|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: My Bloody Valentine 3D - Marketing Shenanigans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God
Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 01-19-2009 03:42 PM
Why are comparisons only being made between the 3-D formats of the eighties and the current digital 3-D and not the dual projection process of the early fifties? I my opinion, the current digital process is much better that the eighties which I thought sucked. The 3-D effect in both however leaves a lot to be desired COMPARED TO THE DUAL PROJECTION 3-D OF THE FIFTIES. Both the current digital and the eighties process use a single projector but the fifties system used two projectors with separate light source that had very deep 3-D effects comparable to 70mm IMAX 3-D that has a beautiful bright picture.
Like current 3-D films, the earlier films of the fifties used a lot of gimmicks where objects was always coming at you and I must admit as a fourteen year old young man, I thought it was super cool! Because of this and poor projection methods, the process was just about dead when quality pictures were being made in Natural Vision 3-D including DIAL M FOR MURDER, HONDO, KISS ME KATE, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, and a few others.
-Claude
[ 01-19-2009, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Claude S. Ayakawa ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-19-2009 08:40 PM
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Like current 3-D films, the earlier films of the fifties used a lot of gimmicks where objects was always coming at you
Most 3D films, at all times, try to make a statement by sticking something out of the screen to the audience. Not all of them, but most do.
But out of the ones I've seen, just about them all, I'll say the ones in the 50's were, generally speaking, the ones sticking the least amount of stuff at your eyes.
Many films in the 70's/80's weren't but 1/4 of the time showcasing the 3D out-of-the-screen. I remember Frankenstein, were everything was off-the screen, Fantastic voyage (or something like that) with so much 3D that the closing titles was like 10 minutes cuts of all out-of-the-screen throught the film. Here in Spain they shot two of those movies absolutely filled with 3D effects ... Treasure of the Four Crown and Comin' at Ya.
Also a bunch of German/Swedish/French soft-core flicks with plenty of effects (Emmanuelle, Venus, Liebe). 2 or 3 chinese Kung-Fu films that were packed-to-the-rib with 3D effects, and that Indian one with pretty good ones too.
In the 50's films, I don't even recall a single one that was just a showcase for 3D. Sure most included 2-5 scenes with stuff obviously coming-at-you just for the 3D, but not the 10-20 scenes of the 80's films. There are always a couple of exceptions, of course.
I, for example, don't even recall a single "strong 3D" effect in Miss Sadie Thompson. Dial M only had like 1 or 2 "strong-3D" scenes. Kiss Me Kate had a few and was better 3-D aware overall. Etc.
Regardless, the 50's films felt more like regular films where the 3D was just there to add to the story and the occasional couple of 3D-staged gimmicks. The 80's films seemed to be mostly about the 3D, like Journey or Spy Kids was in the 00's.
Certainly the quality of (properly) projected dual 35mm film with linear polarized filters, which was the way done in "100%" of the 3D of the 50's, is superior to that of any digital Real-D installation in almost all aspects ... Keyword, though= "properly".
Digital is certainly more fool-proof, easier, and produces reasonably good results. That much is true. But, better???? Hmmmm .... Whoever says that a Real-D system has any better quaility in (just about) any parameter ... obviously has never seen a (proper) 50's dual 35mm 3D presentation ...
And here are 4-days weekend numbers for Boxoffice Number 3 and 4 films this weekend:
My Bloody Valentine 3-D (Rated R): $24,240,000, 2,534 screens, $9,566 per screen
Notorious (Rated R): $24,000,000, 1,638 screens, $14,652 per screen.
So much for a "3-D film grossing 3, 4 times more than 2D ....". Let's not forget that 3-D has usually a higher ticket price for the surcharge and is often engaged in the "top houses" at their best brand-new digital 3D screens. Also, early 3D films like this, get a lot of attendance from people curious about the 3D itself since they've never-ever-ever seen any movie whatsoever that way. Once the novelty wears out, 3D movies hardly get any new patrons for the 3D only.
I've heard of a few cases of people watching Valentine, realizing it wasn't 3D at their join, and planning on watching it again in 3D. In a way, it's "false" attendance since poor patrons were mislead by marketing. Once at the 2D theater door, they decided to walk in and leave the 3D visit for the following day or whatever. Those that have seen it in 3D I'm sure have no desire to walk into a (repeat) 2D showing.
[ 01-20-2009, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic