Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:38 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC" 
Author Message
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 414
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
3D may be a fun toy for Cameron and Scorese to play with when they are making movies but it doesn't really add much to the movie going experience. It did not make Avatar and Hugo more engaging as stories than it would have been in 2D.Avatar (here I agree with Dragonbeard)is barely watchable and seems to be a retread of a lot of other movies and Cameron even takes the DiCaprio-Winslet-Zane triangle and mostly recycles it with Lang-Saldana-Worthington.Yawn.I would like an example where there was a truly bad movie and 3D was added it to it to make it good(Avatar doesn't count).

The real reason for the 3D movement is studios really want us to pay $16 to $20 for every movie but they are worried with so many home entertainment options now and downloading the audience would balk and stay home.Hence you have 3D which you can't do at home and somehow illogically and irrationally convince people to pay more for it.I would like anyone to give me a good consumer reason to pay higher ticket prices for retrofitted 3D movies.Then they trot out cinematic war horses in 3d to milk the cash cows even more.It looks less like an artistic exercise than a commercial criminal racket scheme especially when there are almost no 2D screening for a lot of movies(John Carter was a welcome exception).Now Peter Jackson has a new scam called 48 frames per second which makes everything look like a tv soap opera where the people look photorealistic standing in front of patently fake sets.I wonder if we will have to pay $25 to have the privilege of watching the death of narrative(Lucas & Cameron) and film quality movies(Jackson & Cameron) now.


Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:30 am
Profile
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
In addition to upping prices on tickets, 3D also forces theaters to buy new projectors, lest they be left out of the next big tentpole movie.

48 fps will not necessarily look like the motion of video. It will most likely be reduced down to 24 fps to retain the motion of film. The difference is that being filmed at the higher frame rate will result in more dynamic contrasts and much less smearage in the movements. In short, the picture will look richer and crisper. In my view, the advantages of this technology are far more obvious than those of 3D.

And if you think 48 fps is nuts, Doug Trumbull wants to develop the tech to shoot movies in 120 fps.


Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:07 am
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 766
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
oakenshield32 wrote:
3D may be a fun toy for Cameron and Scorese to play with when they are making movies but it doesn't really add much to the movie going experience. It did not make Avatar and Hugo more engaging as stories than it would have been in 2D.Avatar (here I agree with Dragonbeard)is barely watchable and seems to be a retread of a lot of other movies and Cameron even takes the DiCaprio-Winslet-Zane triangle and mostly recycles it with Lang-Saldana-Worthington.Yawn.I would like an example where there was a truly bad movie and 3D was added it to it to make it good(Avatar doesn't count).

The real reason for the 3D movement is studios really want us to pay $16 to $20 for every movie but they are worried with so many home entertainment options now and downloading the audience would balk and stay home.Hence you have 3D which you can't do at home and somehow illogically and irrationally convince people to pay more for it.I would like anyone to give me a good consumer reason to pay higher ticket prices for retrofitted 3D movies.Then they trot out cinematic war horses in 3d to milk the cash cows even more.It looks less like an artistic exercise than a commercial criminal racket scheme especially when there are almost no 2D screening for a lot of movies(John Carter was a welcome exception).Now Peter Jackson has a new scam called 48 frames per second which makes everything look like a tv soap opera where the people look photorealistic standing in front of patently fake sets.I wonder if we will have to pay $25 to have the privilege of watching the death of narrative(Lucas & Cameron) and film quality movies(Jackson & Cameron) now.


I totally disagree, Avatar blew me away with the 3D, in fact when I saw it in 2D because the 2D blu ray came first than the 3D and it did not compare it (the visual experience was significantly diminished) , when I bought my big 3d Plasma TV which is not a Panasonic then I bought the 3D blu Ray (in eBay) and watched it a couple of more times at home(Add that to 3 times that I already saw it in the Cinema in 3D of course). In the case of Hugo I saw it in the Cinema and at home in 3D of course. The narrative of the first half of Hugo is so slow that for me it was the 3d that kept me going to watch the more entertaining second half (Melies's life).

Here in Hobart , we had 2d screening for almost if not all the 3d movies that I remember (including Avatar and Hugo). As I normally see them in 3D I sometimes recommend them to watch them in 2D (some bad post conversions) not the case of Hugo and Avatar thou. I and at least two of my closest friend have big 3d Plasma TVs so we can watch 3D movies at home if we want to. At the end studios give people what they want at the Cinemas and as you wrote people vote with their money or their feet!

There are interesting films , shot in 3D and with supposedly good narrative like "The Great Gatsby" and "Prometheus" coming up. I will definitely go to see them :-)

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Last edited by unwindfilms on Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:00 am, edited 11 times in total.



Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:41 am
Profile WWW
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 766
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Ken wrote:
In addition to upping prices on tickets, 3D also forces theaters to buy new projectors, lest they be left out of the next big tentpole movie.

48 fps will not necessarily look like the motion of video. It will most likely be reduced down to 24 fps to retain the motion of film. The difference is that being filmed at the higher frame rate will result in more dynamic contrasts and much less smearage in the movements. In short, the picture will look richer and crisper. In my view, the advantages of this technology are far more obvious than those of 3D.

And if you think 48 fps is nuts, Doug Trumbull wants to develop the tech to shoot movies in 120 fps.


I find the 3D combined with 48 fps a rather interesting experiment and hope "The Hobbit" can be shown like that in any of the Cinemas in Hobart and I will not have to travel to Melbourne lol

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:43 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
So it's now official that increased frame rate is a bad move based on the opinions of a group of yocals at a film festival? I disagree :P

I think Ken is right about the advantages being more obvious than those of 3D. However I still think movies should become good before you start fucking about with such things. Luckily The Hobbit will be a good test case, since there's very little to cause doubt about how good a film it will be.


Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:32 pm
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Oh and incidentally, having now seen 'The Avengers' twice, once in 2D and once in 3D (because the 2D showing had sold out!), I can confidently say the 3D was a waste of time and money.

Other than that, the movie was excellent. Well worth the wait. not sure if JB will agree or not... but he'd be wrong if he doesn't :P


Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:34 pm
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Dragonbeard wrote:
I think Ken is right about the advantages being more obvious than those of 3D. However I still think movies should become good before you start fucking about with such things.

Such things are an inseparable part of the movie. For better or worse.


Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:55 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 766
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
Dragonbeard wrote:
Oh and incidentally, having now seen 'The Avengers' twice, once in 2D and once in 3D (because the 2D showing had sold out!), I can confidently say the 3D was a waste of time and money.

Other than that, the movie was excellent. Well worth the wait. not sure if JB will agree or not... but he'd be wrong if he doesn't :P


The Avengers was awesome! I have seen it only once (in 3D of course), here in Australia you can see queues outside the Cinemas , no seen by me since Avatar. The movie was not shot originally in 3D but post - converted. I found it for being a post- conversion just Ok and I have been telling my friends that if you like 3D then go to see The Avengers in 3D but if you do not like 3D then go to see it in 2D because you will not definitely be converted by The Avengers HaHa

Just in case you wonder. I have recommended post - conversion to 3d to be seen only in 2D to my friends before and one example I remember now and can provide is "John Carter"

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:19 am
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 414
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
I am not sure that Peter Jackson will agree with the idea that it will not look different and here are his quotes

Quote:
Jackson suggests that his method for filming The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey — shot in 48 frames per second using an army of 5120-by-2700 resolution RED EPIC cameras — is but the tip of the cinematic iceberg going forward.

And audiences, suggests Jackson, will just have to catch up.

"A lot of the critical response I was reading was people saying it's different. Well, yes, it certainly is," said Jackson in a different portion of the interview. "But I think, ultimately, it is different in a positive way, especially for 3D, especially for epic films and films that are trying to immerse the viewer in the experience of a story."

"It does take you a while to get used to,"

Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience,


Here is the kicker though as Jackson is covering all his bets which says there is not complete faith in his conversion and it will be interesting to see which format will have higher tickets sales and if the audience will be wowed by the too much definition.

And just in case audiences are still a bit leery about movie's look come its December release, they'll be able to pick and choose from a number of different versions of the film to enjoy: 2D, 3D, and IMAX 3D, each running at a standard 24 frames per second or the new 48 frames per second display.


Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:20 am
Profile
Post Re: April 15, 2012: "Refurbishing TITANIC"
It will make 3D easier on the eyes, that's for certain. On the other hand (in my opinion really) it will look good enough that 3D will just not be needed. Plus the whole no glasses thing.

I was going to lament on how they never went forward this way with film but I guess the technology wasn't there to safely and efficiently pass celluloid past a lens that fast.

I wasn't impressed at all with the Avengers post conversion. The 2D version looked outstanding as it was.


Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:12 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr