Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3-D headed in the wrong direction

This is topic 3-D headed in the wrong direction in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002266

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-20-2009, 02:44 PM:

Of all the many 3-D films released so far, only JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH, MY BLODDY VALENTINE and FINAL DESTINATION were live action. The rest were all animated. I always thought AVATER was going to be the first live action quality 3-D film but I had learned, that too will be partially animated. What is it with the studio brass when they expect theatre owners to invest in digital 3-D and pretty much provide them with mostly animated movies? I only bothered to see a few animated digital 3-D movies out of curiosity. The first one was MONSTER HOUSE because it was the first movie to show in Hawaii with digital projection with 3-D. The 2nd one was NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS because I was curious to see how a 2-D animated film look like after it was digitalized to 3-D. The 3rd was BEOWOLF because I was very interested in this movie because of the use of animation that made the figures look lifelike and I enjoyed the movie very much. The 4th movie I saw in 3-D was MONSTERS AND ALIENS because I wanted to see how it look in digital IMAX 3-D. The 3-D image was awesome but I was very bored with this movie. The 4th and last was UP because I wanted to see Pixar's first 3-D animated movie and I was not disappointed. I did not bother to see the others and will continue to avoid seeing animated 3-D fims with the exception of AVATURE and perhaps the TOY STORY 3-D double feature next month.

Back in the old day in the fifties, the producers made 3-D films that used gimmicks such as objects flying into your face like FINAL DESTINATION I just saw. It was fun But when it is done all the time, it can become very tedious. I had enjoyed all of the 3-D films I saw in the fifties including classics such as HOUSE OF WAX, THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, IT CAME FROM OUT OF SPACE, but I had missed out in seeing films like DIAL M FOR MURDER, KISS ME KATE, HONDO and MISS SADIE THOMPSON because 3-D was just about dead when these films were released and I only saw them in 2-D. As far as the admission price to see a movie in 3-D in the fifties, it was not as bad as it is today. I do not recall paying more to see a 3-D film at that time but I am sure the theatres charged extra but not as much as today. My senior admission price now is 6.75 for a regular movie but it cost me $10.25 to see 3-D - an increase of $3.50. IMAX is $2.00 more! [Frown]

Why quality film like INGLORIOUS BASTARDS and many others was not shot and shown in theatres in 3-D is beyond me. If the film producers concentrated on producing quality live action 3-D films for adults rather than children without the usual gimmicks, I think digital 3-D will have a bright future.

-Claude

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 09-20-2009, 03:08 PM:

They find that the 3D appeals more to youngsters and children rather than Adults which is a complete wrong assesment. All ages should be treated equaly and the same amount of product should be available in both cases.
Demetris

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 09-20-2009, 03:13 PM:

Most of your conventional filmmakers believe 3D is a gimmick, and that it does nothing extra to add to the story. Maybe distracting from the story, actually. I recall reading that Alfred Hitchcock was not impressed with the format when he was shooting Dial M For Murder, but did so only because the studio insisted.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-20-2009, 03:17 PM:

I agree with James. If more film makers cared about 3D we'd see more 3D movies from them. But since they do not, we do not. Hence why something like Inglorious Basterds wasn't done 3D.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-20-2009, 03:39 PM:

CinemaScope was introduced in 1953 to combat the threat of television when en earlier effort in 3-D had failed. Like 3-D, some filmmakers at the time hated the process including George Stevens when he filmed THE DIARY OF ANN FRANK in CinemaScope because 20th Century-Fox forced him to photograph the film that way. Like Hitchcock with DIAL M FOR MURDER in 3-D, Stevens did an excellent job with the wide screen format. "Scope" at the time was considered a gimmick but it is the standard today with the majority of films released in the format because almost everyone favor it. Like "scope", 3-D can be another accepted motion picture format if given the chance with quality products and exhibition. By the way, I am sure like me, you all have two eyes and see everything in 3-D. What is wrong in seeing movies that way too?

-Claude

Posted by Gene Stavis (Member # 110) on 09-20-2009, 04:03 PM:

Well, I guess the problem is that movies are not real life. We see in 3-D, but our vision is not edited, enhanced with all the angles chosen for us and our ears pick up all kinds of information that a movie track would find distracting. 3-D and Cinemascope were roughly contemporary. It is true that they were brought out of mothballs to combat tv, but so was the "epic, cast of thousands" kind of film for the same reason. Cinerama was the first gimmick to hit screens to combat tv. Cinemascope was a cheaper alternative. So was 70mm, stereophonic sound, Cinemiracle, Superscope and all the other permutations which soon wore out their welcome. Personally, I believe that, as long as glasses are required, 3-D will never truly succeed.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 09-20-2009, 04:29 PM:

Studies have shown that most of the public don't care for the glasses, but that the glasses don't have any effect on whether or not they come back to screenings. So it's an inconvenience for most, but most don't care that much.

