Lifeboat of Pi
Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 1:02PM Despite having not read "Life of Pi" in its previsual form -- I know I know -- I found myself unduly excited this morning seeing this image from the Ang Lee adaptation. Is it because I love cats? Unfilmable books? Ang Lee? All about the above? ☑
24 Frames has an article about it involving a Scorsese/Lee conversation about Lee's 3D learning curve. Here's the image.
Despite his belief in the format, Lee was open about his struggle to adapt to the technology. While filming "Life of Pi," he said, the 3-D cameras were cumbersome, and he compared working with them to "operating a refrigerator."
I gotta be honest with you. I love Marty Scorsese almost as much as any random film buff but his current incarnation as "Mr. 3D" may lead to divorce. Irreconciliable Differences. I preferred Marty when his cause was film preservation. 3D just takes me out of movies, ironically flattening their visual interest for me. It feels like a straight jacket to me or rather, a toothpick propping my eyes open, forcing me to see things I don't want to see. Maybe I need to use my own imagination to add the depth, I don't know. I just hate it. I keep trying to love it because powerful and great filmmakers like Scorsese and James Cameron (a hero of young me and I still love his movies) will never give up till all movies require glasses.
But 3D just makes the movies less magical for me. Sniffle. I adore Titanic and seeing it in 3D just made it... smaller. It no longer felt like THE MOVIEST OF MOVIES but just "a movie".
I'm only tolerating 3D because I have to.
Someone toss me a Lifeboat. Life of Pi needs less 3D and more Tallulah! Can I get an amen?
Alfred Hitchcock's LIFEBOAT OF PI
Have any of you read the book? I understand that young "Pi", an Indian boy, finds himself on a boat after a shipwrech with only a hyena, a zebra, an orangutan, and a Bengal tiger. Since only Pi and Shere Khan are in the official image I'm assuming the tiger ate the other animals already?
If I were to be shipwrecked on a boat with four animals those maybe aren't the four animals I'd choose. I'd think I'd go straight herbivore across the board. Not that you can choose in a shipwreck.
But if I had to go with famous movie animals...
Life of NathanielR
Someone to entertain, someone to protect, and someone who might rescue me and look great doing it.
And there's no way it'd be anything but a 2-D picture.
Don't leave me floating in this ocean all alone... Which movie animals could you handle a shipwreck with and have you resigned yourself to movie glasses forever?
Reader Comments (23)
I'm the same way. I HATE 3D. For one it makes me sick, and it really does take me out of the movie. My eyes just don't work properly with it lol.
I've read Scorsese's comments too and I just find him selfish. I cannot stand 3D because I feel like I'm being force-fed images and the director is holding my hand like a kindergarten telling me what to look at and what not to look at. Hello, is there something call the imagination? Isn't that why we love films in the first place? Oh right, we are the minority. I forgot that people like big explosions and car chases and cute fluffy animals that pop right out of the screen.
I respect Scorsese trying to preserve films (that's the Hugo plot that ONLY works for me, sorry Chloe and your eye-brow acting), but one of my reasons of hating 3D is financial. 3D tickets are usually at least 5 bucks more than regular tickets. So in the future, if everything is filmed in 3D (which I don't think will happen, fingers crossed), I don't think I'll be going to be cinema at all. Plus, ticket prices will only go up right?
Lol. That last image is pretty cool.
I don't like 3D mostly because I have to give more money for it. I loved it the first time I experienced it (Beowolf) but now I just find it a bit "more than I need".
I can honestly say that I am not very excited about this movie. The 3D really just makes it that much worse. I tried to read the book a couple times and I just couldn't get through it. It moves at a snail's pace and just feels so forced.
Totally with you - every time another one of my favorite directors comes out guns blazing in support of 3-D it makes me think there's some sort of Invasion of the Body Snatchers thing going on in Hollywood.
Also, awesome Tallulah Bankhead reference. Don't drink the salt water!
I absolutely loved the book. It was an incredible experience reading it. I don't remember having problems with the pace, I think I was immediately right in it. It's a gorgeous book. I didn't realize Ang Lee was filming it. Thank god! Wasn't Shyamalan gong to do it at one point? I think I just blocked out any movie news associated with it at that point.
3D bores me. I'm usually ready to pull the glasses of after 45 minutes. They just irritate me. I'm already at the point where I choose to see 2D versions whenever possible.
Does Snoopy count as a movie animal? Because I would board the Titanic if it meant getting stuck in a lifeboat with Snoopy.
This made me laugh.
I would pick Tigress, Monkey, Viper and Mantis from the Furious Five. Not Crane. He would taunt us with this ability to fly away and come back, never thinking to get Master Shefu to send a rescue party.
I get migraines at the drop of a hat - all types of visual effects can bother me. For this reason, I usually opt for a 2D showing of 3D films, but with some films (e.g., TItanic) there's no choice. I really wish they'd always offer a 2D option for those of us who do get sick from the effects, even if they charge the same amount (Roger Ebert has said that theaters are going to lower 3D ticket prices and raise 2D ticket prices to encourage more people to see 3D movies anyway).
And I love Ang Lee, but I am not enthused about this movie at all. People say The Great Gatsby is an unfilmable novel!
