Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: A new lease of life for 3-D movies?

This is topic A new lease of life for 3-D movies? 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=000970

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-28-2011, 03:53 PM:

Ever since I saw my first movies in 3-D in the fifties, I have always loved the format. I must admit I was not too impressed with the 'Over/Under system in the seventies because the image was too dark and the 3-D effects was not too good. On top of that, the movies released in the format were pretty bad including JAWS 3-D and FRIDAY THE 13- 3D. I enjoyed the first two Jaws movies and was hoping the same with #3 but the movie was dreadful. The same goes for the Friday The 13 film. I was very happy when 3-D came back again in 2005 with CHICKEN LITTLE. Unlike the fifties when I saw almost every 3-D movies that played in Honolulu, I have been very selective with current 3-D movies because the earlier ones were animated and catered to children and others were bloody slasher horror movies. AVATUR was a great 3-D movie and it made people look forward to more but when the film producers took short cuts and rushed 2-D movies converted to 3-D with disappointing results like the remake of CLASH OF THE TITANS and others, that turned off a lot of people including myself. Unlike many other, I still had faith in 3-D and went to see the ones that interested me such as the recent LION KING, THE THREE MUSKETEERS and THE IMMORTALS . Despite the fact that THE LION KING is a 2-D movie that was converted to 3-D, Disney did a excellent job converting the movie into 3-D. Most of THE IMMORTALS was photographed in native 3-D but some CGI scenes that had to be shot in 2-D but I could not tell the difference between those scenes and the ones captured in 3-D in the finished film.

With the exception of James Cameron , It was very obvious serious filmmakers were not embracing 3-D until Martin Scorsese decided to try his hand in the format with his latest film HUGO. I was just amazed how wonderful the 3-D was when I saw the movie yesterday. Unlike other 3-D movies when objects were thrown in your face, Scorsese did it in a more subtle way when he used snow flakes come floating out of the screen towards you and close up of characters' face protrude out of the screen. As I had mentioned in my review of HUGO I had posted yesterday, even Roger Ebert who dislikes Movies in 3-D praised the way it was used in HUGO. I am looking forward to seeing the next 3-D movie by another renowned filmmaker when Steven Spielberg's THE ADVENTURES of TIN-TIN is released next month. Another movie I am looking forward to is Peter Jasckson's THE HOBBIT using the latest high tech 3-D system. In my humble opinion, with movies like HUGO, THE ADVENTURES of TIN-TIN and THE HOBBIT, 3-D movies does seem to have a future after all.

-Claude

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-28-2011, 04:13 PM:

The way I see it, 3D is great for movies where it can add to the narrative or visual impact of the story. Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon, and Up are all examples where the 3D really works. I haven't watched Hugo yet, but I have heard it's a amazing 3D visual experience.

The problem is the studios have started using 3D as a way to make more money. Customers can tell that the 3D doesn't add anything and they don't like paying the extra.

At this point, the studios need to pull back on their use of 3D and save it for the movies that actually can make good use of it. And I'm not sure what to think about converting older movies and re-releasing them. Star Wars is a very good fit for 3D, but I don't know about Titanic or Beauty and the Beast.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-28-2011, 04:39 PM:

Well put, Justin. I saw the trailers in 3-D for both the SAR WARS- Episode #1 and TITANIC when I saw HUGO yesterday, and they both looked pretty good. I plan to see both and cannot wait.

If the studios realize they are killing 3-D when rushing crummy movies in the format one after another into theatres, I hope they will backtrack and be very aware of the kind of movies people would like to see in 3-D. I hope they now realize good 3-D movies can be made that would get favorable reviews of the format from anti 3-D critics like Roger Ebert. with his comments about HUGO. I think five or six 3-D movies a year would be just about right by film makers who will use the process in a very creative way like Scorsese did with HUGO. This way, 3-D movies would be a special event and I feel people will be more than wiling to pay extra to see them.

-Claude

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-28-2011, 06:39 PM:

But unfort, as mentioned many times, "Hollyrock" gears these films to this generation since they're the ones that mainly attend our cinemas, thus 3D is actually "their gimmick to enjoy", and not for prior generations.

Yes, "Hugo", in 3D, is one of the better 3D flicks - both in story and in effects....just too bad that it was in Flat, not Scope as the trailers that I've played depected.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-28-2011, 11:32 PM:

quote:
. I saw the trailers in 3-D for both......and TITANIC when I saw HUGO

I have to say, I cannot wait till Titanic comes out again on the big screen, I just saw the well done trailer. It is no doubt an historic and great film is a spectacular in the scope of the film and it really deserved the 11 Oscars it got and I really think Winslet should of got one for it as well.

I have no doubt it will be big once again, I could easily see $200+ million domestic.

