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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » 3D is bad for you ... (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: 3D is bad for you ... Jeremy Jorgenson Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1002 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: Feb 2005 posted 03-16-2010 09:18 PM                        quote: Darryl Spicer Saw 6 seven. Jackass 3D should be interesting.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 03-17-2010 12:05 PM                    Yep 7 is what I ment.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-23-2010 04:15 AM                        There will always be lousy movies whether they are in 3D or not. Why are we continuing to call 3D a gimmick? You see in 3D ALL THE TIME. Is it a gimmick? Is color a gimmick? There was a time when critics were saying the same thing about color....that only certain genre of films should be made in color. SERIOUS films, dramas should be made in black and white. The color "gimmick" should be used only for fluffy subjects like musicals and comedies. Now we think of those arguments as quaint or even silly. 3D is not a gimmick, it's a cinematic tool just like color. One could say the same thing about color as Joe said about 3D -- "what's the point" of having a film in color when you could tell the same story equally as well in black and white? As more and more films are made in 3D, and even more to the point, as 3D Television becomes a reality, 3D will become part of the entertainment landscape just as color TV eventually became ubiquitous. And that WILL happen sooner rather than later because the broadcast industry and hardware manufactures are all geared up to MAKE it happen. At this point the public is almost irrelevant. I was just flipping thru cable channels today and on CableVision Chn 3 - iOTV as it calls itself -- the screen was black. How odd I though, so I want back to it and there on the bottom of the screen was the station ID band which read, iOTV in 3D. Evidently they are already testing 3D transmission. Once 3D TV become a reality, the idea that 3D could be a passing fad will become moot. Once it's in the living room and not just an occasional specialty at the movies, it will be here to stay, just like color. The fact that there will be bad 3D movies, just like there are bad movies in color, will no longer be the deciding factor as to whether or not 3D "sticks" this time. Directors don't HAVE to throw things at the audiences and they will learn that fast enough, just like directors learned that they didn't need to have gaudy bright colored objects dominate every scene to show off the color process. Cameron knew how to use 3D; AVATAR is about the best use of 3D I've seen. 50 years before him DeToth knew it and made HOUSE OF WAX with superb 3D depth and with very few gratuitous in-your-face 3D effects....the same with Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER in which most of the whole film was shot with practically everything further behind the screen plane. So why did it need 3D at all Joe would ask? Well, why did it need color at all? It's a way of seeing that the director chose to use, as is the case with all cinematic tools. Why shoot in 1.85 or scope? Why not Academy? Is 1.85 a gimmick? Is scope? (don't answer that!) And Julio, I too was at the first 3D Expo, and except for 2 days when I couldn't get up in the morning in time for the first screening, I watched all three movies all 6 days of that festival and I DIDN'T go directly to my hotel but partied at least three nights into the wee hours and every night drove back to the hotel which was in Santa Monica, not downtown. I can attest that I suffered nary the slightest bit of ill effects from watching six hours of 3D movie a day. No dysphoria, no dyslexia, no dyspepsia; no difficulty balancing, swallowing or judging distances. Like I said, the brain is quite adaptable and a pretty smart organ to boot; it seems to have no trouble figuring out what is a 3D movie and what is 3D reality. At least that was my experience as well as the guys I was partying with after those long days of dual projection 3D. None of us were even mildly impaired...at least not from the 3D!  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-23-2010 07:10 AM                     Thank you Frank! That's exactly how I feel about 3D. For those who believe 3D is a gimmick, I found this suggestion: If you want to make a movie without ANY "gimmicks," write a book!  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-23-2010 09:41 AM                        Isn't it funny that all the things that are fun and enjoyable on this planet are bad for you in some way. It's a f-ing conspiracy!  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 03-23-2010 11:34 AM                        Frank & Hillary, you are my kind of people! Frank, in addition to color being a fad, so was sound. Some people hated it at first but both color and sound was perfected and became an industry standard today and so will 3-D. How I wish 3-D survived in the fifties because it was very good. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 03-23-2010 12:28 PM                        So you think that in the near future, 3D will be used on all but the random artsy-fartsy independent picture? And to my knowledge sound is always used even on those types. Sound and color go hand in hand with the picture. 3D really doesn't. I don't think it can really be compared. A lot of people cannot see proper 3D or can't see it at all, so it does nothing for them. Sure, some people are colorblind or deaf, but those people are outcasts from society and shunned into dark caves where they eat maggots and used toilet paper to survive, but 3D-less people are still allowed to walk our streets by law. Both color and sound add A LOT to any movie. It makes a huge difference. Does 3D? Not really. It is neat to look at when done right, but that's about it. Plus it is super annoying because you are forced to wear glasses which also deteriorate the image quality. If you are watching a movie and suddenly the sound or color goes away, you notice immediately. If the 3D went away during a movie and people were suddenly watching 2D, most wouldn't notice or probably even care. Plus, you are not paying inflated ticket prices for movies with color and/or sound. So yes, I can see how 3D can be labeled as a gimmick. Get rid of the idiotic glasses, charge the same price and then we'll have this conversation again.