consequence.net: It was 8:20 p.m. in Las Vegas, but the sky above me was sunny and blue. As a fan of unique, arguably ridiculous exhibition stunts, I’d sat down for Sphere’s “enhanced” version of The Wizard of Oz at least intrigued by the possibilities of the experience: The original 1939 film, cut down by about 25 minutes, the rest blown up to stretch across a 160,000-square-foot curved dome with additional “immersive” elements.
Lost in translation: A classic film’s soul.
9 comments:
The idea of the sphere being used this way is really interesting. I have only ever seen it being used for concerts or live performances, like comedians or magicians. To use these screens to actually present a movie is interesting due to some of the statements the author has mentioned in the article. The idea that the film is being projected throughout this space is crazy and immersive, but personally, I think it would give me a headache due to the scale. Also, the fact that it almost seems like a different movie due to the editing done to be able to fit the screen is a downside for sure. If I were in the audience, I would be consistently looking at the mistakes after seeing just one. I also liked the idea that the author mentioned of the screen growing during the tornado, because it truly would have had more impact. I want to read about the setup and backstage perspective on how these projections are coming across, and how the process of creating the expanded shots is.
Considering all of the controversy surrounding the sphere, the more I've started to consider it just another gimmick rather than a real revolutionary stage space. Like like virtual reality and augmented reality, this isn't the next big thing, and the longer it stays in the spotlight like that the more it continues to disappoint. I recently read an article depicting how the sphere was using AI to generate frames in order for media to fit inside of the sphere, and I think just that goes to show why the sphere struggles, because it was built on this intention of it being something revolutionary, and in order for it to achieve this, there would have to be a push for the production of content for the sphere, specifically designed to use the feature of it. But it turns out that it's not only expensive to do that, but because of the limited nature of doing that, it's just not a smart idea. There are only 2 spheres, and because of that why would you want to produce content for it, you can't do anything that's designed for the sphere anywhere else, it's just simply not worth the money, and that's the biggest flaw with the sphere.
I found this article to be really interesting. I have commented on previous articles about the Wizard of Oz movie showing at the sphere, and they were overwhelmingly positive about the whole experience. As a result, when I heard the negativity from this article I was surprised. I absolutely love immersive experiences, but after reading the article I am a bit wary of this one. It sounds like since the movie was stretched out onto such a massive screen, the resolution ended up being pretty bad. This is critical for movies, since we get up close and personal with the actors' emotions. This is the biggest difference between theatre and movies, and without that detail it just removes that magic that movies have. Previously, I heard that AI was used to increase the resolution of the movie to make it fit the massive screen, however I guess that was not very effective.
This is one of many comments I have made on the Wizard of Oz shows at the Las Vegas Sphere but this one is very different from the other reviews I have read. This one feels the most honest, acknowledging that the story was lost despite the art being very cool. I haven’t seen this or any show at the sphere but I can imagine the visuals being very cool but almost overwhelming. Taking such a classic movie and turning it into this 4d experience, I can totally see why they say it got lost in translation. It seems as though the creative team was more focused on the wow factor of this show and not as focused on actually telling the story. Making choices that don’t really support the show and are clear its only there to blow the audience away I’ve noticed is a common thing that happens to designers when recreating a show that has already been done.
I've now written about this Wizard of Oz thing at the Sphere a few times, and every time I become more and more saddened by what I see. Originally, when the sphere first opened, I had some hope for the theatrics that were going on inside of it. I mean, it's Vegas, it's gotta be extravagant, right? This article just made me sad. Not a single human on stage, a 25-minute show, with minimal extravagance? and Artificial Intelligence? It feels like they didn't really think through the idea of what would go inside the Sphere as much as the idea of there being a large globe on the Las Vegas Strip with advertisement space. I think that the space ripped off more than it could chew, and they're realizing it now, as artists don't want to perform there all the time, and the things that do take place there are overpriced and underwhelming.
The headline really caught me off guard because the picture that the author used looked really cool and honestly I do think even after reading that article that I would have enjoyed the show. I definitely see why the author didn't like it and why she felt like they leaned too much into the spectacle, but I honestly would have really liked to see it despite her review and I think I would have enjoyed the spectacle since it is known specifically for the spectacle. I have read a bunch about how expensive these tickets were so I definitely understand wanting something that you really connect with and enjoy for the amount of money you paid. I also have heard some people say that they fear the sphere is a massive money grab which I can't speak on since I've never seen it personally or read deep enough into this but it would be really disappointing if it was since it seems like such an interesting theatrical space.
I think whoever went to see this “production” with their family should have honestly had some more realistic expectations. I personally feel like “enhanced” and “immersive” showings of movies are always gonna be kinda bad. I think ive seen about two 4D or 4DX movies before, and they were always overstimulating and really corny. This is because the films themselves weren't made with the intention to be immersive. The director and writers never thought while filming: “okays so this is where the bubbles are gonna blast in peoples faces” or “exactly at this moment, the haze machines gonna start and everyones seats are gonna shake”. It feels corny because it is corny. It seems even cornier if it's using a classic film, and even worse if it's gonna be in Vegas. I really don't know what this person thought they were getting themselves into… Did they expect a live symphony orchestra with it or something? Or real flying monkeys in the theater? From what they described, art wasn't even being sold to them to begin with. This person seems to have gotten exactly what they paid for.
This was a really interesting read. Personally, the thing I find most questionable about the Sphere’s broadcast of The Wizard of Oz was that they made the very bizarre choice to replace the munchkin actors with faces of the producers that funded this venture. It is very dehumanizing in an odd sort of way because it's literally using AI to replace people who have already existed and acted in a movie, purely out of some sort of weird gag bit. I also completely agree that it would have been a much more sound artistic decision to have the sphere begin to be used either during the tornado, for the effects mentioned, or after Dorothy arrives in Oz, with the Technicolor change. Doing that whole theatre screen gag to immediately get rid of it feels cheap and not thought through. I’d also be interested in learning why they decided to airbrush Dorothy's face. What do you gain from that?
I had a feeling this production was about to be the stupidest thing ever. Sorry- hot take? Too forward? Can’t even barely call it a production because it was just a recreation of a pre-existing film with a lot of AI thrown around to make it big and round. What is the point of that? I’m writing this with a headache currently, and I just can’t imagine trying to watch a movie in a giant sphere and not feeling sick to my stomach. Also, their estimated profit depends on people doing a lot of caring for this movie experience…which I can assume will decline. This feels similar to the Van Gogh exhibit that opened- at first, people were interested, but once they started understanding it was a single room with projections, they stopped caring about it. People aren’t stupid. Once it starts coming to light how little was improved by seeing this film from this perspective, their audience will dwindle. It is so tragic how art is being commodified in such a way. I hope the sphere learns from this and perhaps stops this use of AI for exclusively profit, and instead does something that matters.
Post a Comment