There's always *something* that sabotages 3D-- usually bad projection. This time around, it's ironically everything else-- mediocre output, expensive shows, declining ticket sales, etc.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-20-2009, 08:55 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Why quality film like INGLORIOUS BASTARDS and many others was not shot and shown in theatres in 3-D is beyond me.

It's because the overwhelming majority of adults don't think 3-D is necessary if the story is good. They also don't want to wear the glasses and they don't want to pay extra.

Bottom line, 3-D is just not needed if all the other elements of a quality film are in place.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-21-2009, 02:55 AM:

You answered your own question in your explanation of what happened with Cinemascope.

Some people thought Scope was dumb yet the studios forced them to use it anyway, whereas now we only have a group of people thinking 3D is dumb without any studios forcing them to use it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-21-2009, 10:26 AM:

The difference there is, Scope adds to the quality of the presentation -- bigger (with a proper screen setup), brighter -- where 3-D diminishes the light and picture quality.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-21-2009, 11:43 AM:

3D for a Quality story-driven film like Inglourious Basterds would be a distraction and just plain wrong. My opinion anyway. 3D has its place but we don't need it for everything.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-21-2009, 12:12 PM:

But David ... it would've doubled, tripled or maybe cuadrupled the benefits ...

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Luke Anderson (Member # 5316) on 09-21-2009, 02:49 PM:

Personally I think that quality digital 3D can really add to a film. [Cool]

It just has to be the right film. I'm think a high powered action flick like a "Rambo Type" war movie or some good car chase scenes such as the beginning Nascar scenes in The Final Destination. I saw this in digital 4K 3D and felt sick to my stomach Like I was riding in a race car. [puke]

I was impressed!

All movies do not need it, no reason for Bastards, but in the right type of storyline it could really add to the experience.

A few movies that would have been pretty cool in Digital 3D from the past 20 some years:

Point Break
Days of Thunder
Twister
Honey I Shrunk the Kids
The Matrix

-Luke

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-21-2009, 03:57 PM:

It does not have to be action type film only, Luke. The argument that most serious film is not suited for 3-D is not true! Some of the best 3-D movies ever made include DIAL M FOR MURDER and KISS ME KATE. Even the 3-D version of a dialogue driven movie like MISS SADIE THOMPSON received great reviews in the fifties and is preferred over the 2-D . This also applies to KISS ME KATE and DIAL M FOR MURDER. When both of these movies were released on DVD several years ago with HOUSE OF WAX,, a lot f people were disappointment a 3-D version in anaglyph was not included. There was a dual projection revival showing of almost all of the 3-D films released in the fifties at the Egyptian Theatre in Los Angeles a few years ago and it was very successful. The Castro theatre in San Francisco is equipped for dual projection as well as others throughout the country and 3-D revival showings of fifties 3-D has been very successful. Most of you who object to 3-D for standard live action films were not born yet or were too young. The most you remember about 3-D was the over/under type and in my opinion, it was a terrible system. As far as wearing glasses to see a movie in 3-D, I have no problem with them despite the fact that I wear prescription glasses. The argument about people prefer not to pay more for 3-D is not a very good one because all multiplexes playing a movie in 3-D are also playing a 2-D version at regular price.

The only objection I have had with current 3-D movies was very dark projected image. I have seen three live action 3-D films so far. One in Real D and two were Dolby 3_D
JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH in Real D at the Dole Cannery was very dark as well as MY BLODDY VALENTINE in Dolby 3-D at the Ward Centre. The recent FINAL DESTINATION I saw at the Kapolei 16 was very nice and I had no problem with it. The last animated film I saw in 3-D was UP in Real D and the presentation at Regal's Pearlhighland was perfect!

-Claude

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-21-2009, 04:29 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Most of you who object to 3-D for standard live action films were not born yet or were too young.

Perhaps you should take a step back and look at this afresh. People explaining why 3D isn't being used more for live-action doesn't constitute them objecting to 3D.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
The argument about people prefer not to pay more for 3-D is not a very good one because all multiplexes playing a movie in 3-D are also playing a 2-D version at regular price.

Except it's not true that all multiplexes with a 3D movie also have it in 2D. Sure, most of them do, but it is absolutely not all.

Also, it's Avatar not Avature or Avater. [Razz]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-21-2009, 05:31 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
The argument about people prefer not to pay more for 3-D is not a very good one because all multiplexes playing a movie in 3-D are also playing a 2-D version at regular price.

I think over time, you'll see more and more people objecting to the price.

