say, nothing you can give him, nothing you can do to save yourself or your loved ones. Every time Ledger appeared on the screen, there was a buzz in the theatre. You could feel this weird energy. The wild card is Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. If you don’t buy his transformation from truly good guy (”the best of us all”) into... something else, the whole movie would fall apart

Create a movie that people WANT to see. That's one of the Rules.

Rule #1 is, "Find a hero who changes. Who is able to win a victory at the end of the Act Three that he would have lost at the beginning. So the audience feels the journey was worth two hours."

In "Jaws," Sheriff Brody had no idea how to hunt a shark. He was afraid of the water. But he met a scientist (Hooper, Richard Dreyfuss) who tracked fish with sonar, and a shark hunter (Quint, Robert Shaw) who had stared at sharks for hours after his ship went down in WW II, and Brody changed. He learned how to kill a shark.

http://themovingpicture.net/wp-content/uploads/shutter_island_poster.jpg

Does it really matter how scary the movie is, if people don't want to see it? I mean, come on. A mental hospital near Boston? You'd have to pay me to go there.

But "Sleepless In Seattle".... a sexy woman has been dumped by a series of hunky guys who like the sex but can't stand the conversations afterward. She listens to a radio program... and an architect in Seattle has just lost his wife, and he's lonely. he can't let go of her memory.... so this sexy woman goes up to Seattle to put him out of his misery? Before some other woman hooks up with this loser? She sends a letter to the man's son, "Meet me on the top of the Empire State Building.... just like the movie."

find the weird energy. If you can make the audience afraid to walk out to their cars after the movie ends, great.

Marie wrote: "You finally pushed me too far - I'm gonna "take it to the mattresses!"

Okay, Marie, I will be looking forward to this. Be sure to give me a ticket to the bout. Two thumbs up in advance! But before you channel your inner Starbuck, may I suggest changing your URL first, if that is possible at all, and then testing to see if it passes through Roger's Hickory Smoke Spam yummy filter? A URL that doesn't go through means it has lost its function. If the problem persists, there are two other options.

Your website is no doubt inculpable. I love your Tuscany. But as it happens, these filters tend to list commercial websites as adverts. Dang, Marie, they don't know what's good for them!! (^_^) A way to counter this, other than changing your URL, is to request the server to whitelist you.

Or, you could create a stand-in link at Google Blogspot (free, and we'd be interested to see what your artistic blog would look like; also, this could be more effective as advertisement, methinks) and have that display the ultimate link to your website.

Marie wrote, "But it amounts to a drop in the bucket. It's just more fun and exciting to see the parts guys are getting in the movies - even video games: The Force Unleashed! :)

Don't fret, Marie. Since history repeats itself, a time may once again come when men, out of stupidity, will lead themselves to their own destruction. When that time comes, to whom can the Earth fall back to but you women? There is a certain truth to John Boorman's Excalibur when after the battle had been fought, only Percival remained.

Michael Douglas may get the limelight in The American President, but without Annette Bening, the Chief Executive's life would have been miserable. So now we know who really runs the Oval Office and the EPA.

I think the BBC has done a remarkable job in bringing the Victorian classics to TV. Though, I'm not sure if the women portrayed therein would fit your liking. You certainly won't find Brunhilde amongst their crowd. Still, worth the time if only to shift the focus out of the men once in a while. Especially, try these three BBC adaptations from Elizabeth Gaskell, one of Roger's favorite Victorian authors (and also of Anna Marie of Switzerland). That is, if you haven't seen them already.

I myself am currently eyeing Masterpiece Theatre's The Duchess of Duke Street, the story of Louisa Trotter, a former scullery maid, and her rise to the echelons of Edwardian society. The BBC library is rich with stories about women; and as long as you avoid Dickens, which I somehow wouldn't advise for fear of receiving Roger's blistering censure, you should have a hell of a time immersing yourself into the lives of Victorian and Edwardian women. (Over two-fifths of my collections come from GB.)

You know, Marie, just the other day I mentioned Nancy Cato's All the Rivers Run in a previous blog. You somehow remind me of Delie Gordon, though perhaps you with more feistiness, but both equal in resolve, nonetheless. To my reckoning, All the Rivers Run remains one of the best soap operas out there.

Bill Hays on May 23, 2009 4:32 PM - "A female character... whose life is so exciting, we want to go back and watch the movie again. The whole two hours."

As long as you persist in approaching the issue from a male-centric world view, you'll never understand why your suggestions are akin to missing the point entirely - and ergo, why you're not making any headway. :)

In the United States, men already enjoy female characters they find exciting - and those are characters who pander to "their" fantasies and sensibilities; ie: women who don't threaten men for knowing their place in fiction and staying in it, and residing within parameters set for them by men. Your sex stands on the 65 yard line. Fair is when YOU move to the 50. Anything less, enables you to keep on standing there and I'm not interested in watching "that".

A position you enjoy moreover, only because the most important ticket buyer and representational of the mindset too often found behind Studios doors, is a selfish, white, homophobic, post-adolescent male unfairly enjoying a place of economic superiority. And also because an entire generation of little girls grew-up embracing a "male" definition of female self-empowerment thanks to Madison Avenue.

And you'd know all that, if you read more than just your own point of view being mirrored back to you. If you ventured into uncharted territory from time to time, like a Feminist blog for example. And exposed yourself to new ways of thinking and seeing the world. If you already do, it doesn't show in your posts. At least I can't see it - not the way I can see it in Roger's writing.

I can see his Feminism for it shines brightly - while still admiring his overt masculinity and impressive power; hell, the Powers That Be named a STAR after him, did you know that? Although they clearly didn't want the other film critics to get jealous so they spelt it backwards...

http://www.astro.illinois.edu/~jkaler/sow/regor.html. :)

And I know that and more besides because I'll read almost anything! I'm always exploring stuff; even if sometimes it can be unsettling. I just don't live in those places or announce my presence. Ie: the equivalent of a scary Frat house populated by angry misogynists, the darker corners of the internet. But only because I've also read "The Art of War" and it's basically recon; smile.

I also check out new recipes over at Martha Stewart, so I keep it in balance. Point is, I've made my point and I know it. :)

"Ask yourself, How much FUN can one person possibly have?"

So asks a poverty of imagination for failing to see the infinite possibilities...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY7Hh5PzELo

And so here endeth the lesson. :)

Reply to: As long as you persist in approaching the issue from a male-centric world view, you'll never understand why your suggestions are akin to missing the point entirely - and ergo, why you're not making any headway. :)

Not at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Until you acknowledge what the problem is, and define it, you're unlikely to come up with the solution.

Reply to: In the United States, men already enjoy female characters who pander to "their" fantasies and sensibilities;

According to Tom Hanks, "The Godfather" is the greatest movie ever made.

In the world of "The Godfather," ONLY men are allowed to take part in the family business. Women are lied to, kept in the dark, and they spend their mornings going to church, lighting candles, and raising the children and grandchildren.

A movie where immigrants rely on "Godfathers" to protect their interests, when the police and judges won't.

Why is "The Godfather" so successful? Because it tells people what they want to hear. That men run the world and women run the household.