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 03-23-2010 12:34 PM                     quote: Mike Blakesley The backlash could happen when enough crappy movies get released in 3D and people get the idea they're being screwed with the higher ticket price, hence they then decide not to go to 3D movies anymore And their already been some of those crappy ones released where the film version did better than the 3D version. And in some demographic areas, this above statement already holds true: people can't see the logic in paying more to see the same movie that they can pay for less.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-23-2010 01:35 PM                     I think that color and sound go hand in hand with the picture because for decades that's the way it's been. We're used to it, grew up with it. As Frank and Claude point out, neither sound nor color were originally part of the movies. And initially there was some (audience and/or industry) resistance to those unfamiliar elements when they were slowly introduced. If we had fifty years of consistent 3D entertainment, you'd see people avoiding 2D pictures they way they click past a channel showing black & white content. Now I do agree that 3D won't become ubiquitous until there's a good way to watch it without glasses. However, I don't mind the glasses. They don't look that bad, and who's looking at you in the movie theater anyway? I just came in from outside, and took off my sunglasses before checking the computer. Sunglasses are a good idea, not just for comfort on a sunny day, but to help prevent cataracts from excessive exposure to the sunlight. Why should wearing similar glasses in order to derive an extra dimension of entertainment be so bad, relatively speaking? Maybe people will tire of the glasses or not, but I do believe that what could kill 3D this time is all the half-assed "converted" 3D movies like "Clash Of The Titans" coupled with the high surcharge. I doubt people will find it worthwhile to pay so much extra for fakey-looking 3D. It's still 3D, but if it doesn't look quite right, people will notice, even without understanding what's wrong. For anyone who's familiar with 3D in the 1950s, was there any surcharge, or was it just used to get people back in the cinemas?  |  IP: Logged James Westbrook Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1133 From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa Registered: Mar 2006 posted 03-23-2010 02:15 PM                     When I ran Comin' At Ya through Amityville 3 in the early 80s there was no additional charge on the ticket price for 3D movies.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 03-23-2010 04:14 PM                        Hillary, I was about thirteen years old and considered a minor during the 3-D era in the fifties and was living on an allowance my mother gave me and do not think I had paid more for 3-D movies. than regular films. The glasses were not as sturdy as the ones used today and were rather cheap looking. I was not wearing glasses at the time so I had no problem with the 3-D specs. With my senior citizen discount today, I am asked to pay $3.50 more for the glasses when I see a movie in RealD 3-D and Dolby 3-D and about two dollars more for IMAX 3-D. Because IMAX cost more, I am very selective what I see in that format. The last movie I saw in digital IMAX 3-D was AVATAR. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-23-2010 06:18 PM                        quote: Hillary Charles For anyone who's familiar with 3D in the 1950s, was there any surcharge, or was it just used to get people back in the cinemas? There was no surcharge in the good old days, but 3-D is way more expensive with digital than it ever was back then. Even the "special lenses" used during the last 3-D craze in the mid '80s were only about $2000. With digital you're looking at 10 to 20 times that amount. What's funny is that back then, 3-D was a gimmick "to get people back to the theatres" but in reality, good stories and good movies did the trick just as well without the gimmicks.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 03-23-2010 06:22 PM                        That won't work this time as the home can do anything the theater can do just as well if not better. Anyway Technicolor 3D still has a surcharge on it even though in reality it is only a special lens and a silver screen, just like the 80's. I'd be a lot more receptive of 3D if it weren't for this completely bullshit surcharge.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-24-2010 07:54 AM                     Thanks guys for the info. I figured that the difference today is the huge investment for the 3D attachments, far more than anything needed previously for theatrical 3D. It would be nice if once the equipment were amortized, the fee could at least drop down to $1 extra. But I realize that as long as the royalty fees remain, that ain't gonna happen. Good movies and good stories will always remain in fashion. Money is very tight for us right now, and I've noticed that I can enjoy good drama on the tv set at home, without having to spend $20+ to see it theatrically. 3D gives us a cinema experience not quite possible at home (and if scale is an issue, never really will) and gets us to the movies. Probably like Claude, I've gone to see movies I normally would not have, just to see them in 3D! Yeah, I went to see "My Bloody Valentine," but stayed home and watched "The Queen." And I enjoyed both very much. I'm probably the exact kind of rube the studios are doing this for!  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-24-2010 02:48 PM                     I agree with Claude that 3-D is good however I still prefer the two projector 3-D format... weather it be digital or film... nothing beats two projectors. Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

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.