Interesting things that James Cameron has said are that it will look better than it ever has before even if you watch it in (2D)...I wonder how this would compare to the 70mm prints which were made back in the initial release.

Also, I am surprised IMAX is getting their hands on it...wonder if it will get a 15/70 treatment?

Anyways, I am glad to see a film of this magnitude getting a re-release.

quote:
Didn't you also say that Hereafter was amazing and deserved 4-stars? I'm pretty sure I remember that.

I saw this in 2D when I first saw it, I thought it was a great movie then...I then saw it again in 3D...3D important but it does not make a good film great, a great film is a great film if it is 2D or 3D...

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-28-2011, 11:47 PM:

I could be wrong, but Hereafter was not a 3D film.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-29-2011, 01:21 AM:

Seems Disney, Pixar are so well versed in the language of 3D at this point, their conversions will no doubt be first class jobs. I just bought THE LION KING and the 3D is just as it should have been, natural and not calling attention to itself. Mostly it was composed from the screen back and rarely any significant covergence in front of the screen and even then, only when the primary objects were not breaking the screen perimeters. Their use of 3D didn't call attention to the process. Which is the way it should be and the only way it will gain favor.

I have no doubt that Cameron will do his conversions with equal restraint in TITANIC 3D if he follows the 3D style of AVATAR -- a most laudable use of it as a tool, not an end in itself.

Now just get rid of the damn surcharge (like there is no surcharge for scope or digital sound or even DCinema) and I would bet the majority of distaste for 3D will evaporate. Imagine how resentful people would be of scope if they had to pay and extra $3 for every wide screen release?!

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-29-2011, 01:41 AM:

Hugo I think is the proof that 3D can be worthwhile (never thought I'd say that). It's a tremendous movie.

I too saw the trailers for Star Wars and Titanic, and I have to say Star Wars looked 2D still. Titanic, however, had amazing depth and texture. I'm looking forward to it.

AJG

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-29-2011, 02:09 AM:

Aaron, I am glad to hear that you are starting to enjoy what good 3D can do for a film. Maybe you can become a champion of the format if you can watch just a few more really good ones. I too am going to see HUGO and looking forward to TITANIC and the STAR WARS films. Done right, these can be new experiences all over again. And not for nuttin, but Hillary and Claude and I need as many on our side of the isle as we can get!

BTW, I was a the DeBartolo Browning Cinema for the Met broadcast two weeks ago. Sound was impressive, although I still don't understand why they insist on designing cinemas with needing to hang surround speakers when they could simply place them behind acoustically transparant material so they are not see by the audience but HEARD. The booth is quite small though for a brand new build. I was told they are looking for funding to install DCinema. Pretty unusual to think ND needs to "look" for funds when they seem to be able to build gorgeous new buildings every other week. Then again, Cinema is always the bastard child, I guess, especially in a place that lives and breaths football. It certainly was for many decades -- I know you are too young to have seen it, but years ago they only showed movies in the Washington Hall theatre; try to imagine a scope movie being shown in that proscenium? It was a cropped nightmare.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-29-2011, 03:00 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
get rid of the damn surcharge (like there is no surcharge for scope or digital sound or even DCinema)

Reminds me of a company that I know aroundabouts that remodeled one of their 6plex locations: new seats (nice highbacks..in "sloped floor" auditoriums..short people now can't see the screen and the bottom of the screen is only 5ft off the floor..."wonderful thinking here..") , re-tiled the auditoriums to black, overhauled the sound to be all DTS where only two houses had it originally and the other 4 were front/surround...et.al. ..

Originaly, a $2.00 discount house, but they anted the tix price up a dollar to a $3.00 sub-run status so they can compete with the other sub-run down the street..

"..just to get movies from the first run houses faster..why of the upcharge-you know, film contract agreements".

..what the staff were told the customers on why the tix went up a buck.

"Sure! ... what a gimmick-this scheme isn't bringing in extra bodies and that buck was to pay for the remodeling that you guys did"...as as few customers blurted out to the employees.

Couldn't fool them too quickly - they read right though the BS.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-29-2011, 06:14 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
I could be wrong, but Hereafter was not a 3D film.

And I asked him about his opinion of Hereafter in the Spielberg vs Eastwood thread. Think he just got confused late at night...

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-29-2011, 10:55 AM:

Oh wow Frank, I work most of those Met events and probably missed you! Next time, come to the ticket office and say hello or ask for me!

Digital is inevitable. But let's face it, everything takes time in academia.

Scope at Washington Hall? I can't even fathom it. I bet it'd be a fun place to watch a silent film though! If you're interested in the building, one of our resident professors of theatre just wrote a book about Washington Hall's history. I haven't finished it, but hoping for some tidbits about movies.

What brought you all the way to Notre Dame from Brooklyn?

AJG