Reply to: the most important ticket buyer is a selfish, white, homophobic, post-adolescent male ...a "male" definition of female self-empowerment

The ticket buyers for "The Godfather" are... a large group of Americans. Many of them who remember immigrant parents. "The Godfather" shows the America they want to live in.

Where traditional values are respected and admired.

"The Godfather" cost $ 6.2 million and brought in hundreds of millions to the studio. that's what they want. A movie that instantly becomes a cultural standard AND makes enormous profits.

The dividing line is "Independence Day." It brought in ten times its' production cost. That's the goal. The studio invests $40 million and gets back $400 million.

Let's look at the list:

The Incredible Spider-Man
Jurassic Park - Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) discovers children
Lord of the Rings - Seven males unite to defeat an evil army
Cast Away - Tom Hanks and a volleyball, Helen Hunt as love interest
Harry Potter - a male hero, two sidekicks
Star Wars - Luke skywalker, numberous sidekicks, primary sidekick a droid
The Dark Knight

There's nothing that I see on this list.... where a movie would be improved, or have a higher box office, if the lead was played by a woman. In fact, most of them would "lose the magic." (Maybe Cast Away?)

What you haven't shown - where you've failed - is to show that a movie with a female in the lead can generate enough box office to keep a studio out of bankruptcy.

Examples:

Cutthroat Island - $ 98 million in production costs and a female lead (Geena Davis) no one cared about

Lara Croft, Tomb Raider - second one sank the franchise

Catwoman - Halle Berry can't climb out of the litter box

OK, let's try this one:

"Sleepless In Chicago" -

A radio station in Chicago plays "love songs overnight" with a female DJ, sexy voice. The name of the show is "Sleepless In Chicago" and they encourage the audience to call in, tell their story of lost love, and dedicate a song. Six of the most popular call-ins are invited by the host to attend a meeting, where they will be introduced to new potential love interests. They show up, are poisoned, all of them die. And the police discover that someone went into the host's office at the radio station, plugged a laptop into the phone lines, and faked her voice to invite these people to show up. So, a mass murderer is on the loose, and it's a woman. A psychotic woman determined to strike back at all the men who disappointed her. Because she blames men for her being lonely and unhappy. And the host is next.

Why does that work? Why not? would it be stronger with a male? Actually, the host of a radio show with "Advice for the Broken Hearted" would work better as a woman. And all of the dialogue for the villain could be taken from feminist blogs.

When you talk about movies, you can't make general statements.

If you say "Movies would be better with strong female leads," that simply isn't borne out by the facts. Most of the successful movies would be worse with female leads.

Men want to imagine that women are eager and excited about having sex with them. Real women seldom feel that way. That's why it's called "fiction." A fantasy world.

You can create a Fantasy World for women, but will anyone buy tickets? Show me THAT fantasy world and let me judge.

So far, you haven't figured out the problem. What kind of a movie would attract huge numbers of women? Spell it out. Explain it to me. Because what I'm saying is, it doesn't exist.

War movies sell tickets. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, they're all war movies. And men buy the tickets.

It would be nice if you could come up with a movie where women go on a journey... AND earn ten times the production cost for the studio. Until you do, the studies are going to keep making "Batman" and "Spider-Man" and "Iron Man" - because that's how they stay in business.

OK, let's think about a movie. A movie called "The LAST movie you would ever think Roger Ebert would write." (No, not Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.)

A radio host who is on the air from ten pm until five am?

Reply to: . If you ventured into uncharted territory from time to time, like a Feminist blog for example. And exposed yourself to new ways of thinking and seeing the world.

I see those bloggers as challenging the status quo, which makes them the villains.

Am I crazy, or does Carl Fredricksen look a lot
more like Warren Buffett than Ed Asner?

lets stop calling it feminism and start calling it equalism, if that is really the goal of the movement.

I was trying to think of a concept that would lend itself, or even better, require a female lead. "Titanic" worked better with a woman who survived. James Cameron was fairly ruthless in taking everything out of the story that wasn't aimed specifically at his target audience of young females.

In the original draft of "Good Will Hunting," the young genius applies for a job at the National Security Agenecy and gets tangled up in spy issues. Wisely, all of those subplots were removed, in order to focus on the relationship between Will (Matt Damon) and the psychiatrist sean (Robin Williams.)

Same thing happened with "E.T." Originally, Steven Spielberg was doiing research for a sequel to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." He developed a story about a farm family that was terrorized gremlin-like extra-terrestrials. That concept was called "Night Skies" (from the first line of the script EXT - NIGHT SKIES) The aliens mistake cows for the most intelligent species on earth, etc, etc.

at the end of "Night Skies," one of the aliens is left behind on earth amd is befriended by an autistic boy. Spielberg decided to keep that part and start over. "I always wanted to tell the story of a child's reaction to his parents splitting up when he's still only about 10 years old," noted Spielberg, "and how it impacts the rest of his life. Perhaps E.T. was a subconscious fantasy of mine since childhood, to make myself feel less lonely in my life. It was a childhood dream of a special friend who rescues a boy from the sadness of divorce."

"I was shooting Raiders of the Lost Ark, a lonely director sitting in the middle of the desert in Tunisia, making a Saturday Matinee type of movie, and feeling a bit separated from myself, which often happens when you're directing. And then...BANG...this concept hit me. Suddenly, the story of E.T. flooded into my mind, and for the next couple of days, it began to take on a beginning, middle and an end."

Peter Coyote auditioned to play "Indiana Jones" and wound up playing the older version of Elliott, a scientist who had been dreaming about mankind's first contact with aliens since he was ten.

But my point is, you can develop a concept, and find a compelling relationship between two characters. and then, throw the rest of the script away. What the audience CARES about is the relationship between Elliott and ET, or Will Hunting and Sean.

"Lethal Weapon" had a former sniper in Vietnam whose wife dies in a traffic accident, finding a new surrogate family when he meets an older detective about to retire.

So, "Sleepless In Chicago." A woman is the host of a late night radio show where fans call in and dedicate love songs, and talk about their relationships. Maybe she's a Dr. Phil type. And one of the callers claims to be a young woman who was forced to join Hitler Youth in Germany, and when Hitler committed suicide, was talked into becoming part of a suicide pact. ie, the voice on the other end of the phone line claims to be a ghost who died in the Forties, and never got to experience True Love. And challenges the radio show host's basic beliefs about humanity?

What I'm thinking is, like "Up," the characters need to take over. You need to see Carl and Russell realize they need each other.

Reply to: Roger: The characters are as believable as any characters can be who spend much of their time floating above the rain forests of Venezuela. They're earnest and plucky, and one of them is an outright villain--snaky, treacherous and probably mad. Two of the three central characters are cranky old men... the third important character is a nervy kid.

I suppose you need a villain, although both "ET" and "Good Will Hunting" got along fine without one.

The idea of first contact with an intelligent vegetable from outer space.... only worked because Elliott was lonely and needed a friend. And when that friend left, everyone cried. "Ghost Whisperer" has ruined the market for ghost stories, so maybe instead of a ghost, something more original. But the emotions, the friendships, the relationships, the idea that a psychiatrist like Sean found a way to get past the obstacles in his own life during his arguments with young Will... how would you change that to fit with feminist ideals? I have no idea. But a late night radio talk show where one of the callers claims to be a ghost????

