Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:06 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
3D 
Author Message
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 888
Post 3D
With new technology and falling admissions, it was only a matter of time before the studios brought back 3D. Although the first few movies with 3D were less than impressive (or so I heard), Avatar showed its true capabilities. Audiences had high hopes for it and the studios were primed to make boatloads of cash. But the bungled it. MAJORLY!

The problem is that they went half-assed. 3D is something that you go all the way, or you don't do it at all. Although the cash registers may sing with Hollywood Accounting, the studios could have made a LOT more money if they kept investing in the technology and doing it right. It may have been more expensive, but it would have had a better payoff.

Just my thoughts.

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Thu May 26, 2011 3:55 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: 3D
I agree completely, fortunately the failure of most 3-D films a the box-office should teach Hollywood a lesson.


Thu May 26, 2011 4:26 pm
Post Re: 3D
Vexer wrote:
I agree completely, fortunately the failure of most 3-D films a the box-office should teach Hollywood a lesson.


That lesson is "Maybe it'll work in another 30 years."

3-D came in the 50's, then the 80's and now the 10's.


Thu May 26, 2011 4:42 pm
Post Re: 3D
Not sure how good the numbers are, but according to Ebert, audience admissions for PotC4 are 70% in favor of 2D.


Thu May 26, 2011 4:43 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 888
Post Re: 3D
Ken wrote:
Not sure how good the numbers are, but according to Ebert, audience admissions for PotC4 are 70% in favor of 2D.


WOOHOO!

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Thu May 26, 2011 6:48 pm
Profile WWW
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 888
Post Re: 3D
Of course, we'll have to start the whole process all over again once the Avatar sequels come out.... :cry:

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Thu May 26, 2011 6:49 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: 3D
Cave of Forgotten Dreams should not be seen in 2D.


Thu May 26, 2011 11:52 pm
Post Re: 3D
People tried to make Avatar out to be the ultimate game-changer, but they weren't looking quite close enough. Sure, it's the highest grossing film of all time...okay...but wait a minute, something's not right. If that's the case, why are none of its actors big movie stars now? How come nobody wants to see Sam Worthington? How come the general hasn't been hailed as an iconic cinematic villain a 'la The Joker, Anton Chigurh, the Basterds Nazi, etc.? How come people don't quote the film or make jokes about it or talk about it at all in their spare time? Makes you wonder, where exactly did this success come from?

My theory: the film was basically a hydrogen bomb; worked once, but don't try it again. It spoiled audiences to the point of over-saturation. It was TOO visual, TOO epic, TOO much action, effects that were TOO real. Most decent movies can beat it's shitty storyline, but few can measure up to its production values. People tried to make it into a watershed touchstone, but here's the thing: few movies will EVER approach that level of...well, sheer size...and that kind of scale will NEVER become the standard even if 3D movies continue to be the standard for 100 years. The studios are in denial about the truth: Avatar was a one time thing, and I truly believe that if Hollywood continues to rely on its 3D "standard" for too long, they will be in serious trouble.

I've said this before in another thread, but again: what happened in the 1960s? Hollywood panicked because all of their great directors were getting old. They kept on going bigger, bigger, bigger, until finally they went so big that audiences became weary and the system collapsed on itself. The result: a time when Night of the Living Dead was the blockbuster standard. History will repeat itself if they don't wise up.


Fri May 27, 2011 1:11 am
Post Re: 3D
Patrick wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I agree completely, fortunately the failure of most 3-D films a the box-office should teach Hollywood a lesson.


That lesson is "Maybe it'll work in another 30 years."

3-D came in the 50's, then the 80's and now the 10's.



Very very funny this. Nice observation Patrick.
I'll likely be dead or senile in 2040 - so i'm safe
Rob


Fri May 27, 2011 1:31 am
Post Re: 3D
Avatar is just plain not a very good movie. That's the explanation, open and shut.


Fri May 27, 2011 2:38 am
Post Re: 3D
Ken wrote:
Avatar is just plain not a very good movie. That's the explanation, open and shut.

Yeah, without the 3-D, it's safe to say that most critics probably wouldn't have rated it so highly.


Fri May 27, 2011 2:59 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1520
Post Re: 3D
Like I've said previously on this forum: Avatar's 3-D covered up for its overall lack of substance. Try and watch it minus that 3-D and it magnifies the films flaws.

