If you know what focus pulling is, then you know that 2D is not really flat. I might also inquire how you can call my comment illogical nonsense, then make the same assertion about yourself. I'll amend my use of the word "evil" and change it to "wrong." I believe that 3D is wrong.

If you read the caption cards in a silent movie, then words did come out of the characters' mouths.

Me pointing out your illogical argument is me pointing out your illogical argument. Me turning that same illogical argument back on you is me amusing myself.

It doesn't really make a difference, but whatever floats your boat.

Dude... Your example gave a greater dynamic to actors, drew a more profound connection to theater, and allowed the viewer to not have to read anymore. All good things. My example takes cinematography out of the question, forces viewers to wear glasses, takes communal enjoyment out of the equation, and turns movies into something for Disneyland's Epcot. All bad things. Do you honestly think those differences are comparable?

You framed it as a problem to be solved. The talkie solved the "problem" of actors talking without words coming out. Thus, 3D solves the "problem" of the 2D movie screen.

I suppose that widescreen solved the "problem" of the meticulous arrangement of actors and objects within the 1:33.1 composition. This is a sarcastic statement, by the by.

Now, if I may be permitted to blow some minds for a moment, I will suggest that the addition of new technologies to the cinematic experience isn't necessarily motivated by perceived problems. The silence of the silent movie was never a problem, per se, as you yourself have pointed out. New technologies (first movies themselves, then movies with sound, then color, then widescreen, then 3D, then whatever) seem to begin as experimental exploration before anything else. It's all mad scientists, tinkering for the sake of tinkering, finding out what can be done because it's worth trying for its own sake.

Unless I'm wrong, your stance seems to be against 3D at the conceptual level. Therefore, the glasses should be irrelevant to your argument. They are an artifact of technological limitations, rather than an intrinsic element of 3D as an idea. It's like arguing against motor travel because you don't like your car. I would guess that if 3D is evil/wrong in your eyes, then you would dislike it just the same with or without the cumbersome glasses.

The complaint about turning movies into something of an amusement park attraction is a complaint of content, rather than form. There would still be amusement park type movies without 3D, and, as Hugo demonstrates, 3D is entirely capable of coexisting with non-amusement park type movies. 3D is a form. The amusement park trappings are content. Let's not confuse the two.

I'm not sure how 3D has any bearing on communal enjoyment. Are your glasses somehow becoming entangled with the glasses of another young man? If so, I suggest selecting a new seat, or, failing that, using a doll to show us where it happened.

I do enjoy digital cinemas more. Maybe it's because our prints are worse? With digital the contrast seems better and I don't get annoying marks flashing on the film, along with specks of dirt and dust showing up from time to time.

You're not wrong. I'll admit that the glasses are a minor quibble, since I am against 3D at the conceptual level.



I don't think content and form are separable in this case. I think 3D is, by its nature, conducive to an amusement park attraction device, and that using it in any other sense is just silly. It would be like using animation to create a greater sense of realism than you have with live action. Animation is meant for more fantastical depictions of the world, and using it for other purposes has often proved fruitless. The same goes for 3D's connection to a "thrill ride" feeling. If Hugo demonstrates the contrary so well, then why did Scorsese feel the need to interject the train going off the tracks in a dream sequence? Or why the long tracking shots giving us what looks like a virtual tour of the hidden pathways in the station? If anything, I'd say Scorsese couldn't make up his mind as to whether he wanted to exploit 3D for its more thrilling aspects, or to let it rest in favor of his history lesson. All I can say for sure is that one fundamentally does not gel with the other.

Thankfully there is. I've been able to enjoy Robert Downey's last four action movies – Iron Man 1 and 2, Sherlock Holmes 1 and 2 – free of 3D eyerape. I'm sure the studios were trying to bully Jon Favreau and Guy Ritchie into doing it, though.

It's funny how people criticize Ritchie for his highly stylized slow motion, but at least he's not having his characters shoving shit toward the camera just to demonstrate a lousy 3D effect. I can picture it now:

"Holmes, get that out of my face."

"It's not in your face, it's in my hand."

*cut to Watson POV shot with riding crop being shoved toward camera*

Thanks, but I'll take the trees exploding in slo-mo any day.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why are you repulsed by a silent film in 2011? What could possibly be repulsive about The Artist?

Holy Shit Cook! You are sitting here trying to convince people that Cameron and Scorsese have lost their vision and have no more stories to tell? I hate to call someone an idiot, but what the fuck? You rarely do anything but bring directors down. What the fuck have you done lately that gives you this insight into this industry? I would love to see you get schooled in a conversation with either one of those people. I would pay $$$$ to watch you tell that to Cameron's face! Not only would he berate you like the person you seem to be, but then he would probably beat the shit out of you.

Hugo is one of the most celebrated movies of the year, and you are calling it a hack job because why? You are an aspiring filmmaker? You are some film school student who is above everyone else because he sees what the entire film watching world can't?

It seems as though you are either a POS troll, or a bro sitting around the computer with other bros drinking beers and laughing at the utter shit you type on this forum.

I nominate you change your name to Armond Black!

I'm still working on what is now turning into an essay length 'mansplain' about why 3D is nothing more or less than a money maker and how shoe-horning it into cinematic progress is just nonsense.

It will come eventually, I just feel like working on it a little more.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I just want to throw out there, mainly to amuse myself, that Winchester 73 and T-Men had something missing to them. Until just now I couldn't figure out what it was that made me give them three stars instead of four. And just now I figured it out -- they only had two dimensions. Seriously, can you imagine how good they would have been in 3D? *Sigh* if only.

If you only knew.



I'd love to see you pay that much, because I'd love to do it. I would call Cameron an asshole and tell Scorsese to be ashamed of himself. Then I'd walk the other way and take an internship at Dreamworks. Don't believe me? Just send one of them my way and I'll show you.



It hasn't been celebrated by me or by any of my real life peers...or by anyone I know. It certainly hasn't been celebrated by the box office. So if anything, you are the one making presumptions in this particular case.



I find the latter extremely flattering.



This one is even more flattering, which I think you would realize by now. I happily accept the nomination.

Don't be disingenuous. It has an 8.3 on IMDB (#201 on their Top 250), a 94% fresh rating on Rottentomatoes and an 83/100 on Metacritic (universal acclaim).

It hasn't been celebrated by anybody I personally know either, but I also readily admit that this is an anecdotal argument, and therefore completely irrelevant.

Why don't you enlighten me?

If my knowledge of movie cliches means anything, a few people in this thread will end up having sex by the end of the second act.

We'll let you know if Ed Helms shows up.

I disagree. I think anecdotes are often more enlightening than any of those figures, especially with the state film criticism is currently in. Half the sources on those sites come from bloggers whose websites are their own names. I'm not trying to imply that they're all idiots, but I do say that any one of my friends who knows less about film has as much right to claim authority as they do. I don't know how else to argue this point, really. Universal acclaim is in fact so far from what Hugo has actually received, that I just don't know what to say except to draw comparisons, I guess.

Harry Potter 8: 97%. Universal acclaim? Not on your life. Many fans were underwhelmed, and critics were merely complacent.

Drive: 93%. I stand by my argument of showing the film to common, casual viewers who don't give a shit. They'll wonder why Gosling stomped a man to death in front of his love interest or why a dozen naked girls stood around in inhuman silence as Gosling tortured a man. I don't think any of the film's fans would have an answer for them.

War Horse: 75%. Does anyone care? People know it's Spielberg, so they know what to expect.

I realize I have no "hard evidence" to back up any of these claims, but I don't need it. I'm not trying to prove a mathematical theorem here, I'm merely stating the obvious through inference and intuition. I guess I could use straight experience to back it up. I've spent most of my life showing movies to the kinds of people I refer to as casual and common, and I've at least learned how to predict and interpret general reactions. Actually, it's the practice itself which gives you greater insight, because after all, you'd be embarrassed to show your friends a film if deep down, you knew they wouldn't like it. Helps flesh out intuition. Speaking of which, I find myself wondering how exactly I'd be able to show any of my friends Hugo, even if I wanted to, when I have no intention of purchasing a 3D TV.

There you have it, folks. MGamesCook's opinion is so right

("How right is it, Ken?")

MGamesCook's opinion is so right, that when he alleges a factual claim and evidence is presented that flatly contradicts that claim, he's still right, because--wait for it--if MGamesCook said it, the evidence must be wrong!

The casual snide remarks are one thing, but nobody here has any reason to respect anything you say if you reject out-of-hand any argument that isn't compatible with your hermetically sealed worldview.