Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3D or not 3D? ... an article in Time Magazine

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 3D or not 3D? ... an article in Time Magazine (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: 3D or not 3D? ... an article in Time Magazine

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 04-06-2009 09:32 PM

Letter to the editor in this week's Entertainment Weekly:

Could someone please let 3-D movies die a quiet death, just like they did in the 1950s? A good movie is a good movie and doesn't need gizmos, especially astigmatism-inducing glasses. If I want 3-D, I'll take out my old ViewMaster disks. Oh wait, they stopped making those, didn't they?

And another one:
Jeffrey Katzenberg is right that "to bring peole back to the movie theaters, we've got to do something exceptional." But instead of gimmicks like the third coming of 3-D, how about some solid scripts and good stories?"

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

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

posted 04-06-2009 09:38 PM

And then there is Roger Ebert
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090325/REVIEWS/903259989

quote:
"Monsters vs. Aliens" is possibly the most commercial title of the year. How can you resist such a premise, especially if it's in 3-D animation? Very readily, in my case. I will say this first and get it out of the way: 3-D is a distraction and an annoyance. Younger moviegoers may think they like it because they've been told to, and picture quality is usually far from their minds. But for anyone who would just like to be left alone to see the darned thing, like me, it's a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look.

| IP: Logged

Peter Castle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 220
From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 04-07-2009 01:06 AM

Agree 100% with Roger Ebert.

If "Monsters and Aliens" is "this year's most commercial film" heaven help us!

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04-07-2009 02:56 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
But instead of gimmicks like the third coming of 3-D, how about some solid scripts and good stories?"

That's what great about TCM where one can see these movies that contains these two attributes.

I think Hollyrock is aware of the gizmometry of 3D. Why they are only releasing a handful - one each month for the next two years.

(going on the eyes/vision thing: I have to wear dark, or amber shades outside due to the extreme brightness and not wanting cataracts when I get older. My father and mother both suffered cataracts in their advanced ages since, being farmers and working outside in the bright sun - the sun finally took the toll on their eyes..)

| IP: Logged

Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 04-07-2009 06:01 AM

Roger Ebert has been notoriously anti 3D for decades. Reading anything by him against 3D is a "dog bites man" story. Nothing new.

And for those people whining that the current 3D fad should soon fade; every title can be seen in 2D, so why bitch about something they never need bother with? So those of us who want to see 3D no longer have it?

"Good scripts and good stories" play just as well on DVD at home, not as likely to put asses in the seats as 3D may. Perhaps it isn't the hoped-for panacea, but for John and myself, the last two movies we went out to see were 3D. It's the only thing getting us to the cinema at this point. We can wait to watch the other stuff at home.

Hmmm, I wonder if I could dig out some old Photoplay magazines to find similar letters to the editor about sound and color.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-07-2009 08:33 AM

Let us not forget that roger had major problems too including if memory serves me a stroke... Who knows how things look to him any longer...

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 04-07-2009 09:48 AM

quote:
If "Monsters and Aliens" is "this year's most commercial film" heaven help us!

To be fair, he didn't say it's the most commercial FILM, he said the most commercial TITLE. Meaning it's a title with a great hook.

Mark - Ebert's medical problems have mostly to do with his voice. His eyesight and writing ability are apparently unaffected. He's just not a fan of 3-D.

quote: Hillary Charles
every title can be seen in 2D, so why bitch about something they never need bother with?

That's not always true. What if a single-screen theatre goes digital? I'm still not sure what to do about the 3-D dilemma. On the one hand I want to give the customers what they want; on the other hand I don't like the idea of pissing off the people who don't like 3-D, especially when I am one of them! Maybe running a film in 3-D in week 1, and 2-D in week 2, is the answer.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 04-07-2009 11:53 AM

Mike: A single screen theatre can't afford to add 3D.

I can't believe it. . . . I finally found something I agree with Ebert on. . . . . hell must be frrezing over! Louis

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-07-2009 12:48 PM

Mike,

I don't think that's the answer nor do I think they'd let you do that... I think the best answer is to run a balanced schedule of shows... meaning by not playing all the 3-D stuff that happens by if you equip for 3-D...

Mark

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 04-07-2009 02:29 PM

I've had some exhibitors talk about doing some 2D shows mixed with 3D. That is, say the first show on Sunday will be 2D or something like that.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Todd Leach
Film Handler

Posts: 18
From: West Liberty, IA, USA
Registered: May 2001

posted 04-07-2009 06:10 PM

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Mike: A single screen theatre can't afford to add 3D.

I'm a single screen theatre operator and I have 3D and can afford it. Right now there is no question for me, run the 3D, most everyone else is running 2D. I've had no complaints about having 3D only shows.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.