Basically it's one of those movies that can be watched and enjoyed one time. But try watching it more than once and it becomes less enjoyable.

The big problem is that so many of the receny movies made in 3D (with a few exceptions) haven't been very good. When you have abominations like that ridiculous Clash Of The Titans remake getting released in 3d because Avatar was a hit, well then you're setting yourself up for disaster/Also as it's been pointed out, the glasses are cumbersome and uncomfortable and there's also the matter of the surcharge.

Martin Scorsese's next film (Hugo Cabret) is supposed to be in 3d. I'll be curious to see what he can do with the medium. Make a film that works good in 3d and also has a compelling story and 3D can work.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Sat May 28, 2011 1:10 am
Profile
Post Re: 3D
Question: Did sound movies and color movies ever bear a higher ticket price than silent or black and white movies? What about panovision?

In other words, does anyone else think 3d is really comparable to color and sound?

What I'm getting at is, if there was no surcharge, there would be less incentive for the studios to make 3d movies, unless that is what theater goers decided to prefer. Color and talkies were made because customers decided to spend the same price to see those movies, rather than black and white and silent. As it is, studios are giving themselves an incentive to make an inferior product. It may help them in the short term, but it's going to hurt in the long term.

If someone managed to make a movie that did not require cumbersome glasses, or caused headaches or nausea, or came with a surcharge then maybe we can start talking about 3d movies as a possibility. There is no reason why 3d movies cannot be made, it's just that the technology is not capable of supporting it at this time. Come up with a reasonable alternative and I have no objection to 3d movies. As it is, right now every time I see that a movie is going to be in 3d, I cringe or do a Darth Vader impression by yelling "NOOOO!!!"

Also, the people who designed the SONY digital projectors are clearly morons:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05 ... light.html
-Jeremy


Sat May 28, 2011 4:56 pm
Post Re: 3D
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Like I've said previously on this forum: Avatar's 3-D covered up for its overall lack of substance. Try and watch it minus that 3-D and it magnifies the films flaws.

Basically it's one of those movies that can be watched and enjoyed one time. But try watching it more than once and it becomes less enjoyable.

The big problem is that so many of the receny movies made in 3D (with a few exceptions) haven't been very good. When you have abominations like that ridiculous Clash Of The Titans remake getting released in 3d because Avatar was a hit, well then you're setting yourself up for disaster/Also as it's been pointed out, the glasses are cumbersome and uncomfortable and there's also the matter of the surcharge.

Martin Scorsese's next film (Hugo Cabret) is supposed to be in 3d. I'll be curious to see what he can do with the medium. Make a film that works good in 3d and also has a compelling story and 3D can work.


I would go farther: Clash of the Titans sucked, yes, but compared to Avatar it was a masterpiece. Cameron's film is truly an abomination and a disgrace to 100 years of movie history. I remember I worked at as an usher at the time, and one lady came out and said: "That was truly magnificent! But the story was stupid." For a moment, I thought he'd single-handedly destroyed the art form.


Sat May 28, 2011 5:52 pm
Post Re: 3D
MGamesCook wrote:
I would go farther: Clash of the Titans sucked, yes, but compared to Avatar it was a masterpiece. Cameron's film is truly an abomination and a disgrace to 100 years of movie history. I remember I worked at as an usher at the time, and one lady came out and said: "That was truly magnificent! But the story was stupid." For a moment, I thought he'd single-handedly destroyed the art form.


Not sure if you are going just a little too far. I agree: I don't think for one moment that Avatar is the shit, but I remember a disaster flick named Earthquake which I saw back in 1975 as a 14 year old boy. That earthshaking Sensurround sound was all the hype back then. But it wasn't good enough to hide the horrible soap opera melodramatic stories trying (in vain) to make us care for the dispicable main characters and the ridiculous (not so) special FX. Avatar is not worse than Earthquake. No way.


Sat May 28, 2011 9:27 pm
Post Re: 3D
Threeperf35 wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:
I would go farther: Clash of the Titans sucked, yes, but compared to Avatar it was a masterpiece. Cameron's film is truly an abomination and a disgrace to 100 years of movie history. I remember I worked at as an usher at the time, and one lady came out and said: "That was truly magnificent! But the story was stupid." For a moment, I thought he'd single-handedly destroyed the art form.


