|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Lucas releasing all six Star Wars movies in 3D in 2007
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-28-2005 09:45 PM
Agreed, but with an extended waiting period also bring more bootlegging (meaning we have to listen to the MPAA klansmen drone on about it, usually in the same speech proclaiming how many bazillions of dollars the industry made last year).
Honestly giving people a presentation that simply can NOT be had at home is THE single best thing we can do and this has been proven in many situations. Dirty and scratched prints, old or dirty lenses, shaky projectors, cinching on the sound system and it's proper tuning, acoustics, screen brightness, etc are all things that the typical theater fails to deliver on. Indeed if theaters would put their #1 attention into the projection and make the concession stand the #2 priority, more profit would be had all around. Places like Northpark proved this, and other theaters I have worked at also saw a substantial increase in business as I got the booths cleaned up and presentations tweeked, then in EVERY instance business fell after I left as the presentation started to decline.
Theater business could be improved just about anywhere once the money crunchers get it through their head that the customers are coming to see the MOVIE, not the concession stand. Every aspect of the presentation must be their #1 priority for them to succeed at their highest level. The prices at the concession stand are highway robbery as it is. Give the customers a less than phenomenal presentation of their movie and you can damn well bet they will start staying at home!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-28-2005 10:20 PM
I like 3-D in principle but I think that people who make movies in 3-D treat it like a gimmick. As long as they treat it like a gimmick it always will be.
If a movie was to be directed, composed and photographed in 3-D at the outset to look as natural as we see in real life and stay away from gimmicky effects that make objects jump off the screen at the viewer unless they contribute to the plot I think a lot of people would like it. I bet they'd want to see more 3-D movies.
I fooled around making 3-D photos (anaglyphs) with my digital camera for a while and I learned a lot about composing for 3-D.
For example:
1) A 3-D pic of a sharp pencil pointing directly at the camera so that it looks like it's going to poke the viewer in the eye. It looks great if you do it properly but it is hard to look at for more than a few seconds. It makes you want to squint your eyes for fear of getting poked. It's good as a gimmick but it wears off quickly. Then you have the afformentioned eye convergence problem. As your eyes move throughout the picture, to look at the eraser end of the pencil for instance, your eyes do get tired. You can't maintain that for long before you have to quit looking at the picture.
2) A 3-D pic of a golf ball on top of a tee, close-up. The picture is composed so that the ball appears to be just behind the surface of the paper. (Screen) You can count the dimples on the ball. You can see the grain in the tee. A picture like this you WANT to look at. It's still a gimmick, per se, but you are more engaged by it. It doesn't tire you out looking at it.
3) A 3-D pic of a bunch of stuffed anaimals setting around as if at a tea party. (The only remotely humanoid objects I could find which could be made to sit still long enough to take two photos of. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) Some of the Teddy Bears are in front of the plane of the paper/screen. Some are behind. There are a range of objects in between. Properly composed, set up and photographed, the viewer might be engaged by the picture for quite some time. They want to see the texture of the fur on the Bears. The relationship between the objects tells a story. The picture is not JUST about being 3-D. This is what 3-D SHOULD be.
The problem is that composing pictures, be they simple stills or movies, in 3-D adds at LEAST 1/3 more work to the composure time. I would say that most directors' (and DP's, etc.) eyes are trained for 2-D composition. That's where their bread and butter is and has been for most of their lives. When such a director composes in 3-D he will almost naturally compose for the gimmick aspect of the medium. He may not go for example #1 above but I venture that most of his composition will as in example #2. Either that or it will be quasi-normal composition that was simply photographed in 3-D.
Until we can get some good directors who compose 3-D movies as in example #3 above which ALSO have good plot lines, I don't think we'll ever see a 3-D movie that isn't a gimmick. And, so, there will always be a "chicken and egg" battle going on with the treatment of 3-D movies... Film companies won't spend a lot of time making "good" 3-D films because the audience will look at it as a gimmick... Audiences will look at 3-D movies as gimmicks because film companies only seem to make gimmicky 3-D films.
Therefore, remaking all the Star Wars movies as 3-D will probably be seen as noting more than gimmicks, I think, mainly because they were originally composed as 2-D flicks. It's unlikely that they will be engaging as 3-D flicks solely on that level.
Probably nobody but die hard fans will have anything more than a passing interest in them. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-29-2005 05:18 AM
Add to the point that the major draw will be the non-3D aspects of the movie (story, acting,etc.) that after the initial draw of the novelty of 3D on the marquee, people just won't care. That's probably the main reason for the short cyclical nature of 3D releases. People don't really care if something's shot flat or scope, for example.
Add to that also that at least 10% of the population don't see in 3D anyway (most don't know it), & its magnificence as an industry-shaking phenomenon is diminished some more.
I can see it as a packaging tool for re-releases to an existing fan base for additional revenue generation from a specific title, like IMAX releases of mainstream hits with strong core followings, GWTW in 70mm, DVD Special Editions, etc.
In volume 2 of _American Theatres of Today_ (1929 or 1930-ish), there's an essay by an architect on "The Theatre of Tomorrow" & what will be required architecturally for upcoming technical things directly associated with film that will be an issue - sound, 3-D --
Yeah, they've been building around that feature all since then...
[ 03-29-2005, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: William Hooper ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic