Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:51 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension" 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3118
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
Click here to read topic.


Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:28 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
Ever since I got glasses I can no longer see the 3-D effects. It was made shockingly clear when I saw Terminator II: 3D again at Universal a couple years ago and nothing was popping up.


Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:40 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
I for one sincerely hope that 3D never takes hold of the movie business on a massive scale. It calls too much attention to itself. Even the best implemented 3D is so noticeable it takes you right out of the movie. The people really pushing it are touting its immersion, where I see significantly less immersion. Nice for the occasional "ooh" or "ahh" though.

So I guess, for me, even if an incredibly moving drama were made into 3D, I would prefer its 2D counterpart. But maybe I'm biased, as my special lady is blind in one eye...


Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:07 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
I think 3D will end up a lot like IMAX. Great for some movies, but still a small segment. Great for "visual" films like at the aquarimum or big action films, where the dollar amounts work. Great for the Dark Knight, Slumdog.


Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:42 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
One other thought just occurred to me. If they end up coming out with a 3D version of Star Wars, does that mean that I am going to have to buy another copy? Gosh Lucas is really good at making money!


Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:48 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
3D would almost make the prequels bearable.

The first movie I saw in 3D was actually not that long ago - Bolt. It was fantastic. I love the new 3d technique, and the glasses are not uncomfortable. There is a little bit of eye-strain and lights along the aisles reflect noticeably, but besides that it's great.

It's a little strange that they are pushing this new 3D technique using commercials employing the old 3D technique. I know you can't do the new stereoscopic 3D on a conventional TV, but still. Nevertheless, I am excited for the commercials and the Chuck episode in 3D.


Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:09 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
As someone who wears glasses, I'm not a huge fan of the new 3D wave. Sure, the glasses do fit over your own, but it's often an uncomfortable fit, just uncomfortable enough to make me wince at the thought that some (like Katzenberg) think this will soon be the sole way we see films in theaters. Now, anyone with any common sense will know that extreme will never happen, but I can see nearly half of the blockbusters in the future opening up in solely 3D, and I'm not looking forward to it.


Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
I have 3d glasses for the superbowl!

I think this is the movie business trying yet again to differentiate itself from TV.

I've not seen it done well, but heh, if they can get it right, I'll for it.

My main complaint is that it's been used as a special effect that take sus out of the movie rather than getting me more involved

Rob


Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:01 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
Robert Holloway wrote:
I have 3d glasses for the superbowl!

I think this is the movie business trying yet again to differentiate itself from TV.

I've not seen it done well, but heh, if they can get it right, I'll for it.

My main complaint is that it's been used as a special effect that take sus out of the movie rather than getting me more involved

Rob

Did you see Bolt in 3D?
I thought that movie did a great job of not using 3D in flashy ways, except during the action parody scenes where it made sense. Most of it was just used to create a 3D world within the screen where the action took place. It almost literally drew me in to the movie.


Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:03 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
Trevor wrote:
Robert Holloway wrote:
I have 3d glasses for the superbowl!

I think this is the movie business trying yet again to differentiate itself from TV.

I've not seen it done well, but heh, if they can get it right, I'll for it.

My main complaint is that it's been used as a special effect that take sus out of the movie rather than getting me more involved

Rob

Did you see Bolt in 3D?
I thought that movie did a great job of not using 3D in flashy ways, except during the action parody scenes where it made sense. Most of it was just used to create a 3D world within the screen where the action took place. It almost literally drew me in to the movie.


Hi Trevor

No, our local theater does not seem to "do 3D"
I have to make a special effort and to be honest I'm not inclined, based on the few i have seen

Rob


Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:17 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
Darwin1859 wrote:
One other thought just occurred to me. If they end up coming out with a 3D version of Star Wars, does that mean that I am going to have to buy another copy? Gosh Lucas is really good at making money!


This comment made me laugh. It also made me cry, because I'd buy another copy.

I think 3D is a great addition for visually rich films. I wish more of them were like Avatar and less like Journey to the Center of the Earth, but I also wish more normal movies were more like Slumdog Millionaire and less like Bedtime Stories. The ratio of mediocre/bad productions in comparison to good/great productions is about equal for 3D and non-3D films when you think about it. In fact, 3D might have an upper hand. U2 3D and Bolt were probably the only movies worth watching in 3D last year, but you can make an argument for Journey to the Center of the Earth. No one cared about Fly Me to the Moon. So that's 50% of the releases being worth your time? Can you say the same about normal cinema? As gimmicky as it is, its potential enjoyability can be maximized as long as it's not bastardized. No Wendy and Lucy in 3D please.


Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:02 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3118
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
Not impressed by the 3-D commercial. It's more the fault of the glasses than anything else but the sacrifice of sharpness and true color just to have images pop off the television doesn't seem like a good trade-off. Polarized glasses aren't without their own problems. The images are dim and there are color problems. It's similar to watching a movie while wearing sunglasses, which no one in the right mind would want to do. I wonder whether Coraline, Monsters vs. Aliens, and Avatar have addressed this. I suppose I'll find out (at least for Coraline) on Friday.


Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:48 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
I agree, the commercials weren't great. The blue-red glasses affect the image too much. I much prefer the new clear glasses for the 3D movies in theaters.
Thus my questions about how marketing the new 3D technique with the old 3D glasses can really be used to sell it effectively.


Last edited by Trevor on Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:42 am
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
"3D is terrible"

The most important critic in the US has declared that it's a failure.

He's my 12 year old son Max!

Safeways gave him glasses and told him there were 3D ads in the superbowl.

He excitedly waited for the ads during the first half of the superbowl.

"Dad get your glasses on" was the command at half time.

Monsters vs Aliens and some thing else came up and Max declared it terrible as it made his eyes hurt and it was all blurry.

If a 12 year old hates it - we are a long way off.

Dad confirms - it was ghastly.

Rob


Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:34 am
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
As someone who has a physical restriction where I cannot see out of both eyes at the same time, 3D movies are complete lost on me.

It would be a shame if, beyond not being able to catch fly balls, my physical disability would mean I won't be able to enjoy new releases.

For the record, of the ~ fifty people at the Superbowl party I attended, three could not see from both eyes simultaneously and so got no benefit out of the 3D effect.


Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:53 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
I didn't have the glasses when I saw it and it was all weird but now I know that James Woods is in MvA I must see it now


Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:45 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
Is it me or does it seem to me that the main reason for going to the movies is to 'escape'? I feel that putting you in the actual spot of the film kind of takes that term too seriously. I'm all for films being a mechanism for escape and art, but when your life is stressing you out with all of its problems and whatnot, wouldn't it be silly to say that we go to the cinema to relax and escape if there's an alien beam coming after you? For that, we have amusement parks; theaters aren't such things. It seems more akin to adding stress onto me than anything else. And, adding stress is NOT something I'm looking to spend $10 on.


Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:04 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
dreminemike wrote:
Is it me or does it seem to me that the main reason for going to the movies is to 'escape'? I feel that putting you in the actual spot of the film kind of takes that term too seriously. I'm all for films being a mechanism for escape and art, but when your life is stressing you out with all of its problems and whatnot, wouldn't it be silly to say that we go to the cinema to relax and escape if there's an alien beam coming after you? For that, we have amusement parks; theaters aren't such things. It seems more akin to adding stress onto me than anything else. And, adding stress is NOT something I'm looking to spend $10 on.


Hi there

Film history is littered with examples of amusement park like gimmicks. I have to disagree. If it's used well it can really add to the moment!

I am a horror film fan and one the best exponents of this trait in the 1950's and 60's was a guy called William Castle. I never saw a film using his party tricks. Wish I had though!

Castle's classic "The Tingler" with Vincent Price was all about your spinal column coming out of your body and going on the rampage killing people! When it attacked people, Castle had rigged the theater with buzzers under people's chairs that went off to give them a shock. he also used glowing skeletons on wires to scare people! I cannot remeber the name of the process though.

In about 1974 I was helping my local ABC theater put up the hanging letter signs for "Earthquake". The manager took me on a tour of the "Sensurround" equipment that had been installed. they were large speakers that generated bass 'shock' waves to convince the audience that the theater was collapsing! It was amazing. i saw the film several times just for that!

As cinema struggled to compete with TV we had the development of Cinerama. if you've ever seen a film in this process you could only have wondered in awe. It involved three cameras on the set and three projectors in the theater. I recently saw the Blu Ray Cinerama presentation of "How the West Was Won". It was better than 3D any day. If you're in LA, a trip to the Cineramadome is well worth it!

Another short lived idea in the 80's was Showscan. I saw a film projected this was in the Kinepolis in Brussels. It was incredible. It was invented by Douglas Trumbull (CE3K and 2001). The idea was to use a 70mm print and project at 60 frames a second versus 24. This was HD of the highest order. It was so clear. Best I ever saw!

I could go on.

I really hope that 3D makes it and that we can develop technology that addresses brightness, color rendition and focus. I hope that the creative community embraces it as they did color from black and white and sound versus silent.

Cinema needs it.

Rob


Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:06 pm
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
gjduke wrote:
As someone who has a physical restriction where I cannot see out of both eyes at the same time, 3D movies are complete lost on me.


Me too. I have just enough vision in my right eye to not walk into walls. I know other people in my situation who have tried to watch 3D movies and not only haven't been able to appreciate the effect, they've either gotten headaches or motion sickness. I would hope that if 3-D goes mainstream, there'd be some sort of 2D alternative other than the DVD.


Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:01 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3118
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: Jan. 31, 2009: "The Third Dimension"
edhorch wrote:
gjduke wrote:
As someone who has a physical restriction where I cannot see out of both eyes at the same time, 3D movies are complete lost on me.


Me too. I have just enough vision in my right eye to not walk into walls. I know other people in my situation who have tried to watch 3D movies and not only haven't been able to appreciate the effect, they've either gotten headaches or motion sickness. I would hope that if 3-D goes mainstream, there'd be some sort of 2D alternative other than the DVD.


I don't think there will be (at least not near-term) any 3D releases that don't have 2D counterparts. There may be a time - say 10, 15, 20 years from now - when the number of screens showing a movie in 3D may outnumber those showing it in 2D by 10:1. There are enough potential viewers with physical impairments and who simply won't/can't wear the glasses for the 2D format to vanish.


Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:34 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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