Not sure if you are going just a little too far. I agree: I don't think for one moment that Avatar is the shit, but I remember a disaster flick named Earthquake which I saw back in 1975 as a 14 year old boy. That earthshaking Sensurround sound was all the hype back then. But it wasn't good enough to hide the horrible soap opera melodramatic stories trying (in vain) to make us care for the dispicable main characters and the ridiculous (not so) special FX. Avatar is not worse than Earthquake. No way.


Maybe not, but last time I checked Earthquake didn't occupy the #1 spot on the box office all time list :?


Sat May 28, 2011 10:05 pm
Post Re: 3D
MGamesCook wrote:
Maybe not, but last time I checked Earthquake didn't occupy the #1 spot on the box office all time list :?


Thankfully. Well I don't think Avatar is a disgrace to the movie industry (even though it could - and should - have been way better; the story and characters are ridiculous, agreed). I think it is Avatar AND some other highly successful recent movies that say a lot about the audience. It's O.K. that people flock to the multiplexes to see that huge 3D event, but judging by other highly successful trash, audiences have lost their taste for good.
There seems to be a tendency that 3D movies have bad stories. Back in the 50s (with those awful red-green - not cyan - anaglyph goggles) people were joking (so I read): "I would love to see finally a 4D movie = 3Dimenions plus a good story" ... noone ever listened.


Sun May 29, 2011 7:02 am
Post Re: 3D
Threeperf35 wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:
Maybe not, but last time I checked Earthquake didn't occupy the #1 spot on the box office all time list :?


Thankfully. Well I don't think Avatar is a disgrace to the movie industry (even though it could - and should - have been way better; the story and characters are ridiculous, agreed). I think it is Avatar AND some other highly successful recent movies that say a lot about the audience. It's O.K. that people flock to the multiplexes to see that huge 3D event, but judging by other highly successful trash, audiences have lost their taste for good.
There seems to be a tendency that 3D movies have bad stories. Back in the 50s (with those awful red-green - not cyan - anaglyph goggles) people were joking (so I read): "I would love to see finally a 4D movie = 3Dimenions plus a good story" ... noone ever listened.


Audiences have never been smart enough to know precisely what's good and what's bad, and in recent years critics have succumbed to the pressures of some strange holy grail type search they feel they must endure. That is why, and this is not to knock JB, The Dark Knight and Avatar were praised by some as messiah-like motion pictures. This kind of praise over-simplifies things. People called Dark Knight a masterpiece without giving an iota of thought to what they had actually seen on the screen (thankfully, the criticism of Iron Man that same year was more well-rounded). But heaping that kind of praise upon one film takes away any natural critical tendencies a viewer may have to the point where they feel embarrassed and stupid to call it overrated.

So I ask, how do you expect audiences to develop taste if their taste is force-fed to them by these all-powerful writer/director/producer/messiahs like Nolan and Cameron. Maybe if we brought back the collaborative aspects of cinema where one man writes, another directs, another produces, taste will return. People always knew how to criticize Spielberg, didn't they? In other words, we have to face the fact that cinema is NOT JUST AN ART FORM for personal expression. It is a PRODUCT. One man paints, one man writes a novel, one man composes a song. Cinema does not fit into this category. To paraphrase Joseph Cotten, from Citizen Kane: people expect these things as their right, not as your gift. So thank you, Mr. Cameron, for your divine, generous gift of Avatar, and thank you, Mr. Nolan, for enlightening us with Inception. Thank god we can now expect your glorious product every time we go to the theater...oh wait...


Mon May 30, 2011 1:32 pm
Post Re: 3D
It's not an issue of being smart, so much as being informed. Put simply, you cannot develop your tastes unless you widen your reference pool. If you've walked two moons in the moccasins of great cinema and still believe that Avatar and The Dark Knight are masterpieces, then your opinion has at least gained some validity, even if it is baffling.


Mon May 30, 2011 3:14 pm
Post Re: 3D
Ken wrote:
It's not an issue of being smart, so much as being informed. Put simply, you cannot develop your tastes unless you widen your reference pool. If you've walked two moons in the moccasins of great cinema and still believe that Avatar and The Dark Knight are masterpieces, then your opinion has at least gained some validity, even if it is baffling.


Very well said. Is the problem perhaps that film studies is not taught on the college level, or any other, in a way that can be called standardized?


Mon May 30, 2011 3:53 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Thief12 and 5 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