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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » 3-D headed in the wrong direction (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: 3-D headed in the wrong direction Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 09-20-2009 02:44 PM                        Of all the many 3-D films released so far, only JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH, MY BLODDY VALENTINE and FINAL DESTINATION were live action. The rest were all animated. I always thought AVATER was going to be the first live action quality 3-D film but I had learned, that too will be partially animated. What is it with the studio brass when they expect theatre owners to invest in digital 3-D and pretty much provide them with mostly animated movies? I only bothered to see a few animated digital 3-D movies out of curiosity. The first one was MONSTER HOUSE because it was the first movie to show in Hawaii with digital projection with 3-D. The 2nd one was NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS because I was curious to see how a 2-D animated film look like after it was digitalized to 3-D. The 3rd was BEOWOLF because I was very interested in this movie because of the use of animation that made the figures look lifelike and I enjoyed the movie very much. The 4th movie I saw in 3-D was MONSTERS AND ALIENS because I wanted to see how it look in digital IMAX 3-D. The 3-D image was awesome but I was very bored with this movie. The 4th and last was UP because I wanted to see Pixar's first 3-D animated movie and I was not disappointed. I did not bother to see the others and will continue to avoid seeing animated 3-D fims with the exception of AVATURE and perhaps the TOY STORY 3-D double feature next month. Back in the old day in the fifties, the producers made 3-D films that used gimmicks such as objects flying into your face like FINAL DESTINATION I just saw. It was fun But when it is done all the time, it can become very tedious. I had enjoyed all of the 3-D films I saw in the fifties including classics such as HOUSE OF WAX, THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, IT CAME FROM OUT OF SPACE, but I had missed out in seeing films like DIAL M FOR MURDER, KISS ME KATE, HONDO and MISS SADIE THOMPSON because 3-D was just about dead when these films were released and I only saw them in 2-D. As far as the admission price to see a movie in 3-D in the fifties, it was not as bad as it is today. I do not recall paying more to see a 3-D film at that time but I am sure the theatres charged extra but not as much as today. My senior admission price now is 6.75 for a regular movie but it cost me $10.25 to see 3-D - an increase of $3.50. IMAX is $2.00 more! Why quality film like INGLORIOUS BASTARDS and many others was not shot and shown in theatres in 3-D is beyond me. If the film producers concentrated on producing quality live action 3-D films for adults rather than children without the usual gimmicks, I think digital 3-D will have a bright future. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Demetris Thoupis Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1240 From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-20-2009 03:08 PM                     They find that the 3D appeals more to youngsters and children rather than Adults which is a complete wrong assesment. All ages should be treated equaly and the same amount of product should be available in both cases. Demetris  |  IP: Logged James Westbrook Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1133 From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa Registered: Mar 2006 posted 09-20-2009 03:13 PM                     Most of your conventional filmmakers believe 3D is a gimmick, and that it does nothing extra to add to the story. Maybe distracting from the story, actually. I recall reading that Alfred Hitchcock was not impressed with the format when he was shooting Dial M For Murder, but did so only because the studio insisted.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 09-20-2009 03:17 PM                     I agree with James. If more film makers cared about 3D we'd see more 3D movies from them. But since they do not, we do not. Hence why something like Inglorious Basterds wasn't done 3D.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 09-20-2009 03:39 PM                        CinemaScope was introduced in 1953 to combat the threat of television when en earlier effort in 3-D had failed. Like 3-D, some filmmakers at the time hated the process including George Stevens when he filmed THE DIARY OF ANN FRANK in CinemaScope because 20th Century-Fox forced him to photograph the film that way. Like Hitchcock with DIAL M FOR MURDER in 3-D, Stevens did an excellent job with the wide screen format. "Scope" at the time was considered a gimmick but it is the standard today with the majority of films released in the format because almost everyone favor it. Like "scope", 3-D can be another accepted motion picture format if given the chance with quality products and exhibition. By the way, I am sure like me, you all have two eyes and see everything in 3-D. What is wrong in seeing movies that way too? -Claude  |  IP: Logged Gene Stavis Film Handler Posts: 26 From: New York, NY Registered: Aug 1999 posted 09-20-2009 04:03 PM                        Well, I guess the problem is that movies are not real life. We see in 3-D, but our vision is not edited, enhanced with all the angles chosen for us and our ears pick up all kinds of information that a movie track would find distracting. 3-D and Cinemascope were roughly contemporary. It is true that they were brought out of mothballs to combat tv, but so was the "epic, cast of thousands" kind of film for the same reason. Cinerama was the first gimmick to hit screens to combat tv. Cinemascope was a cheaper alternative. So was 70mm, stereophonic sound, Cinemiracle, Superscope and all the other permutations which soon wore out their welcome. Personally, I believe that, as long as glasses are required, 3-D will never truly succeed.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 09-20-2009 04:29 PM                     Studies have shown that most of the public don't care for the glasses, but that the glasses don't have any effect on whether or not they come back to screenings. So it's an inconvenience for most, but most don't care that much. There's always *something* that sabotages 3D-- usually bad projection. This time around, it's ironically everything else-- mediocre output, expensive shows, declining ticket sales, etc.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-20-2009 08:55 PM                        quote: Claude S. Ayakawa Why quality film like INGLORIOUS BASTARDS and many others was not shot and shown in theatres in 3-D is beyond me. It's because the overwhelming majority of adults don't think 3-D is necessary if the story is good. They also don't want to wear the glasses and they don't want to pay extra. Bottom line, 3-D is just not needed if all the other elements of a quality film are in place.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 09-21-2009 02:55 AM                     You answered your own question in your explanation of what happened with Cinemascope. Some people thought Scope was dumb yet the studios forced them to use it anyway, whereas now we only have a group of people thinking 3D is dumb without any studios forcing them to use it.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-21-2009 10:26 AM                        The difference there is, Scope adds to the quality of the presentation -- bigger (with a proper screen setup), brighter -- where 3-D diminishes the light and picture quality.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 09-21-2009 11:43 AM                        3D for a Quality story-driven film like Inglourious Basterds would be a distraction and just plain wrong. My opinion anyway. 3D has its place but we don't need it for everything.  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 09-21-2009 12:12 PM                    But David ... it would've doubled, tripled or maybe cuadrupled the benefits ...  |  IP: Logged Luke Anderson Film Handler Posts: 25 From: Spokane, Wa Unites States Registered: Jun 2009 posted 09-21-2009 02:49 PM                    Personally I think that quality digital 3D can really add to a film. It just has to be the right film. I'm think a high powered action flick like a "Rambo Type" war movie or some good car chase scenes such as the beginning Nascar scenes in The Final Destination. I saw this in digital 4K 3D and felt sick to my stomach Like I was riding in a race car. I was impressed! All movies do not need it, no reason for Bastards, but in the right type of storyline it could really add to the experience. A few movies that would have been pretty cool in Digital 3D from the past 20 some years: Point Break Days of Thunder Twister Honey I Shrunk the Kids The Matrix -Luke  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 09-21-2009 03:57 PM                        It does not have to be action type film only, Luke. The argument that most serious film is not suited for 3-D is not true! Some of the best 3-D movies ever made include DIAL M FOR MURDER and KISS ME KATE. Even the 3-D version of a dialogue driven movie like MISS SADIE THOMPSON received great reviews in the fifties and is preferred over the 2-D . This also applies to KISS ME KATE and DIAL M FOR MURDER. When both of these movies were released on DVD several years ago with HOUSE OF WAX,, a lot f people were disappointment a 3-D version in anaglyph was not included. There was a dual projection revival showing of almost all of the 3-D films released in the fifties at the Egyptian Theatre in Los Angeles a few years ago and it was very successful. The Castro theatre in San Francisco is equipped for dual projection as well as others throughout the country and 3-D revival showings of fifties 3-D has been very successful. Most of you who object to 3-D for standard live action films were not born yet or were too young. The most you remember about 3-D was the over/under type and in my opinion, it was a terrible system. As far as wearing glasses to see a movie in 3-D, I have no problem with them despite the fact that I wear prescription glasses. The argument about people prefer not to pay more for 3-D is not a very good one because all multiplexes playing a movie in 3-D are also playing a 2-D version at regular price. The only objection I have had with current 3-D movies was very dark projected image. I have seen three live action 3-D films so far. One in Real D and two were Dolby 3_D JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH in Real D at the Dole Cannery was very dark as well as MY BLODDY VALENTINE in Dolby 3-D at the Ward Centre. The recent FINAL DESTINATION I saw at the Kapolei 16 was very nice and I had no problem with it. The last animated film I saw in 3-D was UP in Real D and the presentation at Regal's Pearlhighland was perfect! -Claude  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 09-21-2009 04:29 PM                     quote: Claude S. Ayakawa Most of you who object to 3-D for standard live action films were not born yet or were too young. Perhaps you should take a step back and look at this afresh. People explaining why 3D isn't being used more for live-action doesn't constitute them objecting to 3D. quote: Claude S. Ayakawa The argument about people prefer not to pay more for 3-D is not a very good one because all multiplexes playing a movie in 3-D are also playing a 2-D version at regular price. Except it's not true that all multiplexes with a 3D movie also have it in 2D. Sure, most of them do, but it is absolutely not all. Also, it's Avatar not Avature or Avater.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.