|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Report: '3D films could damage market'
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-14-2011 06:39 AM
quote:
quote: Louis Bornwasser
3D has already tanked in KY. About 40% of the screens book 2-2D prints
That makes me VERY happy! I wish I could have seen Tron in 2D DLP.
So all those theatres in Kentucky are all loosing their 3D equipment investment, and this makes you happy because....?
If you really want to see 3D titles in 2D, just wait until they come out on DVD -- problem solved. OR, if you MUST see a 3D movie in 2D, just bring some gaffer tape and put a piece over one eye of the 3D glasses. OR, if you are REALLY all that stoked about seeing TRON in 2D, just take two pair of 3D glasses, punch the lens of the Right Eye out of pair #1, and punch the Left Eye lens out of pair #2. Now take Right Eye lens from Pair #1 and snap it into the Left Eye frame of Pair #2. Voila! You can see TRON in 2D.
But why stop there -- I mean, when you come out of the theatre you will be bombarded by that awful 3D all around you...best when you get outside, wear an eye patch over one eye so you can see EVERYTHING in 2D. After all, as has been said here over and over, 3D adds nothing to the experience, right? So why walk around being forced to constantly see everything in 3D?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-14-2011 03:15 PM
Did Huxley put his finger on it? (Pun intended. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) )
Does the public, in general, gravitate toward more immersive multimedia technology?
We have 3-D movies. We have motion simulator systems in movie theaters. We have wind machines, machines that blow water and move or vibrate the viewer's seats. We even have technology that can generate smells in the auditorium.
Is it just a matter of time before we create some technology that can recreate physical sensations like the way Huxley's "Feelies?"
Do you think the public, in some way, demands more and more gimmicks like these to go along with their movies, television or multimedia presentations?
I'm afraid that there is a demand for this even if it is only an undercurrent in the public's interest.
Personally, I am not in favor of it whether it is merely 3-D or the fully immersive "Feelie." I think that one very important aspect of movies is the ability of the viewer to use his imagination to fill in the blanks, as it were.
If a book, a movie, a ssong, a television program or even a stage play gives the viewer ALL the information, there is less incentive for a person to watch, read, listen or otherwise participate. Every person who watches a movie has different tastes and different ideas about what's happening. By giving too much information, it robs the viewer of the right to concentrate on what's important to him.
Let's say I'm watching a gun battle. Some people might be interested in the guns and how they shoot. Some people might be interested in tactics or strategy. Other people might be interested in the emotion of the situation. Still, others might be interested in the characters' motivations for fighting. Even if you have ten people watching the movie and all of them are interested in the same aspect of the scene, all ten of them have a different perspective.
By adding immersive technology to movies, we prevent people from taking their own perspective and making their own interpretations of the action according to those perspectives and "force" everybody to see, feel and understand the scene according to the movie maker's perspective.
Maybe some people will like it. Maybe they won't.
But, I'm willing to bet that the OP's statement that an overabundance of 3-D movies might hurt the movie business, in general, has something to do with the fact that 3-D movies give some people too much information, thereby robbing them of the ability to see things in the way that is most pleasing to themselves.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 01-14-2011 05:33 PM
Randy, I agree that Huxley was very prescient in that book! And in that vein, you post some interesting questions, some of which I've asked myself.
In the Ken Burns documentary, "Empire of the Air," someone talks about asking a child years ago if he prefers radio or the (then new) television. The child responded, "Radio, the pictures are better."
Imagination is a wonderful thing. I do fear with the advance of all kinds of technology, imagination is being bred out of much of the species. We are immersed and anesthetized by incredible technology which does so much for and to us, our imagination atrophies as it is needed less and less.
In spite of my support for 3D, I enjoy old radio programs and silent movies. Reading remains a favorite pasttime. But so many today want all their entertainment pre-chewed for easier consumption, with everything spelled out visually, aurally and thematically, little effort necessary on the part of the viewer. Can you imagine trying to get some people to watch a production of "Our Town"?
So I can appreciate the misgivings that arise whenever a more "literal" addition (such as 3D) is added to our cinema vocabulary. Personally, I wouldn't recommend a steady diet of any one medium, but as I alluded to earlier, there is so much more out there from which to choose, as long as one has an open mind, and is willing to flex it a little, that atrophy doesn't have to occur.
quote: Randy Stankey
By adding immersive technology to movies, we prevent people from taking their own perspective and making their own interpretations of the action according to those perspectives and "force" everybody to see, feel and understand the scene according to the movie maker's perspective.
This is a concern I've read before. And while I can understand the fear that the literal expression of the objects within a scene take away some interpretation on the part of the viewer, I feel that it is merely an extention of the long-accepted concept of mise en scene. The placement of the camera and everything in front of the camera is always predetermined; adding the z-axis merely allows the director to better exploit that placement, IMO. You can disagree, and that's fine.
And though some people cringe when I make comparisons to color, I must add this. The Wizard of Oz was one of the first Hollywood movies to be televised in color in the mid 1950s. The overwhelming number of people saw that in B&W, as color television receivers were exhorbitantly expensive. When those viewers saw the ruby slippers, they had to imagine the color. Likewise with the yellow brick road. Maybe the movie didn't need color after all. Certainly the performances and songs came through just as well. Millions enjoyed it with the assist from their own imaginations. But it is undeniably more fun in Technicolor. And though others may not feel as some of us do, I find the addition of 3D to enhance the entertainment value as well, even if it is only icing on the cake.
Hope that makes sense.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 01-14-2011 09:45 PM
quote: Randy Stankey
It's just important that technology, whatever form it takes, is used to further the plot or the mood or the feeling of the movie but not used instead of a plot.
Randy, I think that train has left the station. That same wish has been expressed in regards to CGI for years already.
And Joe, sure people automatically use depth cues which do not require binocular vision. It's as automatic as me not caring what colors things should be in a black & white movie, or what Ben Turpin's voice sounds like. For any individual movie, the elements are as intended, and there are no missing sensory elements in the context of that movie.
Forgive me, but to me, 3D actually adds entertainment value on a visual level. And since the binocular depth cues are synthesized into a three-dimensional image in the brain, the images seem more indelible to me, as though they're being imprinted deeper than 2D images are. Clearly, not everyone feels this way, and far be it from me to insist everyone must have the same reaction. I guess there's a reason the acronym YMMV exists.
| 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
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
And since we primarily go to the movies for 3D these days, I don't recall watching a 2D feature on a silver screen.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic