Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Katzenberg is steamed that there aren't more 3-D cinemas

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Katzenberg is steamed that there aren't more 3-D cinemas (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Katzenberg is steamed that there aren't more 3-D cinemas

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 05-02-2008 10:29 AM

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
It would cost twice as much to do it in 3-D as it did to do the movie in the first place.

When talking about a CGI rendered Pixar type movie (which is what Clone Wars is, if I'm not mistaken), isn't most of the cost in the R&D, the character model creation and the setup and animation of the scenes, not in the rendering time itself? It seems to me that to render a second eye, while certainly adding a cost to the overall production, wouldn't come anywhere near double the cost. Or am I missing something?

When done properly, 3D is stunning to look at compared to 2D. There were two main reasons why it failed in the fifties. 1) Doing it properly, but more importantly consistently properly was difficult, and 2) CinemaScope was cheaper.

Hell, theaters these days have a hard enough time getting ONE eye on the screen properly, let alone two. For that reason and a myriad of other reasons, I'm not sure 3D will last long this time either, which is a shame. I could be wrong.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 05-02-2008 01:15 PM

You're not wrong. I wish they would spend the money on story development and writing, as opposed to making it look like things are going to hit us in the face, which adds nothing to a good story. The real world is 3D; a good movie doesn't have to be.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 05-02-2008 10:08 PM

And the real world is W I D E and all those thousands of great classic movies filmed in 1.37:1 didn't seem to be marred much by their modest aspect ratio. Same for color and any other technical develpment along the way....sure they could enhance the experience, but if there isn't a really good story there at the very core, the technology alone won't hold one's attention for more than a few times, but after that, "so what?"

In fact, I was just thinking about IMAX and the first time I saw it and was awed by the overwhelming spectacle, but you know what, that first IMAX film was a wonderful, engaging piece of cinema in and of itself. And every IMAX title I've seen after that almost all have be really well-made, artistic winners. I think that has a lot to do with the staying power of the format. But imagine if they were putting some of the drek that's released these days up on that IMAX screen....they could triple the screen size and no one would give a hoot.

I don't care if it is in 3D or not; if there isn't a smart, inventive, well-told story that is carried by the technology, then it's just so much hardware and of interest only to industry people who hope to make money with it.

Think thumbs; two thumbs down is still two thumbs down, only they'll be in 3D.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-03-2008 04:24 AM

quote: Frank Angel
Katz-and-bomb

Bwahaha... Good one Frank... you just upped hiz Putz factor by at least ten with that one [thumbsup]

quote: Mark J. Marshall
There were two main reasons why it failed in the fifties.

Actually it failed back then because there were not enough "one eyed" partially blind [Cool]

directors like Andre DeToth making cool 3-D films like House OF Wax!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-19-2008 12:21 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
For one thing, the movies weren't very good.

That may be true of 3D films of the 1970's and 80's, but certainly does not apply to the 3D films of the 1950's.

quote: Bobby Henderson
One splice in the print and your sync is all screwed up. The friend of mine who manages our local Carmike told me nightmarish stories about trying to run midnight shows of Friday the 13th Part III in 3D with a badly used print.

Friday the 13th Part 3 was single roll over/under 3D. The only way to get this out of sync is to splice the top of one frame to the bottom of another, ie, projectionist error that could easily have been fixed if the operator had taken the time to inspect the print.

quote: Bobby Henderson
IMHO, companies like Paramount should digitally transfer those old 3D movies like Friday the 13th Part III in 3D and re-run them as midnight shows in digital 3D.

The studios would do better to transfer many of the great 3D movies from the 1950's such as:

Creature From The Black Lagoon
Return Of The Creature
House Of Wax
Kiss Me Kate
Inferno
Mad Magician
French Line

and any of the other 60 or so 3D films from that time period.

quote: Bobby Henderson
At least now the freaking 3D will work!

It worked then. The problem was/is that people do not like wearing those glasses. Killed it then, it will kill it now.

| 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.