For now, the 3-D movies are mostly aimed at kids/teens, who either have plenty of $ or can convince their parents that they must see the more expensive option.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 09-21-2009, 08:01 PM:

I think the real test of 3D increased price points will come with the Toy Story re-releases in a couple of weeks. I believe these will not be released in 2D so that if you see these in a theatre you must pay the 3D upcharge. (Actually a 2D re-release of these would make no sense at all)

Now I can't see a family (which must also purchase at the concession stand) taking a gaggle of kids at two to three dollars a ticket extra for the 3D to see the Toy Story movies that most of them surely already have at home on DVD.

Like every other "gimmick" this current 3D push will eventually burn itself out - a victim of diminished public interest combined with studio cutbacks due to the increasing costs of production. And once again the theatre owners will be stuck with a bunch of expensive equipment for which there is no product. (For a recent example of this just how many of you installed Dolby Digital EX a few years ago? And how many of those EX releases are there now?)

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 09-21-2009, 11:27 PM:

Greetings:

I myself, fail to see anything great about 3D. If given the choice, I'll see the 2D version of a 3D movie. I don't enjoy the price of the 3D films and as previously noted, the glasses reduce the brightness significantly.

Mike

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-22-2009, 08:56 AM:

I completely agree that 3-D is headed in the wrong direction. It's turned into a kids fare and kids alone will not support it. I simply refuse to go out of my way to see any of them any more as most of them have been very lame anyway. 3-D did nothing for "Up".

As for Hitchcock, he did indeed dislike the format and thats why Dial-M looks much nmore like a 2-D film for the most part... except for those couple of scenes where the Master used it to it's full effect!!

Mark

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-22-2009, 02:21 PM:

I am inclined to agree with the two negative comments about digital 3-D films. Yes, something must be done about the increased admission price to cover the cost of the use of 3-D glasses. It is fine and well to pay for them at first and not have to pay again if you decide to reuse them like I tried to do once for a Real D presentation. The young lady at the boxoffice told me I was not allowed to do that and I was forced to pay the full senior admission price for the show and a new pair of glasses. Bummers! I also agree that something must be done to improve screen brightness. Although I was very satisfied with the last three 3-D movies I saw, I was not happy with the presentation of JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH and MY BLODDY VALENTINE because the image on the screen was extremely dark.

I feel as long as the motion picture industry produce more quality live action 3-D films geared to adults and the exhibition industry improves the way 3-D films are priced and shown. 3-D should have a bright future. As I had stated many times, I loved watching 3-D films in the fifties because of the excellent 3-D as well as a good variety of films that were offered. The thing that killed 3-D in the fifties was the careless way they were exhibited with out of sync images causing people to get headaches as well as the usual "in the face" 3-D gimmicks. By the time some very serious films in 3-D was released, it was too late.

-Claude

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 09-22-2009, 04:21 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
You answered your own question in your explanation of what happened with Cinemascope.

Some people thought Scope was dumb yet the studios forced them to use it anyway, whereas now we only have a group of people thinking 3D is dumb without any studios forcing them to use it.

The anamorphic process we once called CinemaScope is still very much alive Chris. We just don't use the 20th Century Fox copyrighted name. Any 2.35 x 1 film you run is the same as CinemaScope.

3D has come and gone before and will again especially if the studios insist in giving it to us only in digital. We don't need gimmicks. We need good stories (and not remakes of those from the past).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-22-2009, 06:34 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
The thing that killed 3-D in the fifties was the careless way they were exhibited with out of sync images causing people to get headaches

Well, the presentation today is probably way better, but when we watched "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" in 3-D, my eyes felt like they'd done a full days work after that 90 minutes. My wife said her eyes felt tired after the first half hour. (I suppose the effects wouldn't have been as noticable if the movie hadn't been so silly.)

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 09-22-2009, 06:43 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well, the presentation today is probably way better, but when we watched "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" in 3-D, my eyes felt like they'd done a full days work after that 90 minutes. My wife said her eyes felt tired after the first half hour. (I suppose the effects wouldn't have been as noticable if the movie hadn't been so silly.)

Most new systems, because they are sequential, are slightly out of phase by nature, but not severe enough to cause significant eye discomfort.

The cause of eye-strain with so many films today is the lack of education most of these filmmakers have. They don't understand the rules of stereo photography and constantly break them.

Unfortunately, because they're digital, there aren't any examples I could tell you to look at, but the next time you feel discomfort, take off your glasses and look at what the two pictures look like on screen. You'll notice that whatever subject your focusing on is not "in focus" because the "camera" (if you can call it that-- most of these are just alternate angles in the digital realm) isn't converged upon the main subject. Therefore, you eyes are working overtime to get the two to converge, usually crossing your eyes to the point of discomfort.

Same thing applies for excessive off-the-screen effects.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 09-22-2009, 07:19 PM:

As some of us get older, it becomes harder for our eyes to adjust to watching a 3D movie, too. I believe this is my problem.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-22-2009, 08:51 PM:

At age 70, I am not having any problem watching 3-D movies.

-Claude

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-22-2009, 09:11 PM:

Claude...sorry the but the 3D upcharge is not just for the glasses...in fact they are a minor part, for now. It is just that 3D is being looked at as a new revenue stream. 3D cost the theatre significantly more to run. The projection system has to be significantly larger (wattage) to even achieve the dismal light levels. Larger lamps cost geometrically more money and last significantly shorter lives. The 3D equipment also adds into the cost...either the outright purchase (Dolby/Master Image) or the "partner" (Real-D). Whereas 3D does not increase overall ticket sales...the only way a theatre can afford 3D is to charge extra for it...it cost extra to have.

Now I agree that glasses are an area where the industry could REDUCE the cost of 3D. If people were to have "theatre glasses" that they kept...then theatres could sell the glasses at the concession stand (for a profit) to those that don't have their own. Those that do have their own glasses can save on having their portion of the "experience" added into the cost.

Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-22-2009, 10:04 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
If the film producers concentrated on producing quality live action 3-D films for adults rather than children without the usual gimmicks, I think digital 3-D will have a bright future.

The bigger problem is movie studios don't even know how to produce a decent supply of quality 2D movies, much less shoot them in 3D.

With the multiplex sites packed in with countless sequels, TV shows blown up to feature status, numerous remakes and lots of other derivative stuff, it's no surprise much of the 3D content going into movie theaters is also spun from a formula -that being CGI animated movies for kids. Pixar made lots of money with its movies and plenty of other outfits want to copy that and throw in 3D as a bonus (which requires a sizable price premium -cha ching).

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-22-2009, 10:28 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
The anamorphic process we once called CinemaScope is still very much alive Chris. We just don't use the 20th Century Fox copyrighted name. Any 2.35 x 1 film you run is the same as CinemaScope.

Where did you get the idea that I was saying that CinemaScope was dead? I think you didn't understand what I was saying.

I was responding to the notion Claude gave that 3D should work well today in spite of some film-makers disliking it because CinemaScope succeeded in spite of some disliking it (because the studios forced them to use it).

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-23-2009, 11:56 AM:

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
And once again the theatre owners will be stuck with a bunch of expensive equipment for which there is no product.

Actually the product on the new digital projectors theatres are installing for 3D is almost limitless due to the other content (video games, HDTV, etc.) that can be played through them.

I think the Toy Story 3D double release is a good idea. It's September/October. Business is dead anyway. We're all looking for ways to get people in the doors right now. People are getting 2 movies for the price of 1. It's a classic pair of movies and the new one is around the corner. Nobody is having to pull a moneymaker off the screen to play this Toy Story double feature.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I completely agree that 3-D is headed in the wrong direction. It's turned into a kids fare and kids alone will not support it. I simply refuse to go out of my way to see any of them any more as most of them have been very lame anyway. 3-D did nothing for "Up".

Final Destination played very well at my place. Lots of teens willing to fork out the extra cash for the 3D. Not a lot in concession sales, but whatever. There are other "non kid" 3D movies coming too.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-23-2009, 06:49 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well, the presentation today is probably way better, but when we watched "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" in 3-D, my eyes felt like they'd done a full days work after that 90 minutes. My wife said her eyes felt tired after the first half hour. (I suppose the effects wouldn't have been as noticable if the movie hadn't been so silly.)

Mike,

Don't forget that you actually have clean air there in Forsyth... I think it was more likely the Salt Lake City air which is more like the air in Los Angeles that finally got to your eyes...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-23-2009, 08:32 PM:

Oh I don't think that's the problem since my eyes stopped hurting right after the movie was over.

Posted by Michael McGovern (Member # 4807) on 09-23-2009, 09:13 PM:

As far as I war aware, the expense for the 3-D glasses is being paid for by the film studios distributing the 3-D films. The extra cost for 3-D covers licensing fees charged by Reel-D for using their technology, along with additional costs for the technology.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 09-23-2009, 10:40 PM:

quote: Michael McGovern
As far as I war aware, the expense for the 3-D glasses is being paid for by the film studios distributing the 3-D films.

Although it is said the studios are paying for the glasses, in reality I can assure you that they are working the cost into the film rental percentage. So the theaters are not paying a separate line item for glasses but they are indirectly paying for them.

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 09-24-2009, 12:52 AM:

And those not using polarised glasses have already paid the cost of the glasses, and would like to use any surcharge to recover that cost - which is NOT provided by the distributor. But the distributor still wants their percentage of that surcharge.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-24-2009, 06:10 AM:

quote: Michael McGovern
The extra cost for 3-D covers licensing fees charged by Reel-D for using their technology, along with additional costs for the technology.

What? No additional profit for the exhibitor??? [Eek!]