Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:04 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?" 
Author Message
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
rugolin wrote:
I am not sure that the film studios are concerned about getting the best artistic product out for the filmgoers enjoyment. 3d auteurs they are not.I think thier primary concern is charging you 25% more for the ticket price over 2d.I think that is the part that has caught their attention the most and why they want to turn every piece of intellectual property they can into 3d even possibly releasing Star Wars(again) and LOTR.Boundless greed who says we learned our lessons about economic exploding bubbles.

What you're talking about isn't based on learning lessons but rather on basic human nature (re: being greedy). I also agree with what you said- Cameron is actually trying to advance the art of filmmaking while the makers of Clash of the Titans are trying to get more green out of our wallets.


Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:20 pm
Gaffer

Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:08 pm
Posts: 1
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Korwyn wrote:
From what I'm hearing things will change drastically...all in the studios pockets. No illegal copies(for a while) so more theater viewings etc... But...what happens to places like Blockbuster and Hollywood Videos? This sounds like a pretty big nail in the coffins there. Netflix may eek by but those little RED BOXES where you rent for a buck a night seem doomed also. Anybody really want to dole out big bucks for an ENTIRE new home video experience? Not just 1 single component but pretty much the whole thing. All your favorites reissued in 3D? It will be just like the Hi Def war. Think I'll sit this one out till it gets sorted out for me~


3D TV's are coming very soon. ESPN will broadcast a couple of World Cup games in 3D this summer.


Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:56 am
Profile
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Don't like 3D. There's a sense of fake-ness about it that I don't like. Maybe when the hardware improves, and I'll review my judgement.

Incidentally, I watched Avatar in 3D. The poor story detracted me from the movie so much (heck at times it reminded me of World of Warcraft) that the visuals didn't help. Top it off since I wear glasses the 3D glasses over it only helped to drag them off my head. Not a great experience at all!


Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:40 am
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
I have seen interesting news reports today concerning the box office numbers on first weekend 3D releases. Apparently, the proportion of people watching movies in 3D on their respective opening weekends is in steady decline. While 71 % of the opening week box office for Avatar was from 3D showings, it was down to 69 % for Alice in Wonderland, 68 % for How to Train your Dragon, 61 % for Shrek 4, 60 % for Toy Story 3, 56 % for The Last Airbender and 45 % for Despicable me. (I couldn't find a better link than this: http://gizmodo.com/5592956/is-3d-already-dying).

On the basis of these data, it could be argued that audiences have now experienced 3D and don't generally think that it justifies the extra expense. Then again, it may also be marketing related. After all, Avatar was pretty much a must-see 3D movie (or marketed as such).


Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:56 am
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
It could also be a sign that the latest boom in 3D movies, as usual, is being perceived and consumed as a novelty experience. By definition, novelty enjoys a brief period of existence before fading away.


Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:41 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Yeah this isn't surprising in the least, the next 3-D film is that Cats And Dogs sequel and I don't think 3-D is going to do that movie any favors at the box-office. I also noticed that Green Hornet is slated to be in3-D-though unlike most films the filmmakers were actually the ones pushing the studios for the 3-D instead of the other way around, so I'm not too worried about that film.


Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:29 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3151
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Ken wrote:
It could also be a sign that the latest boom in 3D movies, as usual, is being perceived and consumed as a novelty experience. By definition, novelty enjoys a brief period of existence before fading away.


My guess is that 3-D isn't going to go away completely, but it's going to end up being used primarily for select animated films. There is a backlash against so much 3-D. When it was fairly unique, people liked going to 3-D because it was something different. Now it's becoming merely expensive and irritating, especially with bad 3-D transfers like CLASH OF THE TITANS and THE LAST AIRBENDER.

Hollywood and theaters want more 3-D because the surcharge provides additional revenue. Ironically, it may be the surcharge that's killing the format. My guess is that more people would be willing to see 3-D if it cost the same or just a little more. At $4 a pop, it's a rip-off, just like Fake IMAX. It will be interesting to see if theaters reduce the surcharge from $4 to $2 if 3-D attendance continues to erode.

I received an e-mail a few weeks ago from someone who works in an eight-theater multiplex. According to her, they were showing TOY STORY 3 on two screens - one in 3-D and one in 2-D. For a 7 pm Saturday evening show, the 2-D theater was sold out but the 3-D theater was not.

Also, I have a question. As best I can recall, POLAR EXPRESS was the first widely distributed digital 3D feature. Was there a surcharge for seeing it in 3-D? I don't remember, probably because I don't think I ever saw it in 3-D.


Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:43 am
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1716
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Hollywood tries 3-D about every 30 years, and each time it has failed, because it's just a gimmick. It's probably going to fail again this time. It costs too much to produce, and the returns are often not worth that cost. I'm sure we'll be having this same discussion in 2040.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:27 pm
Profile
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
Hollywood tries 3-D about every 30 years, and each time it has failed, because it's just a gimmick. It's probably going to fail again this time. It costs too much to produce, and the returns are often not worth that cost. I'm sure we'll be having this same discussion in 2040.
And there's the basic truth that it (so far) just hasn't added anything essential to the art of movie storytelling. It's a valid cinematic technique, to be sure, but so is the tacky high-speed zoom.


Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:38 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1716
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Ken wrote:
And there's the basic truth that it (so far) just hasn't added anything essential to the art of movie storytelling. It's a valid cinematic technique, to be sure, but so is the tacky high-speed zoom.


Personally, I don't see how 3-D can add anything essential to the movies. If the story is good, then the audience will be captured by the film. If it is bad, then they won't. I don't see how 3-D changes that equation.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:02 pm
Profile
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
I disagree with that, actually. You can have the best story in the world, but if your filmmaking is shit, it's not going to matter. How a message is conveyed will add or subtract from the potency of that message, in any medium. Film is no different.


Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:18 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Ken wrote:
I disagree with that, actually. You can have the best story in the world, but if your filmmaking is shit, it's not going to matter. How a message is conveyed will add or subtract from the potency of that message, in any medium. Film is no different.

Well despite what some people say, 3-D DOES NOT make or break a film, I saw Avatar in 2-D and thought it was decent at best and I can't imagine how seeing it in 3-D would've done much to improve my opinion on it, it certainly wouldn't erase the flaws in that film. I don't see how 3-D is "essential" to films in any way, to me it seems like little more then an elaborate excuse for Hollywood to drain more money from the pockets of moviegoers.


Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:29 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
No filmmaking technique is "essential" in the sense that it's something that the film needs (there are obviously many different ways to tell a story), but it is "essential" in how the audience will receive the finished movie. Every little thing affects the whole, and that can mean good or bad. It's literally essential, in that it affects the essence of the experience.


Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:01 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1716
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Vexer wrote:
Well despite what some people say, 3-D DOES NOT make or break a film, I saw Avatar in 2-D and thought it was decent at best and I can't imagine how seeing it in 3-D would've done much to improve my opinion on it, it certainly wouldn't erase the flaws in that film. I don't see how 3-D is "essential" to films in any way, to me it seems like little more then an elaborate excuse for Hollywood to drain more money from the pockets of moviegoers.


I agree.

For some reason, I happen to be thinking of Yasujiro Ozu, who hardly ever moved the camera while filming, and would often hold shots at the same medium-height angle for minutes at a time. His style was very observational, but films like Tokyo Story are infinitely more affecting than Avatar and all its technical wizardry.

I should add one more thing: I also saw Avatar in 2-D (my local theater didn't have a 3-D system set up). I don't think my opinion of it would change if i saw it in 3-D.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:08 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3151
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Vexer wrote:
Ken wrote:
I disagree with that, actually. You can have the best story in the world, but if your filmmaking is shit, it's not going to matter. How a message is conveyed will add or subtract from the potency of that message, in any medium. Film is no different.

Well despite what some people say, 3-D DOES NOT make or break a film, I saw Avatar in 2-D and thought it was decent at best and I can't imagine how seeing it in 3-D would've done much to improve my opinion on it, it certainly wouldn't erase the flaws in that film. I don't see how 3-D is "essential" to films in any way, to me it seems like little more then an elaborate excuse for Hollywood to drain more money from the pockets of moviegoers.


Make a film? Probably not. Break a film? It most definitely can. My viewing experiences of CLASH OF THE TITANS and THE LAST AIRBENDER were compromised by shoddy 3-D. Ignoring the technical problems inherent with poor 3-D is like saying that watching a movie with a half-wattage projector light source and vasoline smeared on the lens won't ruin the viewing experience.

Now, if you mean that "competently composed 3-D that's intended to be 3-D from the beginning" won't break a film, I tend to agree. At least in that case it won't get in the way of watching the movie.


Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:52 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Ken wrote:
I disagree with that, actually. You can have the best story in the world, but if your filmmaking is shit, it's not going to matter. How a message is conveyed will add or subtract from the potency of that message, in any medium. Film is no different.

Well despite what some people say, 3-D DOES NOT make or break a film, I saw Avatar in 2-D and thought it was decent at best and I can't imagine how seeing it in 3-D would've done much to improve my opinion on it, it certainly wouldn't erase the flaws in that film. I don't see how 3-D is "essential" to films in any way, to me it seems like little more then an elaborate excuse for Hollywood to drain more money from the pockets of moviegoers.


Make a film? Probably not. Break a film? It most definitely can. My viewing experiences of CLASH OF THE TITANS and THE LAST AIRBENDER were compromised by shoddy 3-D. Ignoring the technical problems inherent with poor 3-D is like saying that watching a movie with a half-wattage projector light source and vasoline smeared on the lens won't ruin the viewing experience.

Now, if you mean that "competently composed 3-D that's intended to be 3-D from the beginning" won't break a film, I tend to agree. At least in that case it won't get in the way of watching the movie.

Yeah that was what I meant more or less, I'm saying that 3-D alone dosen't automatically make a film good or erase it's flaws.


Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:40 pm
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:26 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Singapore
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Having had a year of seeing a reasonable number of films in 3D I can confirm that, without exception, every visit to the cinema was a waste of the additional money. With the exception of the end sequence in Despicable Me which I thought an engaging demonstration of the potential of 3D to amuse, studios have used the label to justify a higher seat price without delivering a better product. Although The Jazz SInger was a game-changer in proving the viability of talking pictures, 3D is just an excuse to soak gullible audiences into parting with their hard-earned cash.


Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:29 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
dmar91 wrote:
Having had a year of seeing a reasonable number of films in 3D I can confirm that, without exception, every visit to the cinema was a waste of the additional money. With the exception of the end sequence in Despicable Me which I thought an engaging demonstration of the potential of 3D to amuse, studios have used the label to justify a higher seat price without delivering a better product. Although The Jazz SInger was a game-changer in proving the viability of talking pictures, 3D is just an excuse to soak gullible audiences into parting with their hard-earned cash.


Hi dmar91
Completely agree with your comments

I was at Costco last month and the AV guy said that 3D TVs just were not selling.
Number one iss is the idea of wearing glasses at home

Rob


Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:36 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
Kenny Powers wrote:
Don’t get all excited, dude. 3D is gay. Nobody wants to sit on a couch wearing glasses poppin’ bubbles out of the air like some sort of f*cked up Ray Charles...


Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:10 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2010: "Has AVATAR Changed the 3-D Game?"
On 3D movies: Walter Murch has my back.


Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:50 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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