My point is, a great movie script is an organic whole. You can't talk about a plot without knowing who the characters are, and why they're important to us. And you can t say "the story should be about a woman who has the same exciting adventures as a man" without telling us what those adventures are. Because, once you write down what the adventure is, you'll probably realize that the story works better with two cranky old men and a boy. "Up" is a great example of a movie where the characters take over, as they should.

Roger,

Having not seen 'Up' I can't comment on the effectiveness of the use of 3D.

I can see why a lot of people may dislike the process. But for myself this new wave of 3D impresses me in one particular way... the feeling of depth inside the screen. Earlier 3D movies were all about throwing things at the audience, but the feeling that I could just put my hand inside the screen is nice.

The most effective film so far for this feeling was 'Coraline' in which it felt like a puppet show, just in a very large box.

The 3D trailer for 'Up' presented some subtle use of 3D when the house is first taking over and flying over the neighbourhood and the underside of the house is superbly realised.

Why these films work in 3D is that they aren't trying to bludgeon you with the fact that they're 3D. The effects are being to enhance an already detailed image.

Whether or not it adds anything to the experience is purely subjective to the viewer. For me, as far as 'Coraline' and to a lesser extent 'Bolt' are concerned then yes it does add to the experience.

The thought of the interior of the Airship in 'Up' being realised using this 3D technique has me quite excited.

Thanks for reading.

James

I'm slightly put off by your comments about 3d, however it still won't stop me from watching the movie in that format. If there are any films that I would prefer to watch in 3d, I would have to go with Pixar's, as my impression of the company as always been that the aesthetics of their films are always secondary to the story. I imagine that with Pixar their intent is not to bombard the audience with hurling objects at them, but rather to enhance the viewing experience. I can't say much in terms of the bad aspects of 3d yet, as the only other movie I've seen in that format was Beowulf, and I was very impressed with that one. Maybe your opinion stands, I have yet to see. But in my opinion this movie and Avatar are the ones I have wanted to see in 3d, and I hope you are wrong.

Ebert: I was also impressed by "Beowulf."

There was an advanced screening in Altamonte, Florida that I was fortunate enough to attend. I saw the film in 2-D (I would have been happy either way since the movie was free thanks to a newspaper contest) and I was absolutely blown away. I loved the story and it gave me more laughs and moments of near tearfulness. When I walked out of the theater it reminded me of Walt Disney's saying, "For every laugh there should be a tear."

The film reminded me of several Hayao Miyazaki (absolutely love his work!) movies. I keep wondering if the people at Pixar got any of their inspiration for the movie from such films as "Kiki's Delivery Service" and "Castle in the Sky." It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

The interior of the airship also reminded me of the Nautilus submarine in the 1950s Disney movie "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea." That movie showed a vessel that had several museum collections, a library, and even a pipe organ. I wonder if the animators got any inspiration from that movie as well.

Ebert: Pete Docter is a sincere admirer of Miyazaki.

I love you, Ebert, but, I think you're trapped in the seventies with your dismissive outlook on 3D. I really think you're shortchanging its capability of becoming an invaluable storytelling aid with the advances in its presentational technology. I agree the effectiveness of it varies from case to case, but with something like Beowulf - that didn't use it merely for perfunctory reasons - the spectacle aspect can be quite stunning. Monsters Vs. Aliens was a bad movie that was rendered wholly watchable for audiences outside of easily amused children thanks to the visual dimensionality.

this discusaion on video games as art is interesting; ill provide this scene from final fantasy X as evidence in the affirmative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LnzYT3cdwM

this discusaion on video games as art is interesting; ill provide this scene from final fantasy X as evidence in the affirmative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LnzYT3cdwM

The audience Hollywood wants is indeed the selfish, post-adolescent white homophobic male. It's not really right, though, to even call them post-adolescent because they're stuck in adolescence ... violent, hateful, vicious, sexually-aggressive would-be rapists, all, who want nothing more than to see women beaten half-to-death (or more) again and again. Their idea of a sexual fantasy? KILL BILL - where women are routinely beaten and bloodied over and over and still get up looking "hot." So they can be beaten again. Sex - violence - sex - violence - sex - violence, keep them coming, one after the other, again and again, faster and faster.

Quite probably the nadir came for me with ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES wherein Maid Marian can kick the living hell out of Robin Hood when her gender is disguised, but then once revealed to be a woman she gets led around by Alan Rickman's Sheriff by the hand ... and can't even lift one finger to defend herself. Why? Because when she was kicking the hell out of Robin, her gender was disguised - we weren't seeing a woman beat a man. Once revealed to be a woman, she can't defend herself because ... she's a woman.

Want more examples of this? BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM ... perfect example. Phantasm is a villain able to kick the hell out of mafioso and gangster thugs ... but when her mask comes off, and she's revealed to be a woman, she's suddenly defenseless. It's repugnant. Even movies like T2 and ALIENS, prized as examples of female strength, ultimately simply feature men played by women - violent egomaniacs with guns eager to kill, kill, kill. There is NO elemenent of femininity to Linda Hamilton or Sigourney Weaver in those roles.

Women are rape-objects and murder-objects in American cinema, right down to romantic comedies where the plot hinges around who has most or least abused the woman (which is usually the moral choice the woman has to make in choosing the beau - which one betrayed her least, or less-offendingly? Which one committed less emotional rape?). In children's films, even, girls are nothing but sex-objects that earn a "heyyyyy, baybee" even in movies about talking golden retrievers.

Try this - watch for women in commercials. See what they prioritize. Then compare it with movies. Is there ANY difference?

I am stunned that no one has made a comment about Coraline's use of digital 3d. It was, as you know, the first movie to ever be shot entirely in 3d to begin with. I havn't been able to see the 2d version of the film yet, but I'm not sure if some of the scenes, such as her running from the other mother through the tunnel, could work as well in 2d as they did in 3d. I guess I'll have to wait another month so I can get my hands on the Blu-ray. Cheers.

One other problem I seldom see mentioned re: the current 3-D fad is that these films can be a terrifying experience for younger kids, especially if those kids suffer from Sensory Processing Disorder. When we are lucky enough to find a theater that isn't inexplicably assaulting us with about 130dB of audio for children's movies, we now also have to hope they are screening the 2-D version of what we're trying to see at the same time. It's not easy.

I am really hopeful that we can take our son to see "Up" somewhere that isn't too loud or zooming images at our faces, though I'm somewhat resigned to waiting for the DVD.

From the first time I saw a preview for this, I thought the old guy looked remarkably like Mr. Ebert.

Ebert: But with a much healthier jaw.