I don't really remember much about the book, but I really liked it, and was caught off guard by the ending. So, definitely looking forward to the movie to see how they do it.
No issues here for 3D. Watching Titanic recently, I forgot it was in 3D and got lost in the movie again. I do love it so!
I've said it before, the book is a MASTERPIECE. The other animals don't survive the whole adventure: most of the second part of the book it's only Pi and Richard Parker.
Cosigning on 3D - blah. Excited for all things Ang Lee though. Scorsese is brilliant but has always been a mixed bag for me.
The animals: Since being on the boat would kill poor Dory (Finding Nemo), I'll go with Garfield (from the comics - never saw the movie), Thumper, Flower and Jessica Rabbit.
The animals I'd want on a boat with me would be Huey, Dewey, and Louie, the Junior Woodchucks (Donald Duck's nephews). Then I would be reassured that we were having an Adventure where none of us will suffer and where we will be efficiently rescued.
cal: Which is where the "unfilmable" side of things comes into play. If it is filmable (don't know either way because I couldn't read the boring thing), I'd estimate the result would either be between seventy and ninety minutes or be really Malick-esque, if the lifeboat scenes really are just one character and a freaking Tiger. If not either of those, it could, visually, become a "reach exceeds grasp" farce of an end result that mines the deep wells of unintentional comedy due to being a hyper-extended version of the Cougar scene from Talladega Nights. There. I just guessed the three (possible) results of filming this book, just by knowing the plot synopsis.
So, Scorsese and Lee regretted that 3D technology is too expensive for low budget or independent filmmakers. As soon as the entry barriers to a business go down, with technology that allows all kinds of new people to make a film inexpensively, whoa, the barriers have to go back up so only old rich well-connected males can make movies, about what they find interesting.
Low budget and indie movies have some of the best characters and stories that are unexpected. I'm not giving that up to see things blow up even better. Although I do admire James Cameron's quest for new technology. But these others are so unnecessary. I liked the way Lars put it, demanding that you focus your attention in a certain spot.
I read the book a long time ago. From memory it was very well-written and quite good, though it didn't quite reach the heights it was aiming for at the end, as a meditation on spirituality. A film was always going to be an intriguing proposition, because the book, especially towards the end, delves into deliberate ambiguity. And Ang Lee of course makes it a more attractive proposition still. I'm a complete non-fan of 3D as well, but if the underlying film is good, I'm willing to block it out. Fingers steadily crossed for the film at this stage.
eurocheese -- your lifeboat companions started out all gooey and fuzzy and then... jessica rabbit. smoking. change of course.
PJ -- i try to block it out too but when i am enjoying a movie especially i think "wow, this would have been so much better and bigger in 2-d"
Sawyer -- you're going to be monogomaous to one movie?!? wow.
Suzanne -- depressing news if they do that. Overpricing movies is not the way to keep the artform alive.
The 3D thing is just annoying. More expensive and distracting. I can't say I've seen anything in 3D that has been memorable. And Hugo was completely lacking in magic.
I hate 3D too, my eyes get dry...
I would pick Babe, Eeyore and Cosmo to join me in my lifeboat...
My one-sentence review of Hugo was this: Why did I have to pay the 3D surcharge to be stuck with Hugo's clearly one dimensional facial expression??!
The only 3D film I've enjoyed thus far is Avatar. I didn't see the 2D version of the same film, so I have no way of judging whether 3D added anything.
Preferably on my life boat:
1. Totoro from My Neighbor Totoro (I know I know it's actually a spirit)
2. Uggie
3. Remy (Culinary artist will prove his worth at some point, besides he eats very little)
4. Some one that flies, but haven't thought of whom yet.
Hopefully I get to meet the Nemo gang along the voyage.
I could never understand why anyone would think I can't wait to go see a movie with SUNGLASSES on! Oh yes, I think I'll go to the symphony tonight with earmuffs, why not? If this 3D thing is going to stick around they'd better come up with some technology that allows me to see it without such a ridiculous and uncomfortable accessory.
The Life of Pi is a bit more complicated than animals on a life boat, and I can't quite see it as a movie. If anyone can do it though, I would put my money (and unfortunately my sunglasses) on Ang Lee.
I'm with those who say that 3-D will keep them away frpm theaters because of the cost (I saw Avatar in 2-D - did I really miss anything life changing? that movie stuck with me for a couple of days and then it was gone and forgotten from memory.)
And, I have epilepsy and vision problems, so that whole thing is a no way proposition for me. I just don't get the appeal - these directors are reminding me of the guys I met in the film program in North Carolina years ago who didn't give a whip about plot, character development, etc - they just wanted to play with the cool effects they could get from the brand new "video toaster".
But this is Scorsese - shouldn't he know better?
Janice: He's done his "daring" phase. Now he's a film preservationist and a tech guy and he knows it. I don't think Scorsese has lost his mind, though. Scorsese's not going to use 3-D on every movie, (he has too much clout for Hollywood to ever get away with that) or defend it's use in every movie (I don't think he'd condone "Beginners, in 3-D", for example), but it made perfect sense to shoot Hugo in 3-D.
I named my Golden Retriever Tallulah so yeah, I'm with you in this.