zombie84 said:
I always get a kick out of hearing complaints about 3D. It reminds me of the newspaper articles from when sound and then colour was invented. Literally, its almost verbatim the same sort of phrasing. Of course, a lot of early sound films had terrible, tinny audio, and some early colour films had poor, gimmicky colour effects. Done right, and done enough times, and you don't think about it as a gimmick because you aren't paying attention to it anymore. As far as 3D goes, most films try to draw attention to the effect, because that is why you are paying the premium price to see it. A lot of early sound and colour films had similar marketing philosophy. Then after a while, everyone was doing it, audiences got used to it, and then peope stopped trying to outdo each other in gimmicks and audiences simultaneously stopped paying conscious attention to it.
Ironically, the situation is now reversed--because people are used to colour and sound, if you do part of movie silent or in black and white, it is seen as being self-consciously stylistic, or maybe even gimmicky or pretentious. I have this sneaking suspicion that this will apply to 2D films ("flat pictures"?) at some point in the distant but not too distant future.
I disagree some what Zombie. I think the depth of field employed in 3D films can be pretty amazing when done. Up and How to Train Your Dragon was pretty fantastic.
Yes, it's not a gimmick. The filmmakers that take it seriously don't spend 90 minutes throwing crap at your face. But now that studios have seen the kind of dollars Avatar made they're watering down what the '3D revolution' should have been and are now just hastily and lazily using it across the board. That is, using it in a gimmicky fashion so they can charge more.
Some complain about the glasses. I wear glasses when I'm watching movies anyway (I'm short sighted) so I don't find them uncomfortable or distracting. The image is noticeably darker but a lot of cinemas have shitty set ups and the necessary recent upgrades and conversion to digital has probably done a lot of good.
What I do find distracting is being charged noticeably more for a movie. The last movie I saw in 3D was Toy Story 3. I walked out going that was a great movie but I should have seen it in 2D. The characters, story and animation were what made it amazing, not stuff thrown at you or depth of field. It was ridiculous what I was charged to see that movie. And I feel that's where the push is coming from to make 3D more mainstream or the norm. There's not much artistry in that.
I refer to my earlier comment about upcoming movies like True Grit and Black Swan. I'll see them at the local art house theatre (my theatre of choice) for $12 AUD. Compare that to $21.50 AUD for Toy Story 3 - fuck that.
I sound like an old man movie tickets are so expensive these days grrrrrr. It's not that. Some where in the back of my mind I just feel like I'm getting scammed. I gave it a shot. I tested the waters and I was willing to pay for the experience but I'm over that now.
Akwat Kbrana said:
SFW said:
He [John Knoll] also said they would ensure that the 3D conversion delivers results as good as a movie shot and authored in 3D
Darth Vader said:
The Emperor does not share your optimistic appraisal of the situation.
Bravo!
zombie84 said:
Lucas gets a break in cost, because its done in-house by ILM....
I read that Lucasfilm were farming out the conversion work to another company.