Roger, your comments on 3-D need some clarification. Yes, all 3-D theater systems in use so far reduce the brightness to about 20% of the projection lamp's output. That's why theaters use MUCH brighter lamps for 3-D presentations. You can verify this, as you say, by taking off the glasses, and you see a blazingly bright screen. But it's not a fair comparison, for the same film, showing in 2-D down the hall of the multiplex will be shown with ordinary lower-output projection lamps. The screen brightness you experience in the two presentations may not be much different. Also, your review mentions the shutter-glasses. Many theaters are already using them. We saw "Monsters vs. Aliens" shown that way over a month ago. There is no reason why the colors should be in any way compromised with these glasses, though they are heavier sitting on your nose. We are still waiting for a film that uses 3-D intelligently. If you had your choice of seeing "Wizard of Oz" or "Lawrence of Arabia" in color or b/w, would you choose b/w? 3-D should be just another tool used for artistic dramatic effect. I can't tell you how many films I've seen and said "This is good, but would be so much better in 3-D." It is true that no practical 3-D viewing system can reproduce the world as we actually see it. We are playing with the subtle psychology of visual perception here, and so long as the eyes must focus their lenses at the distance of the screen, while converging anywhere from 3 feet to infinity (not the way the eyes normally work), the experience is only a "simulation" of what our eyes see in the real world. But this is true for color as well, for the film synthesizes a full spectrum of color from just three primary colors, and is therefore never truly "real". The movies synthesize an illusion of continuous motion from a series of still pictures. Again--fake. And let's not become like those audiophiles who declare (without evidence) that digital sound is inferior to the analog sound of vinyl recordings.

Trust me, this is not a critical note. But, what do you mean Russell "looks Asian-American?"

What does an Asian-American look like? I am American/Vietnamese. Born in Da Nang in 1968. I am blond with hazel eyes and a very fair complexion. Had Pixar animated Russell to appear as I, would you comment he appeared Asian-American? Why? Why not?

Aside - I wonder the protests of the oh so very caring Actors Equity should had the part of The Engineer in Miss Saigon?

Just a sore point for me. And as a Buckley conservative, I don't easily get sore. Curious.

Ebert: He looks Asian. And is American. Therefore, Asian-American. It would be misleading to call him simply "Asian," just as it would be to call our president simply "African." You describe yourself as as Asian-American who does not look particularly Asian. Fair enough. If Russell had hazel eyes, blond hair and a fair complexion, he would look like a Pixar-American.

Pixar's Up must not be confused with Russ Meyer's Up!, a nudie flick with script by Reinhold Timme (whoever he was.) Except in select theaters where we pull a bait and switch and show children the Russ Meyer film instead of the Pixar one.

Is it just me, or doesn't the guy with the glasses kind of look like you? He's got those brown pants and brown jacket you used to wear on "At The Movies". Take away a few wrinkles, and we have the animated you. :)

Ebert: Hmmm. Pete Docter joined us on an Ebert & Roeper Film Festival at Sea...

One thing about 3D that is glossed over: approximately 25% or more of the population either cannot, and will not ever, see it correctly or at all using current technology (glasses and the like) because they rely on two good eyes working properly. I fall in the latter category. 3D isn't an option for me, period. That's one reason there will always be flat, 2D screens.

It seems to me that all the people who think 3D is bad, haven't experienced it outside of a theme park or haven't experienced it in years.

I just watched UP in 3D, and the 3D only helped bring me into the story. I don't understand why people would think the image quality would be damaged.

The 3D version of the film comes brighter than the 2D because yes the glasses are tinted. It evens out the colors by brightening it more. UP doesnt use cheap shots to show off the 3D, and it is not distracting either.

PAY THE EXTRA MONEY! Besides it's worth it just because it's a digital image being projected on the screen. WAY better than film any way you cut it. No projector vibration, a whole lot brighter, and a whole lot sharper. Even Ebert liked star wars episode 2 in digital, and there was a reason why he disliked the film version (it was blurry). Dont be dumb, watch it the way it was meant to be seen. you won't regret it!

Mr. Ebert

I have been enjoying your reviews for longer than I can recall, but as a graduate of CU Boulder, I found myself pouring through this page of comments on UP and then wondering if you had ever done one of your Cinema Interuptus sessions on a 3D film. To be succinct, I guess I just think that the tool of 3D is ripe for dissection when it comes to story telling vs. gimmick vs. experience vs. the future.

I watched the first 3D film of my life recently, Coraline, and during the preview for UP prior to the feature i found myself flipping my glasses up and down to compare what I was seeing to what was projected. I guess I just became hyper aware again of the mechanics of cinema which are exciting but also gimmicky. I didn't know if i should feel the excitement of a nickleodeon or the consumerism of the experience.

Best wishes,
Mark

As a projectionist for the nation's largest theatre chain and a film lover I'd like add a quick take on the 3D debate.

Having seen UP in 3D and 2D now I think there is a noticeable difference. In my estimation this occurs not because of the digital vs film debate but because of the filters used to create 3D affect.

My theatre uses a digital projector with a 3D lens placed in front of the regular lens. This filter or lens is about 4 inches think and helps to create the majority of the 3D affect.

Having viewed both regular 2D and 3D projections on the same projector I can say certainly that the 3D filter dampens or darkens the image. On occasion I have had to remove the 3D filter after starting a 2D movie in the same theatre. Each time I have noticed an increase in the picture brightness.

Now this may be compensated by the fact that digital projections are free of splices, scratches or dust that occur with regular 35mm film.

As Roger and others have said many times digital projection is fantastic, but it may not yet top a well projected 35mm film.

You failed to mention the fact that the two main characters, Carl and Muntz are obvious tributes to Spencer Tracy and Kirk Douglas. I guess I have to assume that the similarities are intentional.

I've just come back to my motel room from seeing UP.
Emotional, touching, exciting, fun, quick little jokes here and there - all hallmarks of Pixel films. But the 3D - once you get use to the glasses and let your eyes adjust a bit to a slightly dimmed image - it is wonderful! There are scenes that made the 3D mandatory - the shots
from thousands of feet up in the sky looking down - the scenery, the house floating in an ocean of air. Beautiful. The 3D is handled with just the right touch - very few things fly through the air at you as you see in most 3D films. Like the advent of color and sound and wide screen, we are just now finding artists who can use the medium instead of having the medium use them.

One other thing - the plaintive cry of the bird.... it reminds me of the flying bird, (a roc?) in Heavy Metal. Then I am reminded of the music by Elmer Bernstein in that film - when will we ever hear the like again?

Could it be that the "brighter" palette of the 2-D version is a deliberate overcompensation for the "toning down" of the 3-D glasses--and that the colors WITH the glasses are the intended ones?

BTW, one of the most effective uses of 3-D and a lot of fun, too, is Disney's "Honey, I Shrunk the Audience" at the Epcot Center. They hand out glasses, and while you wait to get in, you see a video of Eric Idle warning you to wear your "safety glasses" while in the auditorium.

Ebert: Your observation about stop-motion is probably key to the look of "Coraline." It was a 3D picture of a 3D reality, not a 3D picture of a 2D reality.

What?? Real life is 3D, and did you know that computer animation is called 3D since the models are actually built in 3 dimensions?

Do you know that 3D has a long history, that the Civil War was photographed in 3D, for example? I suppose that was a gimmick, too... ??

I adored this movie. I took my children as a way to celebrate the beginning of summer and found myself as caught up in it as they were. We all need to be reminded that our adventures are in our every day existence. Sweet Mr. Fredrickson aids us all in adjusting our focus.

A question: About the talking dog: Is its name Dog, Doug, or Dug? I've seen the varying spellings everywhere, some even within the same article, and I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't check the end credits.

Ebert: Dug, it says here.

How do you take a concept from a blank page to a finished movie like "Up"

Over at Pixar, "Andrew and Brad seem to work better by just putting their heads down, locking themselves in a closet and just writing," Docter says.

