|
Author
|
Topic: 3D TV the end
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted February 18, 2013 10:36 AM
Hugh, I'm actually on your side; I find current 3D too much of a "gimmick".
But, sadly, that is because it is over-used. As in the 50's, it has now become the norm for a film to be 3D, even when it really doesn't warrant it, as opposed to being something special. I actually found "Avatar" a fairly average film at best, and the 3D was often presented in a worryingly immature manner, swirling cameras, et al.
When films (or is that movies, as many are now photographed digitally) bolt on 3D as a marketing afterthough, I think it's unnacceptable. Even when it is designed and shot in 3D, you often wonder whether it is time to re-think the language of cinema if you really want it to work...or just forget it and stick to 2D.
But "Hugo" from Scorcese worked in 3D.
Interestingly though, I recently watched Scorcese's "Shutter Island" and found it offered an extraordinary 3D-like quality from the superb 2D camerawork.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, yes, I mostly find 3D a gimmick, but in the right hands, with the right treatment, it can offer that something extra and a little bit special.
After all, cinema is in itself nothing more than a "gimmick", surely?
Indeed, I think defining a "gimmick" is difficult; is Cinemascope a gimmick? Is surround sound really a gimmick? Can you really watch, say, something like "The Empire Strikes Back" in surround, then again with just mono sound, and honestly claim the experience is the same?
If gimmicks don't matter, then maybe we would all be happy watching B&W movies in Academy Ratio, possibly even in silence with subtitles (is a musical score on a movie a gimmick??)
Point is, whilst the history of cinema shows so many innovations being used and abused, there is always that exceptional piece of work that fully benefits from a particular technology, whether it be a new type of lens, camera system, picture ratio, sound system, etc.
Just my thoughts. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted February 18, 2013 03:17 PM
Er, didn't last?
Try and buy a decent TV without 3D capability.
David, if I recall, Jaws 3D was produced using Anaglyphic 3D and was a spate of movies in the 80's / 90's using this system.
3D in the 50's didn't use Anaglyphic, despite later re-releases.
The original versions were polarised, with 2 x 35mm projectors running polarised prints. Of course, this was prone to error, if one print was to go out of sync by a frame or two (a break that needed re-splicing, for example). - if only they had 4K digital back then! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Those horrrid red / green versions were dished out as cheap cash-in versions during the 70's.
Hence, films such as "Dial M", or "Creature" have never really been seen in their true 3D version for decades.
Last week , I went to the theatre to see a very expensive performance, and I kept instinctively shutting one eye... to see it as it was meant to be seen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted February 19, 2013 02:53 PM
You're right, David; unfortunately, back in the day at our local cinema in the North-East of England, we only had the anaglyphic version, which is why I remember it that way!
True, Osi, no gimmick will make a bad movie better, but I think that just because most 3D movies are bad, or don't warrant the use of 3D, we should dismiss it altogether.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted February 19, 2013 05:04 PM
I see the point you're making Rob,but it's become the "norm" now
that everything is in 3D, thus writing its own demise by becoming
a cheap common thing that as Des pointed out in his local high
street shop, that it was once a novelty, but now is an accepted thing, like colour TV.There's a saying that goes,"Give the public
what they want,and they no longer want it".
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David M. Ballew
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Burbank, CA USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted February 20, 2013 03:59 AM
I would like to respond to some of the statements here, hopefully in a spirit of friendliness and respect.
“The sooner 3-D ends, the better.”
With great respect, let me say that my opinion is exactly the opposite. But then you probably could have guessed that, Hugh!
“3D is always something that media seems to fall back on when the industry has a struggle going on.”
Very respectfully, I regard this statement as a trope, repeated by unimaginative writers and film critics over the last 60 years. (When I speak of unimaginative people, I emphatically do not mean you, Lee.)
The early 1950s was certainly a period of contraction and retrenchment for the movie industry, and 3-D was indeed regarded as a possible way to stem hemorrhaging at the box office. But in all fairness, Cinerama, anamorphic widescreen, monopack color, stereophonic sound, and 65mm/70mm were also viewed as viable audience lures during the same general period. And no one disparages any of these other items as contemptible gimmicks born of desperation. Perhaps that's because they stuck around long enough to firmly prove their aesthetic worth... something 3-D is only just now able to achieve.
I will actually go so far as to say (if you'll permit me the use of a double negative) that the motion picture industry is never not struggling. Movies are a notoriously risky investment, even in the best of times. And frankly, not every producer is an artist or a born storyteller, and we cannot necessarily blame producers if they look for special enhancements to set their products apart in the marketplace.
“They always try to find a cheaper way to produce 3d films and it just doesn't work.”
With great respect, virtually all competitive industries in a free market seek less expensive means of production, whether they are making widgets or 3-D movies.
But, Pat, I figure you may have in mind some of the lackluster conversion jobs fobbed off on audiences in recent years. Cheap indeed! I agree that there has been some shoddy 3-D conversion work, but in all fairness stereoscopic conversion is still a young art form, subject to much experimentation and refinement. Moreover, free markets have a way of naturally weeding out inferior products, giving me great faith that conscientious 3-D conversions will survive and poor ones will fall by the wayside.
“The film if it's worth watching at all doesn't need any gimmicks.”
Couldn't agree more, Hugh. Sunrise and the silent films of Harold Lloyd are special favorites of mine. They lack color, sound, and wide aspect ratios, but they’re darn fine movies all the same. My position is that color, sound, and widescreen are not gimmicks unless treated as such… and in my view, the very same goes for 3-D.
“Is it really any surprise that the 3D phenomenon didn't last?”
Interesting that you should say that, Michael. I see 24 native-shot 3-D films slated for release in 2013, as against 16 post-converted 3-D films in the same time frame. That’s forty feature-length 3-D motion pictures this year alone, compared against fifty released between the fall of 1952 and the spring of 1955.
“The Life Of Pi was an incredible 3D experience.”
I respect what you are saying, Paul, but for the record I feel that the framing story in Life of Pi was way too timid in its use of parallax. I frankly have seen deeper, rounder coins. I was bitterly disappointed with Life of Pi, but on the other hand I am glad that a critically respected 3-D film came along in time for an Oscar nomination.
Ah! So now I've gotten it all off my chest. Thanks for indulging me my little late-night rebuttal, gang. And let me underscore this: disagree with you though I may, I have profound respect and (if I may say so) brotherly affection for each of you!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted February 20, 2013 06:45 AM
Hi Dave, and thanks for those very interesting views.I also have
a very high regard for my fellow members, it's like a small family
with all its trials and tribulations, no end of fun.When I said on
regarding 3D in cinema " the sooner it ends the better", I wasn't
meaning it in a vindictive way, but rather like sitting through a home
movie that someone has made with a new cine camera with a
10-1 zoom lens that they use like a trombone zooming in on everything in sight,until it becomes a chore to sit through.
Good film making doesn't need gimmicks, the award winning film "The Artist" uses the tools of the silent cinema as a gimmick.If all films did the same, then the effect would surely pall.The "added bonus of 3D" has been done to death, even in
it's heyday, it didn't really add a lot to the storylines,"HOUSE
OF WAX" being a prime example.Then the glasses were supplied
free to the patrons, now they are charged,unasked but paid for.
The film industry as a whole has backed itself into a corner and
is really grasping at straws,films are made for the teen audiences and quality has been forgotten.The question I always
ask myself "Would I want it on the bootlace" as a rough test
of its repeatability,including its 3D addition.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
watching it at any one time so its looking like this round of 3D is drawing to a close. The cinema side of things is not doing to sell either with regard to 3D with low foot fall figures.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
it was visually stunning to watch. 3D effects have improved a huge amount compared with years gone by.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
