Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ebert on 3D Animation

This is topic Ebert on 3D Animation in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000706

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-03-2011, 09:52 AM:

He still doesn't like it:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/the_best_animated_films_of_201.html

quote:
The Elephant in the Room. This is 3D, of course. It is the misfortune of contemporary animation that it must mostly be viewed as if through the fog of a peat fire. It is too dim, I tell you, TOO DIM! Do I make myself clear? And more expensive -- and not worth the extra money. Blast and damn, thundernation, tonnerre le brest, rumble, grumble...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-03-2011, 12:25 PM:

I get the feeling he's never seen a 3-D movie on a decent system.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-03-2011, 01:30 PM:

He's certainly never been to a 3D IMAX presentation.

He's right about the extra money though, but arguing with a merchant that he should lower his price on goods that people seem perfectly willing to pay is like believing in Santa Clause.

And not for nuthin, bet he's really starting to sound like he's got one foot in grumpy old-fartdom.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-03-2011, 02:35 PM:

Ebert used to praise The Polar Express in Imax 3D! He is simply wishing 3D as a standard for almost everything would go away.
I have come to hate silver and high gain screens when watching 2D ,I blame the 3D craze for this! [Mad]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2011, 04:02 PM:

I wonder if it is even possible to make a computer animated cartoon that isn't in 3D any more. Also, I wonder if it is even possible to release fewer than 100 3D animated cartoons per year.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-08-2011, 12:42 PM:

quote:
I have come to hate silver and high gain screens when watching 2D ,I blame the 3D craze for this!

I think we can forget about calling it a craze. It's here for the long term. Everyone's making money on it, including the digital projector manufacturers. Once it invades the home by way of 3DTV and now the scrambling to get it into ipads and pods and cellphones, without glasses no less, it becomes a snowball that will be hard to stop as each market drives the next. After all the investment in 3D hardware, do you think there wouldn't be hell to pay if all of a sudden Hollywood stopped churning out 3D content?

As for silver screens - yes, unfortunately they are necessary for 3D and even more unfortunate is that 2D has to suffer because of them. But it won't be the first time the industry sacrificed presentation quality in favor of the almighty buck. Are we not used to this?

Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 01-08-2011, 12:52 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
As for silver screens - yes, unfortunately they are necessary for 3D

Sorry I don't share your opinion.
Remeber dolby 3D!

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 01-08-2011, 01:46 PM:

True Dolby and Xpand dont need a silver screen, around here the only 3D system in use is RealD unfortunately. I also agree that silver screens suck, especially cheep ones that are splotchy...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-08-2011, 04:14 PM:

Frank...Note Panavision's 3D is also a non-Silver screen based system, similar to Dolby's (Infitec).

It is definitely still a craze and one that is dwindling. The pay off for investing in 3D is constantly decreasing.

-Steve

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-09-2011, 02:41 AM:

3D as a marketing gimmick is pathetic, and not true to the art form. If someone is making a 3D feature that seriously wants to put effort into it and do it in an artistic way, then that is fine. However, if they truly intend on wanting it to be 3D, release it only in 3D, that way we know for sure that is what they want.

This dual release crap, multiple aspect ratios, etc. tells me that studios and filmmakers alike are just cashing in on a gimmick.

AJG

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-09-2011, 08:22 AM:

Aaron, the dual releasing of the same movie in 3D and 2D is not a betrayal of "the art form," but a case of allowing people a choice. You clearly are no fan of 3D; would you rather wait for the DVD/BD release to watch a movie in your preferred 2D?

In the 1950s, for cinemas not equipped for 3D, those movies were shown in 2D by projecting only the left or right prints. B&W prints of color films were made for television before tv became chromatic. There were silent versions of early talkies--again, for cinemas not equipped for the new technology.

Cinema history is littered with examples of "serving two masters" in order to get the most ticket sales. 3D is no different.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-09-2011, 09:45 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
He's certainly never been to a 3D IMAX presentation.

IMAX is irrelevant, there are so few theatres that it's almost not worth mentioning.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-09-2011, 11:58 AM:

quote: Hillary Charles
Aaron, the dual releasing of the same movie in 3D and 2D is not a betrayal of "the art form," but a case of allowing people a choice. You clearly are no fan of 3D; would you rather wait for the DVD/BD release to watch a movie in your preferred 2D?

My point is that if the artist truly believes in their work and wants it seen a specific way, why are they giving people a choice? When James Cameron releases Avatar in 2D, 3D, 1.85, 2.39 I think he loses credibility as an artist because we the audience do not know what his original intent is, or how does he want us to see this piece.

I look back to Hitchcock and Psycho: not only was it released in one aspect ratio, black and white but for awhile, he went as far to make sure anyone who was late could not get in. Some may call that last part a publicity stunt, but I always felt that it was merely an artist attempting to ensure his audience saw his work exactly the way he intended.

Even George Lucas tried to make inroads here when Lucasfilm developed THX. Obviously he was not pleased that his films, which he spent so much time making, were shown in mono or piss poor stereo.

This is another reason I think digital cinema is a great thing: it is going to bring a more solid standard to cinema projection that has been lacking for many years. I know when I see a film locally, it isn't guaranteed that I'm going to get an intact print, or even digital sound (several houses are still using optical sound, and not even SR), and thus ruining the intent of the artist. Sure, poor management and terrible booth monkeys are more to blame, so I am not saying film isn't capable of having standards, it is just that digital cinema helps minimize, if not eliminate some of those issues of things like whether or not we'll get digital sound or missing frames, or emulsion scratches. It's pretty damn sad when I can view a film at home with better sound than several local cinemas, and thus realizing the director's intent moreso. I hate having to say that because I love going to a cinema, and seeing this art on the biggest screen possible with the best sound possible.

As you say, the industry does have a long history of serving two masters, but who says that is the right way to do things.

AJG

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-09-2011, 12:09 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
My point is that if the artist truly believes in their work and wants it seen a specific way, why are they giving people a choice? When James Cameron releases Avatar in 2D, 3D, 1.85, 2.39 I think he loses credibility as an artist because we the audience do not know what his original intent is, or how does he want us to see this piece.

Unlike painting on canvas, the "art" of cinema requires massive amounts of money (as with Camerone's budgets), and it is in the investors' best interests to maximize the returns on their investments. It is a business, after all. Watch IFC for "art."

quote: Aaron Garman
I look back to Hitchcock and Psycho: not only was it released in one aspect ratio, black and white but for awhile, he went as far to make sure anyone who was late could not get in. Some may call that last part a publicity stunt, but I always felt that it was merely an artist attempting to ensure his audience saw his work exactly the way he intended.

Or, just maybe it was a marketing gimmick (as you say) he co-opted from William Castle.

The right way to do things is the way that helps ensure we can keep on doing those things.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-09-2011, 12:22 PM:

quote:
James Cameron releases Avatar in 2D, 3D, 1.85, 2.39 I think he loses credibility as an artist because we the audience do not know what his original intent is,

James Cameron's intent was to appeal to as my persons as possible.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2011, 01:07 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
My point is that if the artist truly believes in their work and wants it seen a specific way, why are they giving people a choice?

Right, but if they felt that way they would never allow their work to be released on video, because half or more of the audience is watching on tiny screens with crappy sound.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-09-2011, 01:21 PM:

There are only a handful of "artists" in the film world who have the power to control what formats their baby will be released in. They rarely own their work, they are just the hired help. Well compensated hired help in may cases, but still just painting the walls for the business owner.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-09-2011, 04:41 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
James Cameron's intent was to appeal to as my persons as possible

That may be true for 3D vs. 2D, but Cameron is one of those artists that had the pull to release it exclusively in 3D and still make it horribly successful and reach many people. As for the aspect ratio thing, there is no excuse for not deciding which one he wanted. I always asked myself what his true version and vision was.

It is sad that filmmaking is just a business, more than ever really because it hurts the art form going forward into the future. Kind of interesting to consider that the art of cinema is just over 100 years old. I wonder what they'll be discussing once it becomes old like painting, sculptures, literature, and theatre.

AJG

Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 01-09-2011, 05:07 PM:

quote:
This is another reason I think digital cinema is a great thing: it is going to bring a more solid standard to cinema projection that has been lacking for many years. I know when I see a film locally, it isn't guaranteed that I'm going to get an intact print, or even digital sound (several houses are still using optical sound, and not even SR),

Oh my god ... If a theater isn't able to get a decent analog sound/image it will not getting better by pushing in a digital projector.

quote:
Sure, poor management and terrible booth monkeys are more to blame,

pfff, sory but give some booth monkeys a brake. They can't be held responsable if they need to clean the theaters, sell pop corn and more of that stuff. There is also the part of who trained them and how where they trained.

And yes there are ... probleme is that they will stay when the old '35/70mm masters' retire.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-09-2011, 05:37 PM:

quote: Kris Verhanneman
Oh my god ... If a theater isn't able to get a decent analog sound/image it will not getting better by pushing in a digital projector.

quote: Kris Verhanneman
pfff, sory but give some booth monkeys a brake. They can't be held responsable if they need to clean the theaters, sell pop corn and more of that stuff. There is also the part of who trained them and how where they trained.

That's exactly my point: since the multiplex model is often a poorly trained usher in the booth that also runs the stand, cleans theatres, etc., digital cinema eliminates that variable. Am I happy the business has come to that, no: I love film and what it is capable of. However, the reality is that in the modern multiplex, it isn't as efficient as having digital cinema. It also eliminates the question on what sound format you are going to get when you see a film: will it be SR, mono, digital? With digital cinema, you get lossless sound, that's it. I know I hate dropping $15 to go to a movie in a first run cinema just to get treated to bad optical sound and a scratched up print.

AJG

EDIT: I should add that I was horribly disappointed when I visited the El Capitan and the Chinese this summer they were running digital cinema: houses that size and of that scope should be employing truly great projectionists that know how to run a great 35 or 70 presentation.