(That's how some of the best ideas emerge. You go into a dark room, crawl into bed, pull a blanket over your head, and don't come out until you have created ten minutes. I haven't tried a closet, but I don't have kids, either.)

However, there's another way. Work with a writing partner. Or, sit in a room and talk to people.

Docter: "For me, I find conversation really helps a lot. I love sitting around and talking around ideas and plotting things out."

Docter and Peterson would scribble down the basic bones of what they needed for a scene, and then they'd follow that with a list of possible gags that could happen along the way. "The challenge there is always how many of these things we can thread the string through and still get a through-line that we like," Docter says. They kept their brainstorming sessions light and

*** would basically free-associate with one another, trying to theorize what a character would do ***

or, often,

*** what they thought the audience would expect to happen, and then go the opposite way. ***

(There's an interesting book by Robert McKee called "Story," where he uses "Chinatown" as an example of how to thwart the audience's expectations in every scene. The more complex a character's motivation, the more the audience enjoys following him on an adventure.)

Once the duo had a sequence or scene plotted out, Peterson would go off on his own to try to get it on the page.

Peterson and Docter's script relishes in subtext...

(3) from the cruel irony that Carl's devotion to his lost wife has stifled the qualities she admired most in him,

(4) to the small, sad moments when we realize just how lonely a kid Russell is, and how desperate he is for a father figure that genuinely cares. (end- from Creative Screenwriting)

That's an interesting problem in screenwriting.

How do you give your primary character a desperate need, without making him appear weak? When you watched "Casablanca" for the first time, did you understand why Rick was sitting in the dark, drinking, because an old girl friend came in with her husband?

"Up" is going to be used as an example of "great storytelling" for years to come.

And I think that's due, in part, to sitting down with a writing partner who won't let you get away with "nuke the fridge."

I saw the movie in 3D. I did pay $2.50 extra for the glasses rental, but so what. I think I got my share of enjoyment out of it.

The glasses were not anaglyphic, nor were they mechanized with speedy shutters; they had polarized lenses. I did not particularly notice the color of the movie being affected; I don't think it is by that kind of process.

I will say that I think the 3D did improve the experience. Or, at least, it didn't detract from it. I managed to get lost in the story just as much as in any other Pixar movie. It just felt…bigger somehow. And I actually did feel a twinge of vertigo at the looking-straight-down scenes; I don't remember ever doing that for other movies.

But that's a personal opinion, and it may not hold true for other viewers.

SEVERE GHOSTING AND COLOR BANDING AT MY LOCAL 3-D SCREENING OF UP!!!

I loved Up, and in general I am supportive of the idea that 3-D done right is not necessarily a bad thing.

When I viewed Up today, the film-maker's vision was marred by technical problems with the 3-D presentation.

I sincerely hope that the lackluster 3-D experience I had at a screening of Up on May 29 was merely due to operator error by the person(s) responsible for setting of the auditorium where I saw the film.

I have viewed many RealD presentations without difficulty (Monster House, Bolt, Coraline, Monsters versus Aliens).

I first suspected problems when I perceived an uncomfortable "flickering" sensation during the "Partly Cloudy" short preceding Up. By covering each eye in turn, I was quickly able to deduce that there was strongly noticeable color banding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_banding) in both the right eye and left eye images as viewed through the RealD glasses. To make matters worse, the colors of the bands frequently mismatched between the two eyes (e.g. in one instance a band with a green tint in one eye had a pink tint in the other eye). Removing the RealD glasses and viewing the screen with naked eyes showed the "combined" image without any noticeable banding. The color banding, and the color mismatch in the banding between both eyes through the RealD glasses resulted in a viewer experience similar to the "flicker" or "jangle" effect that many folks will recognize from the color difference between eyes when viewing "anaglyph" 3-D material with the old blue/red glasses.

I'm curious to know whether viewers at other theaters have encountered this as well. The banding effect and color mismatches were frequently noticeable in Carl's chin when he was facing the camera. The bodies of the cloud's during "Partly Cloudy" also strongly exhibited this effect. In a familiar scene from the TV ads, where Russell is standing on the porch, pressing his back against the exterior of the house and asking Carl to let him in, the effect was very noticeable on Russell's right cheek when we was shown in closeup (the cheek "closest" to the viewer in the 3-D image). The color banding resulted in the "closest" or most pronounced point of Russell's cheek (it's topographic peak if you will), being a roughly circular "patch" in the color banding pattern (whereas the changes in his skin tone due to lighting effects should be visible only as a smooth gradient). In my viewing of this scene, that semicircular patch on his cheek appeared as a different color in my left eye versus my right eye. I describe that example not because it was the most disruptive example, but because it is a highly recognizable scene which will afford other viewers the opportunity to inspect closely for the problem.

There are also many instances where I noticed "ghosting" in the left eye while viewing through the RealD glasses. That is, rather than seeing only the image intended for the left eye, my left eye was also perceiving a slight double image: the second image being the one intended for the right eye, which the left lens SHOULD be filtering out.

One very obvious instance of this ghosting was the exterior view of Muntz' cave when the heroes first approach it. The tall, dark narrow crack in the cliff showed a very noticeable ghost image slightly offset horizontally, overlapping with the contrasting color of the bright cliff face.

Again, there were many instances where these effects were unpleasant or distracting. I mention the above specific instances to provide an easily recognized point of reference that other viewers may use to readily check for the problems.

I traded RealD glasses with my girlfriend several times during the screening, and we both noticed the problems, regardless of which glasses we were wearing. I hope it was merely a problem with the setup of this particular theater. I also tried moving to a few other positions in the auditorium in case we had inadvertantly selected seats in a visual "twilight zone" relative to the projection. The problem persisted.

I had been eagerly anticpating this film (and I loved it despite the technical problems). In order not to miss any part of the film, I decided to tolerate the problems and alert the theater staff afterward.

On the way out, I politely alerted the theater manager to ghosting problems I perceived at my screening (for the sake of simlicity and time, I didn't launch into a description of the color banding problem, in retrospect perhaps I should have). He seemed quite attentive to my concerns and thanked me for bringing it to his attention. He also advised me that a technician was on site setting up another auditorium for 3-D, and he would follow up with him regarding the problem I described from my screening.

I hope this was an isolated incident and that they were able to correct it. This was at a RealD screening in the greater Toronto area.

This was the first time I've had such a negative experience with RealD, versus many positive experiences with it (including but not limited to the same theater).

Has anyone else noticed similar shortcomings at other RealD screenings of Up?

Ebert: It is inspiring to read someone who has actually seen a movie rather than simply looked at it.

Just saw 'Up' tonight and enjoyed it thoroughly. That opening sequence where Carl and Ellie go through their life together was great. Probably one of the most "human" animated movies I've ever seen. Also, I enjoyed the blog entry on the 3-D issue. I'm glad I didn't see it in 3-D.

If I may make one comment, though. I don't think they were actually "robotic dogs," as you referred to them in this blog and the review on your site. It was my understanding that they were actually dogs, they just used robotic devices to speak. Not a huge deal, but some may be confused when reading this.

Also, I can't seem to find this anywhere, and am curious. How does one gain entry into a festival such as Cannes. Is it invite-only, or can one buy a ticket somehow?

Ebert: Robotic, but not robots.

You need a paid pass. There are various categories. Check out their web site: http://www.festival-cannes.com/en.html

An attractive and cheaper alternative is Toronto.

I have been a fan of stereo still photography for many years, but outside of theme park rides, have been reluctant to view any theatrical releases in that format.

That said, I decided that if anyone was going to do "3D" right, it would have to be Pixar, and sure enough, th subtlety with which they use the medium is admirable. There is very little of the "spear in the eye" gimmickry used in other films, just some lovely spacious effects. As a matter of fact, most of the time I was just so engrossed in the storytelling that the "3D gee-whiz" factor was forgotten completely.

Granted, the polarized glasses do dim the colors a bit, but it's not egregious. I didn't notice the ghosting and color banding mentioned by the previous reviewer in my theater. In whatever dimension, just go see the film.

Did anyone else see the similarity between the silent sequence and La Maison en Petits Cubes (winner of Oscar animated short last year)?

Well, it's hard to find a 2D showing these days with picture quality that isn't awful. Sheesh.

I loved Up, but I did not love the way it was presented at a local chain theater that specializes in "upscale" amenities. They add leather chairs, 21+ screenings, and alcohol sales, but they can't even get the damn picture right.

The geometry was entirely off. The bottom of the image was much wider than the top of the image. The framing was off in that there was a large blank strip on the right hand side of the screen. The screen itself had an odd texture that you could see during especially bright scenes, like the screen had been worn down or something.

However, the movie was so great that I could not bring myself to leave and ask for a refund. That's how good this damn film was. But how am I going to be convinced to go see a movie in 3D when they can't even get 2D right?

There is one theater that I go to that always has picture perfect image quality but it's an hour's train ride away. If I had known what I know now about my local chain theater, I would have made the extra effort to see it at my usual theater.

I just got back from seeing Up in 3D. It was better than most 3D films I've seen in that it didn't have focus problems. In every other 3D film I've seen, in certain scenes parts of the frame would be in focus and other parts out of focus, to draw the viewer's attention to a certain part of the screen. The effect in 3D, however, is not for the viewer to smoothly and seamlessly focus in a certain spot, but for him to suddenly find himself trying desperately to focus on the out-of-focus element and being unable to. It's especially bad when the scene shifts focus, say from a character in the foreground to a character in the background. The problem is that focus in a 3D film is real, not a matter of one part of the image being clear and another fuzzy. The viewer actually does focus, the same way he does in real life. So, really, every frame of a 3D film should be in focus, because it is the viewer, not the camera, doing the focusing.

But that's one of the reasons I hope 3D remains a gimmick and not something, like color, that is a must for each new film. There are some wonderful artistic effects to be gained by manipulating focus. Just look at Wall•E! Focus is valuable to both storytelling and visual artistry. 3D loses that. Soft focus just gives the viewer a headache.

The other big reason I dislike 3D is: Hayao Miyazaki will never make a 3D movie. What is he — and the other creators of traditional cel animation — supposed to do if the world embraces 3D as the new color? Some of the most artistic films ever created are in the 2D-only traditional animation medium. Disney is apparently converting Beauty and the Beast to 3D, but that has "gimmick" written all over it. And frankly, I wouldn't want to see it in 3D, or, for that matter, Howl's Moving Castle, or My Neighbor Totoro, to say nothing of Spirited Away.

I quite agree with you about both the tremendous quality of UP and the excess of the 3D format. A couple of years ago, I took my son to see the 3D version of TIM BURTON'S THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. It was nice, but for me at least, 3D didn't add anything that wasn't already in the glorious 2D version of the movie.

One of the best 3D movies ever made was "Kiss me Kate", the musical, in 1953.

There isn't much in the way of stuff flying at the camera, but lots of deep hallways, vertiginous camera angles, and people looking at themselves in mirrors. Handled well, Stereoscopic 3D makes you feel like you are in the room with the characters. There are parts of "Up" that achieve this, precisely because of the attention to detail that is the hallmark of Pixar's work.

In lesser hands, it is indeed a distraction.

Roger,

If you're worried about 3D's cheapening effect on the experience of UP, I encourage you to give it a try and compare the movie itself to the trailers that run before it. Nearly all the ads that ran in the theater I went to last night were hocking other computer-animated features, and all sported the 3D effect to make their rascally heroes burst out of the screen and force the audience to duck as meatballs flew through the air. Look! Look! Look at us! They seemed to cry. Fun and diverting for a couple minutes, sure, but pointless after not too long.

Then came "UP". Rather than deploy a shameless gimmick, the Pixar folks used the 3rd Dimension to add more depth to an already beautiful frame. The effect was to take us INTO the screen, not to jump out AT us. And that's pretty much the whole philosophy of Pixar's storytelling and moviemaking no matter what fancy tools they're using. I never feel like my face is being shoved into the stew by a kitchen full of insecure cooks. I'm handed a spoon and allowed to smell, taste, and enjoy.

I'm sure you're right that it's just as good in 2D, but try to allow a little faith in the good folks at Pixar and see if you don't find something to enjoy in the 3D version.

Also, in response to some of the complaints I read above: I wore the 3D specs over my own glasses (which are pretty darn thick), and was never uncomfortable. I didn't lose any color in the image, either. And, to top it all off, despite the theatre holding a full crowd, I ended up sitting between a couple of really nice folks. So the movie-going experience still has some life left in it, as long as someone's making good movies for us all to go see together.

Roger,

If you're worried about 3D's cheapening effect on the experience of UP, I encourage you to give it a try and compare the movie itself to the trailers that run before it. Nearly all the ads that ran in the theater I went to last night were hocking other computer-animated features, and all sported the 3D effect to make their rascally heroes burst out of the screen and force the audience to duck as meatballs flew through the air. Look! Look! Look at us! They seemed to cry. Fun and diverting for a couple minutes, sure, but pointless after not too long.

Then came "UP". Rather than deploy a shameless gimmick, the Pixar folks used the 3rd Dimension to add more depth to an already beautiful frame. The effect was to take us INTO the screen, not to jump out AT us. And that's pretty much the whole philosophy of Pixar's storytelling and moviemaking no matter what fancy tools they're using. I never feel like my face is being shoved into the stew by a kitchen full of insecure cooks. I'm handed a spoon and allowed to smell, taste, and enjoy.

I'm sure you're right that it's just as good in 2D, but try to allow a little faith in the good folks at Pixar and see if you don't find something to enjoy in the 3D version.

Also, in response to some of the complaints I read above: I wore the 3D specs over my own glasses (which are pretty darn thick), and was never uncomfortable. I didn't lose any color in the image, either. And, to top it all off, despite the theatre holding a full crowd, I ended up sitting between a couple of really nice folks. So the movie-going experience still has some life left in it, as long as someone's making good movies for us all to go see together.

Roger,

Great review. Carl does bear some slight resemblance to you in appearance, in my opinion (which made it more amusing). Anyways, keep up the great work!

Mr. EBERT!

You are so wrong about 3D! I'd never seen anything in 3D before besides some stupid Honey I Shrunk the Kids thing at Disneyland years ago. The 3D in Up totally works. You know that feeling you get when you walk up to the edge of a cliff and stare down into the vast space below? Yes, with the 3D I felt that quite a bit. I must admit, I was a little distracted by the 3D at the beginning while little Carl was at the movies, but it also could've been because I was very tired and it was past midnight and I had just watched Frost/Nixon.

