Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Nov 26, 2010 - 8:29 AM   
 By:   Khan   (Member)

Saw “Avatar” in 3-D, saw that it’s still the same ol’ pile of cardboard cutouts. I’m done until the next 3-D craze, thank you very much.

Same ol' pile of cardboard cutouts?

L.O.L.Z.

You are so incredibly wrong.

 
 Posted:   Nov 26, 2010 - 8:30 AM   
 By:   Khan   (Member)

I am pretty much in the camp that the only 3-D film I wish to pay and see in the theatre are those that are actually shot using 3D cameras, like Avatar and Tron Legacy. Other than that, not gonna waste my time.

This is my feeling as well.

 
 Posted:   Nov 26, 2010 - 10:17 AM   
 By:   KubrickFan   (Member)

I am pretty much in the camp that the only 3-D film I wish to pay and see in the theatre are those that are actually shot using 3D cameras, like Avatar and Tron Legacy. Other than that, not gonna waste my time.

I agree, if filmmakers want their movie to be seen in 3D, they should shoot in the format. Conversion looks like crap and should never be used. And that's specifically for movies that are a decade old, or even older. Sure, it's nice to see the Star Wars trilogy in theaters, but in 3D? No thanks.

 
 Posted:   Nov 26, 2010 - 10:33 AM   
 By:   Ebab   (Member)

Same ol' pile of cardboard cutouts?

L.O.L.Z.

You are so incredibly wrong.


My perception of Avatar’s 3-D effect is “incredibly wrong”.

Well thanks. Your arguments are really convincing.

 
 Posted:   Nov 26, 2010 - 11:16 AM   
 By:   Moonie   (Member)

3-D is the latest thing it wont stop untill something else comes along, 4-D ??

 
 Posted:   Nov 26, 2010 - 11:19 AM   
 By:   Storyteller   (Member)

Same ol' pile of cardboard cutouts?

L.O.L.Z.

You are so incredibly wrong.


My perception of Avatar’s 3-D effect is “incredibly wrong”.

Well thanks. Your arguments are really convincing.



I feel the same way Ebab. It makes the film look like some kind of weird Diorama. Just not worth the headache, even at it's best (which isn't saying much).

 
 
 Posted:   Nov 29, 2010 - 8:28 AM   
 By:   John McMasters   (Member)

I regret not having seen "Avatar" in an IMAX theater. IMAX, to my eyes, usually works well and doesn't strain my eyes -- unlike most theatrical screenings. Over the years, during revival-house 3D festivals and also during the brief flurry of new 3D films in the 80's (Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone, etc.), I've seen quite a few. The brief sequences in "The Mask" are a hoot -- one can sense Slavko Vorkapich, the master of montage who is responsible for those scenes, having a blast with imaginative weird camera setups and depth effects. I used to have "The Mask" in 3D on a laser disc -- but I sold it a while ago. As I recall the 3D worked quite well in that format -- perhaps because the 3D sequences were brief and I didn't get my usual headache. More recent films like "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl" when viewed on my current equipment give me eyestrain. But I'll be curious if the new technology improves -- especially with regard to the color/print dimming that seems to be part and parcel of the usual 3D screenings. "Dial M for Murder" is my favorite 3-D film -- just fascinating to see Hitchcock using objects and characters with depth in mind. "Creature from the Black Lagoon" is also quite fun in 3D! I'm also only interested in seeing films shot for 3D -- "conversions" strike me as useless and artistically harmful.

 
 Posted:   Nov 29, 2010 - 8:57 AM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

I'm waiting for the perfection of holodecks (ala Star Trek) where you can actually place yourself inside any given film....like sitting on Morbius' desk in FORBIDDEN PLANET or watching UFOs with Richard Dreyfuss.

 
 
 Posted:   Nov 29, 2010 - 9:27 AM   
 By:   nxbusby   (Member)

I just dont ever see 3D television taking off. I feel funny enough wearing those glasses in the theatre (from Avatar..dont care to see converted stuff) let alone at home! I mean, remember Back to the Future 2 where he's sitting there at the dinner table watching tv in the glasses!! Is THAT next? Is that really where we're going ? Maybe in twenty years where there will be high definition hologram 3D like Nintendos new handheld system, but even then! Really....I dont get it.

 
 
 Posted:   Nov 29, 2010 - 10:05 AM   
 By:   CinemaScope   (Member)

For me the big deal-breaker in 3D is...every film I like & love (going back to the thirties) was made in 2D (ditto TV progs). So it's just new stuff in 3D. Not that interested.

 
 Posted:   Sep 14, 2011 - 12:33 PM   
 By:   DavidinBerkeley   (Member)

I'm beginning to think that 3-D doesn't enhance my experience of a narrative film (my favorite kind).

I'm also beginning to think that 3-D would be of GREAT benefit to my enjoyment of a non-narrative film, like an art film (or a partly-non-narrative one, like 2001: A Space Odyssey). Maybe even documentaries.

 
 Posted:   Sep 14, 2011 - 3:07 PM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

I'm beginning to think that 3-D doesn't enhance my experience of a narrative film (my favorite kind).

I'm also beginning to think that 3-D would be of GREAT benefit to my enjoyment of a non-narrative film, like an art film (or a partly-non-narrative one, like 2001: A Space Odyssey). Maybe even documentaries.


