Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ebert on 3D Animation

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Ebert on 3D Animation (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Ebert on 3D Animation

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-03-2011 09:52 AM

He still doesn't like it:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/the_best_animated_films_of_201.html

quote:
The Elephant in the Room. This is 3D, of course. It is the misfortune of contemporary animation that it must mostly be viewed as if through the fog of a peat fire. It is too dim, I tell you, TOO DIM! Do I make myself clear? And more expensive -- and not worth the extra money. Blast and damn, thundernation, tonnerre le brest, rumble, grumble...

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-03-2011 12:25 PM

I get the feeling he's never seen a 3-D movie on a decent system.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-03-2011 01:30 PM

He's certainly never been to a 3D IMAX presentation.

He's right about the extra money though, but arguing with a merchant that he should lower his price on goods that people seem perfectly willing to pay is like believing in Santa Clause.

And not for nuthin, bet he's really starting to sound like he's got one foot in grumpy old-fartdom.

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 01-03-2011 02:35 PM

Ebert used to praise The Polar Express in Imax 3D! He is simply wishing 3D as a standard for almost everything would go away.
I have come to hate silver and high gain screens when watching 2D ,I blame the 3D craze for this! [Mad]

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-03-2011 04:02 PM

I wonder if it is even possible to make a computer animated cartoon that isn't in 3D any more. Also, I wonder if it is even possible to release fewer than 100 3D animated cartoons per year.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-08-2011 12:42 PM

quote:
I have come to hate silver and high gain screens when watching 2D ,I blame the 3D craze for this!

I think we can forget about calling it a craze. It's here for the long term. Everyone's making money on it, including the digital projector manufacturers. Once it invades the home by way of 3DTV and now the scrambling to get it into ipads and pods and cellphones, without glasses no less, it becomes a snowball that will be hard to stop as each market drives the next. After all the investment in 3D hardware, do you think there wouldn't be hell to pay if all of a sudden Hollywood stopped churning out 3D content?

As for silver screens - yes, unfortunately they are necessary for 3D and even more unfortunate is that 2D has to suffer because of them. But it won't be the first time the industry sacrificed presentation quality in favor of the almighty buck. Are we not used to this?

| IP: Logged

Kris Verhanneman
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 182
From: Belgium
Registered: Dec 2009

posted 01-08-2011 12:52 PM

quote: Frank Angel
As for silver screens - yes, unfortunately they are necessary for 3D

Sorry I don't share your opinion.
Remeber dolby 3D!

| IP: Logged

Jake Spell
Master Film Handler

Posts: 294
From: Johns Island SC
Registered: May 2009

posted 01-08-2011 01:46 PM

True Dolby and Xpand dont need a silver screen, around here the only 3D system in use is RealD unfortunately. I also agree that silver screens suck, especially cheep ones that are splotchy...

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-08-2011 04:14 PM

Frank...Note Panavision's 3D is also a non-Silver screen based system, similar to Dolby's (Infitec).

It is definitely still a craze and one that is dwindling. The pay off for investing in 3D is constantly decreasing.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 01-09-2011 02:41 AM

3D as a marketing gimmick is pathetic, and not true to the art form. If someone is making a 3D feature that seriously wants to put effort into it and do it in an artistic way, then that is fine. However, if they truly intend on wanting it to be 3D, release it only in 3D, that way we know for sure that is what they want.

This dual release crap, multiple aspect ratios, etc. tells me that studios and filmmakers alike are just cashing in on a gimmick.

AJG

| IP: Logged

Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 01-09-2011 08:22 AM

Aaron, the dual releasing of the same movie in 3D and 2D is not a betrayal of "the art form," but a case of allowing people a choice. You clearly are no fan of 3D; would you rather wait for the DVD/BD release to watch a movie in your preferred 2D?

In the 1950s, for cinemas not equipped for 3D, those movies were shown in 2D by projecting only the left or right prints. B&W prints of color films were made for television before tv became chromatic. There were silent versions of early talkies--again, for cinemas not equipped for the new technology.

Cinema history is littered with examples of "serving two masters" in order to get the most ticket sales. 3D is no different.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-09-2011 09:45 AM

quote: Frank Angel
He's certainly never been to a 3D IMAX presentation.

IMAX is irrelevant, there are so few theatres that it's almost not worth mentioning.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 01-09-2011 11:58 AM

quote: Hillary Charles
Aaron, the dual releasing of the same movie in 3D and 2D is not a betrayal of "the art form," but a case of allowing people a choice. You clearly are no fan of 3D; would you rather wait for the DVD/BD release to watch a movie in your preferred 2D?

My point is that if the artist truly believes in their work and wants it seen a specific way, why are they giving people a choice? When James Cameron releases Avatar in 2D, 3D, 1.85, 2.39 I think he loses credibility as an artist because we the audience do not know what his original intent is, or how does he want us to see this piece.

I look back to Hitchcock and Psycho: not only was it released in one aspect ratio, black and white but for awhile, he went as far to make sure anyone who was late could not get in. Some may call that last part a publicity stunt, but I always felt that it was merely an artist attempting to ensure his audience saw his work exactly the way he intended.

Even George Lucas tried to make inroads here when Lucasfilm developed THX. Obviously he was not pleased that his films, which he spent so much time making, were shown in mono or piss poor stereo.

This is another reason I think digital cinema is a great thing: it is going to bring a more solid standard to cinema projection that has been lacking for many years. I know when I see a film locally, it isn't guaranteed that I'm going to get an intact print, or even digital sound (several houses are still using optical sound, and not even SR), and thus ruining the intent of the artist. Sure, poor management and terrible booth monkeys are more to blame, so I am not saying film isn't capable of having standards, it is just that digital cinema helps minimize, if not eliminate some of those issues of things like whether or not we'll get digital sound or missing frames, or emulsion scratches. It's pretty damn sad when I can view a film at home with better sound than several local cinemas, and thus realizing the director's intent moreso. I hate having to say that because I love going to a cinema, and seeing this art on the biggest screen possible with the best sound possible.

As you say, the industry does have a long history of serving two masters, but who says that is the right way to do things.

AJG

| IP: Logged

Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 01-09-2011 12:09 PM

quote: Aaron Garman
My point is that if the artist truly believes in their work and wants it seen a specific way, why are they giving people a choice? When James Cameron releases Avatar in 2D, 3D, 1.85, 2.39 I think he loses credibility as an artist because we the audience do not know what his original intent is, or how does he want us to see this piece.

Unlike painting on canvas, the "art" of cinema requires massive amounts of money (as with Camerone's budgets), and it is in the investors' best interests to maximize the returns on their investments. It is a business, after all. Watch IFC for "art."

quote: Aaron Garman
I look back to Hitchcock and Psycho: not only was it released in one aspect ratio, black and white but for awhile, he went as far to make sure anyone who was late could not get in. Some may call that last part a publicity stunt, but I always felt that it was merely an artist attempting to ensure his audience saw his work exactly the way he intended.

Or, just maybe it was a marketing gimmick (as you say) he co-opted from William Castle.

The right way to do things is the way that helps ensure we can keep on doing those things.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-09-2011 12:22 PM

quote:
James Cameron releases Avatar in 2D, 3D, 1.85, 2.39 I think he loses credibility as an artist because we the audience do not know what his original intent is,

James Cameron's intent was to appeal to as my persons as possible.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.