The 3D adds so much depth and immerses you quite a bit in the story. I'll probably see it again in 2D, but for me, this first time experience seeing a 3D movie was exceptional, and Pixar should be rewarded with more than just the deserved positive reviews they've gotten for the story, animation, characters, and emotional experience this movie provides. Up deserves recognition and respect for its completely practical and purposeful use of the 3D technology. I only remember one time where they tried to make something jump at you, and it rocked!

Yes! Finally a Pixar movie where someone is not getting lost and needs to be found/ needs to get home.! I thought that was their secret formula to the plot.

I feel the need to echo the sentiment about 3D. I watched both "Monsters vs Aliens" and "Up" in 3D, and it provides an interesting dichotomy in the approach. Whereas "Monsters" had a definite tendency to abuse the 3D effect to make things pop out and distract, "Up" had no moments where it did so. Rather, the effect was subtle and added a level of dimensionality to the film. There was nothing that popped forward, only levels that moved back, making the world deeper, rather than distracting, as is the downfall of most movies incorporating 3D.

That said, though, when I took the glasses off to see the true color, the vibrancy was splendid. It's a tradeoff in this case, and a reasonably fair one, although the 2D version is probably a better investment for the vibrancy and beauty of the pallette.

I guess I can see why Ebert would be skeptical about the value of the 3D, but I just saw _Up_ in 3D, and it was really, really cool. I didn't feel like the colors were "dim" or "dingy", and there was no "extra" stuff thrown in just for the sake of 3D.

The fact that Ebert likes the movie in 2D shows that the film has a strong core which can only be enhanced by the extra depth. I agree with David Strugar's comments above--_Up_ 3D brings you INTO the screen, it doesn't cheapen itself by constantly getting in your face.

So many scenes were just breathtakingly cool---the house floating in the rain with the giant airship floating in the background darkness! Wow! So beautiful! So "real" feeling, it really draws you into it to be able to look down from the floating house and feel like that green mat of jungle really is far below!

I agree with Ebert that part of the push for 3D is to combat piracy, but maybe that's what the movie industry NEEDS---something new and creative to shake it up and make it more enhanced, more interesting, more FUN.

Sure, many movies will probably mis-step with 3D and make disposable, gimmick-laden junk, but I think a film like _Up_ shows what an enveloping, touching experience 3D can provide!

Bottom line is, I can't wait to see more movies in 3D! I doubt they'll all be as good as _Up_, but this medium definitely holds promise. Now I really want to see some live-action 3D films. _Drag Me to Hell_ would have been AWESOME in 3D! :)

I have to wait till July 31 to see this. Aaarrrggghhh!!!

I can't see 3D films. I mean I physically cannot see them. My left eye has horrible vision, while my right is nearly perfect. Even though I wear eyeglasses, over the years my brain has compensated for the imbalance by registering most of my vision through my right eye.

So those absurd little 3D glasses just don't work on me. All I see is an oddly-colored blur, and inside of 20 minutes, I have a splitting headache.

Perhaps someday movies will be holographic. If so, I might pay extra to watch one. But until then, I'm with Mr. Ebert. 3D films are an annoying gimmick, and the sooner they die off the better.

Alas Ebert, you are correct.

3D is a demoralizing test of willpower. The constant fidgeting of the one-size-fits-all glasses as they slid down my nose, up goes the balloons and down goes my glasses, ran my experience amok.

Worst was the screening. Oh, my imagination wanted to devour the thousands of balloons but it couldn't. 3D dulled my world and dimmed my creation. I wanted to rip the spectacles off and tell them to straighten the layering, focus.

Drabs...poignancy lost to technology. And four more dollars, for what?

I really hope 3D is just a fad. I recently saw My Bloody Valentine 3D and it was a rather painful experience because I could not get the 3D glasses to fit correctly over my own glasses. So I got a headache, couldn't watch the movie without the glasses because the ghosting effects were so distracting, and the colors were washed out. My husband got a headache too. Basically, it was really hard to get into the actual movie/story with the 3D distraction.

Not even Cloverfield gave me a headache.

I just hope when Avatar comes out there's a 2D version for those that can't watch 3D without experiencing pain.

There is no IMAX theater in Alaska...so odds of finding the best 3D experience up here are astronomically low. I'm glad there was a 2D version of Up, I truly loved the movie and had a blast watching it.

I was one of the few here in Osaka who ventured out to the IMAX theater and spend the money to see U23D. Of course I thoroughly enjoyed it, being a U2 fan. Although Osaka is Japan's second largest metropolis, the band haven't ventured out this way, so the film was the next best thing to being at a concert. It was probably *better* than a concert because you could be closer.

I'm not sure if you're a fan of concert films, Roger. I tend to think you're not, judging by a couple comments I've seen you make in the past. In U23D's case, of course, the point of the film was the music and concert experience. Works great for fans, but for those who aren't, well.... Of the 3D, it was good, but after awhile I didn't notice it actually because it felt like I was *there*. Perhaps it was not necessary, but I think in this case it tended to add to the film/experience.

I think that probably says a good thing about that usage of 3D (in that particular film) -- that I tended to forget about the 3D itself. If I noticed it more, I would take it as a distraction, which is what I think you may feel about 3D in general.

Roger Ebert: What they find at Paradise Falls and what happens there I will not say. But I will describe Charles Muntz's gigantic airship that is hovering there.

And in so doing, you have described what happens there. You also revealed this part of the plot by earlier mentioning that Muntz is a central character, and subsequently describing it and the setting he lives in.

Honestly, Roger, I enjoying reading your reviews every week, and I know it can sometimes be hard to articulate you analysis of a film without running into that minefield known as Spoilers, but can't you put bookend sensitive material like this with Spoiler Warnings?

Ebert: Come on. How could I review the movie and not mention Muntz? Find me one critic who was able to to pull that off.

It's the best Pixar movie ever made. Thank you Mr. Catmull. Go see it in 3D and 2D and make your own mind up. As for the 3D version, it's a luminance vs. depth perception problem, that goes back 200 years,folks! In any format, this movie is an INSTANT classic. Why the censors rated this PG instead of G is beyond me! My reccomendation: see it in 3D. It's worth every extra dime!

3-D aside, I have to say, I am frustrated by the free ride that you and other movie critics continue to give Pixar, even when the quality of their work has been steadily declining for years. The opening sequence of Up (through Carl and Ellie's romance and marriage) reached the pinnacle of what computer animation is capable of. Like the first third of Wall-E, it told its story entirely through visuals, in a way that a live action film would simply not be capable of.

But for the remainder of Up, I felt as though I were watching a Dreamworks or Nickelodeon feature, not Pixar. What made Toy Story, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, Ratatouille, so remarkable, is that they brought to life unexpected animals and objects in unique and clever ways. Think of the myriad of lifeforms in Finding Nemo -- in Up, instead of making full use of its exotic "rainforest" location (snakes? poisonous frogs? piranhas?) we get one silly bird and the oldest talking animal in the book -- the dog. What could possibly have possessed Pixar to turn to the old talking dog cliche? I am genuinely interested in an explanation on that one.