Well that is why they are pushing it so much. Hollywood has already for the most part moved away from narrative and character development as the center of films for most big blockbusters. What better way to enhance the feeling of thrill audiences get from "the ride" than to put in 3D effects? What I find interesting is when they take a film that is clearly based around proper character development and story and place it in 3D. Yes the film is engaging but I don't think it is the 3D that makes it so.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 14, 2011 - 3:41 PM   
 By:   CinemaScope   (Member)

I admit I'm not a fan, but I think the jury's still very much out on 3-D. There was an interesting bit on BBC radio 4 last week, where they were interviewing a cinema manager about how the summer had gone. It was interesting hearing about some of the big films that hadn't done much business & how well some of the smaller films had done, & he was a big fan of digital, as he said that before he couldn't show small films becouse he couldn't get hold of a print (as they'd only do a couple of prints for smaller films) not a problem with digital. Anyway, he said 3-D had really underperformed & wasn't sure about its future. There was some kind of media expert there who was shocked at that, saying the studios were relying on 3-D & could be in some trouble if it failed.

 
 Posted:   Sep 14, 2011 - 4:53 PM   
 By:   CH-CD   (Member)



See also: 1953 big grin

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 14, 2011 - 5:13 PM   
 By:   quiller007   (Member)



The only movies that should be made in 3D are hardcore porn.
Aside from from that, it should be abolished.

Den

 
 Posted:   Sep 14, 2011 - 7:22 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

I've only seen three movies in 3-D: Coraline, Avatar, and TRON: Legacy. Each I enjoyed in this format, but I don't feel like I've missed anything else by seeing other pictures in 2-D. I think this medium should best be explored by those who know how to work within the new visual planes that can be accessed, but so far most other filmmakers are so well-versed in how to communicate using only two dimensions. I think "event" films that can use 3-D properly shouldn't be discriminated against, but the studios should stop wasting their money -- and our time -- with these shoddy post-conversion hack jobs that have populated theaters in the past few years.

And only one film have I seen that I wished had been available in 3-D: Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox.

 
 Posted:   Sep 14, 2011 - 10:19 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I'm sure its been mentioned but 3D was primary an excuse to charge twice as much for the same film. Nice way to get their revenues up during a tough economy, but looks like the novelty has worn off.

I think 3D televisions are a huge disappointment sales wise too. Lets not forget 3D home movies costs more than a regular DVD or BluRay.

There's also a percentage of ppl whom 3D does not work. Its awkward if you have prescription glasses and useless for others with depth of field issues.

All in all, 3D probably works best for short specialty films and amusement park rides.

 
 Posted:   Sep 14, 2011 - 11:33 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

There's also a percentage of ppl whom 3D does not work. Its awkward if you have prescription glasses and useless for others with depth of field issues.


Oh yes! I wear prescription specs and I just hate having to wear another pair over my own. I made the mistake of seeing TRON: Legacy in IMAX 3-D first and the glasses for that are so awful I literally felt cross-eyed during the whole movie! Real-D is much better, but still 3-D so you know what they say.

 
 Posted:   Sep 15, 2011 - 12:21 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

I'm a huge fan of the 3D format but the problem is for the most part theatrical releases just treat 3D very poorly. Either you get a rushed conversion which is awful (step forward Clash of the Titans) or you get someone using it for cheap theme-park ride thrills, like The Final Destination.

Even when you get a film properly shot using a decent camera rig (Cameron/Pace or Red for example), by a director who actually understands the medium, the end product is let down by the cinema (theatre for you guys Stateside) because they do nothing to increase the brightness levels required to compensate for the level of light disbursement caused by the polarised glasses) What they should be doing is ramping their projectors up to the highest level of Lambert output possible, but they never do (to be frank in this digital age most projectionists are redundant since a digital film can be loaded and started at the press of a button by the same guy who sells the popcorn).

A good recent example of this is Transformers 3. I've seen that twice now, once in Imax at the AMC in LA and the second time at my local cinema in Basildon. The difference in the 3D was, almost literally, night and day. The bright, vibrant output of the AMC theatre was in total contrast to the dark, dingy, strobe-plagued showing at the Empire. And remember, Dark of the Moon wasn't actually shot in Imax format, so that doesn't play a major part in this particular argument. The 3D was spectacular first time round but in the UK it was just a handicap to the film.

Now, I'm not the world's biggest Peter Jackson fan (I hated his 27 hour remake of King Kong and The Lovely Bones was just awful) but I have high hopes for his two Hobbit movies because he is not just shooting in 3D but also at a higher frame rate (48FPS rather than the industry norm of 24FPS) and I am convinced this will be a turning point for 3D films. To quote Jackson, the higher frame rate will produce a 3D image which has "hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness". Those people - including a large number of 3D naysayers - who saw James Cameron's test footage of a swordfight at CinemaCon in April '11 were apparently unanimous in their praise (albeit this was shot at an even higher frame rate of 60FPS), so that is clearly the way to go. Doubtless Avitar 2 &3, being shot similtaniously, will be filmed at at least 48FPS and will hopefuilly look stunning.

So I don't consider 3D to be dead - not at all. And while the likes of Scorsese and Speilberg are embracing the medium (with Hugo Cabret and Tintin respectfully), it won't do. All that is needed is for the studios to shit-or-get-off-the-pan when it comes to 3D (i.e. either allow a production to shoot in 3D from the outset or simply go with a 2D format... no more sloppy rushed conversions!!) and for theatre chains to invest in equipment capable of projecting the images as they should be seen.

So to end where I started, I'm a HUGE fan of 3D. But only 3D done well.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 15, 2011 - 12:46 AM   
 By:   Michael24   (Member)

All in all, 3D probably works best for short specialty films and amusement park rides.

That's exactly how I feel. I love a 15-20 minute 3D theme park attraction like Captain EO at Disneyland. But a 2+ hour feature film? No thanks. I've always said, to me 3D is just a goofy way to wave and poke things in the audience's face, and if you're not going to do that at all in 3D but instead be "realistic," then what's the point? Real-life 3D (our own eyes) is different from movie 3D anyway. And some of the films they use it on . . . my god, I can't even imagine sitting through Transformers 3 in 3D.

Hopefully another couple years and the fad will be over.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.