I don't know why I seem to be the odd-one-out on this issue. Is everyone just so jaded by each new Ice Age or Madagascar or Shark Tale that they'll take whatever Pixar gives us just because it's marginally better? I think it's time someone holds their feet to the fire and challenges them to return to the quality of their early work. Though with a sequel to Cars already on the horizon, their worst-reviewed film yet, it doesn't appear that they care very much what the critics have to say anyway.

It's true that this film more than any other (save perhaps those teen concert films which I did not see) can be enjoyed in 2D with absolutely no loss and the gain of a brighter picture and no glasses to wear.

However you should know that XpanD 3D is out there and being seen by the masses, not just those in tuxes. In the Chicago area theatres in Gurnee and Orland Park are using it.

Xpand 3D is just one of several digital 3D systems currently in use. The others are Real D, Dolby 3D, and Master Image 3D.

Also, there are a handful of theatres around the country that have installed a 2nd digital projector so that each eye's image is beamed by a separate machine. This is used with simple polarizing filters and inexpensive glasses and yields by far the brightest picture. It's more expensive but there's no royalty fee like with RealD. This is the system used by the so-called "fake" IMAX theatres when they are in 3D mode but anyone can do it if they are willing to spring for a 2nd very expensive projector.

I realized this was a masterfully told movie by expert, assured filmmakers about five minutes in. The opening montage was brilliantly told with the assured hand of an expert who knows his craft. From there, every moment topped the other.

I felt assured that this movie would be excellent, but I had no idea how it would not only tell a story well, as many Pixar movies have done, but tell such a sharply defined and unusual story so well. "Up" never stops to pander and never plays anything broad. Every moment is driven by character.

Every moment comes from character and is never played for broad effect. And there are so many moments that are so suggestive and evocative, like when we see how the light passes through the balloons of Fredrickson onto other people's homes and through their windows. We see more vividly what is going on than we would if the subject were merely portrayed directly on film.

The silent montage at the beginning is some of the best, most cinematic storytelling in film. It evokes and suggests with simple gestures and movements. It never winks at the audience and never pauses to reflect on its own story. It simply observes what appears to happen naturally with Fredrickson, Russel, a house floating by balloons, Kevin the bird, and Dug the dog.

According to Chuck Viane, distribution chief for Disney, nearly a third of the audience was adults without children. "I think Pixar has a way of turning stories into 'gotta see' movies for adults, Pixar takes their time. They'll tweak a story over and over until they're satisfied. The highest compliment you can pay to them is they're in no rush and get the job done right."

I've read two complaints about "Up."

(1) Chris: The opening sequence showing Carl and Ellie's romance reached the pinnacle of what computer animation is capable of But for the remainder of Up, I felt as though I were watching a Nickelodeon feature

(2) Three major roles, no females.

Maybe they signed off on the story too soon, when it needed a few more tweaks.

For example, when Carl and Russell get to the rain forest, they find Charles Muntz has died, and been stuffed. Before he died, he married a native girl, and now she's taken command of the airship.

If Carl was a boy when he saw the first newsreel, and he's 78 when he starts his adventure, it wouldn't be unusual for Muntz to already be dead.

I saw a book called "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" in a bookstore. Maybe Muntz could be an elderly zombie, who only comes alive when his wife uses the right potion.

Some ideas are good, others not so good. But you've got to put them on the table and discuss them before you can decide. That's how the creative process works... and the creative process is what makes Pixar so successful.

Rog,

I just got back from "Up," and loved it. But I have a question: Do you feel any pity for Charles Muntz, who seems to have been driven mad by society's indictment against his credibility more so than the bird itself? Don't you think Docter and his writers should've perhaps added a sequence at the end depicting some sort of proof that the bird exists? You know, to clear Muntz's name. Yes, I know he tried to kill Russell and Carl, but he was Carl's and Ellie's childhood hero, who inspired the club that brought them together.

I only mention this because it may have explained why Carl was able to return to the United States and set up his ice cream shop. Don't you think Carl would have been arrested on sight for violating his court-ordered retirement? But maybe Carl never cleared his name either, like Charles, and the airship that floats above the ice cream shop serves as a getaway vehicle. Maybe I like that better, actually.

Ebert: I think we have to try to keep the plots in animated family films out of the court system.

The first half of "Up" is utterly brilliant. It contains more potent and poetic drama than anything likely to be released all year. But the second half leaves much to be desired. It degenerates into a "Monster vs. Aliens" style romp that fails to even come close to the artful storytelling featured in the first act.

The name "Charles Muntz" has to be a riff on "Charles Mintz" -- the man seen by Disney fans as quite the villain in early Disney history. Instead of collecting Dinosaurs and other rare skeletons, Charles Mintz secretly signed away Walt Disney's animators when the Disney Bros. were making the [i]Oswald the Lucky Rabbit[/i] series.

Charles Mintz had married Margaret Winkler, a female American film prducer and distributor, and he promptly took control of her business. Winkler's company distributed the Disney Brothers silent, animated [i]Alice[/i] comedies. Mr. Mintz was unhappy with the cost of the series, and asked for a new character, and from that the [i]Oswald the Lucky Rabbit[/i] series was born. The new series proved unexpectedly popular and successful, and young Walt Disney went to New York in 1928 to meet with Mintz to negotiate a new contract.

When Walt Disney arrive, he was blindsided by Mintz, who informed Walt Disney that he had already signed Disney's animators to a new contract. Instead of a raise, Walt was told he was going to have to accept a pay cut. Walt rejected the offer and had to take the train home with no character, no contract, no distributor, and no staff. Of course, as the legend goes, out of this train ride home came Mickey Mouse. Walt was able to turn these lemons into lemonade largely because Walt's most talented animator, Ub Iwerks, remained loyal to him and didn't take the Mintz contract.

Was Mintz a real life "villain"? Probably not, just a businessman thinking he was paying too much for a series of cartoons. But in [i]UP[/i], the name "Charles Muntz" is surely no accident.

I am surprised by how little Up's story and the lesson we take away from it is discussed in these comments. Is it so obvious that it's not worth This is a wonderful story that shows us that the great adventure in life is in loving and human connection. The mundane things in life is what we cherish ... not travel, discovery, glory, riches, or fame.

Carl and Ellie are in love and share the dream of seeing Paradise Falls. Carl regrets that Ellie never realized her dream, but in the end, we see that she lived a rich, full, happy, adventurous life with Carl.

Ugh! That's all I can write for now. My toddler and infant need me right this second.

I am an older, single father, (49 years old), of a 4 year old daughter. The ONLY films I have seen in the past 4 years have been children's films, with her. I am not complaining mind you....in fact, I'm looking forward to many, many more! And though some comments above have underlying criticism of pixar, personally, I have found several of their recent films to be wonderful and classic...particularly Wall-E and Up.

I'm very thankful for the exceptional story telling without the bathroom humor, the fantastic artistry, and we have also enjoyed the 3-d experience. The 3d keeps my daughter focused on the story that much more, and though Ebert and others like to grind away on this technology, the wonderment it brings children is the real point here...as far as I'm concerned, (and I like it too!).

I'm not going to balance the scale with any negatives regarding these 2 films...they have simply been a joy to watch with my girl as opposed to some of the refuse that is o