Automotive Deals Summer Reading Shop Women's Clothing Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Stephen Marley Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis STEM Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

What has 3D contributed to cinema?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 501-525 of 534 posts in this discussion
Posted on Mar 10, 2012 8:08:36 AM PST
ROcK~N~Rolla says:
I had to laugh when I watched this little clip featuring Martin Scorcese and James Cameron together discussing the 3D feature "Hugo". Martin says, "Imagine Citizen Kane in 3D, I'm serious.", and then he quickly says, "I'm not saying do it." LOL. Maybe he reads these threads?

James Cameron and Martin Scorsese on Hugo's 3D Special Effects
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFJZ1HKybZA

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 1:37:19 PM PST
Don White says:
I just saw this film in 3d last night and have to say it was fantastic. In my opinion it is a great example of 3d being well used. It completely opened up places like the library, train station etc. while watching I paused it to see the difference in 2d and the library was bland and flat while still stylistic it seemed like a set since it was not an average looking library.. With the 3d turned on it gave it much more realism as you see the depth and roominess. The train station had many scenes where the depth helped. The biggest issue was some crosstalk in areas, but many scenes I was shocked at how full they were with no flaws at all, great still shots to just look at in 3d honestly... I felt sucked into the station and into the movie very well, the use of the character peeking through the walls and such lenses itself perfect to the 3rd dimension.

I definitely would recommend Hugo to 3d lovers. Not sure I would recommend it as much in 2d just because of the flat scenes etc. it was optimized for 3d.. And no useless crap ever flying out of the screen at you for no reason

Posted on Mar 10, 2012 7:21:32 PM PST
Jonathan says:
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFJZ1HKybZA

Scorsese talking about wanting to see Shakespeare and Welles in 3-D, it's like a fat kid in a donut shop. Not thinking of how bad that could be before stuffing all that sugar and lard in his gob, but at least he caught himself with it in his mouth and gagged it out.
Good for him, Marty hasn't completely lost his mind, unlike the guy sittin' next to him.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 4:51:56 AM PDT
Georgedc says:
❤3D PORN❤

What say you?

Posted on Mar 19, 2012 11:44:48 AM PDT
I'm still not sure that the pro 3-D crowd has adequately stated just how 3-D has contributed to cinema. Also understanding that it doesn't have to contribute anything to cinema per-se other than to be a cool way to view film. Kinda' like viewmasters were cool, but they really didn't contribute to photography.

Posted on Mar 19, 2012 12:16:24 PM PDT
I've recently read several entries of the success of 3D on Google which report that the sales of 3D TVs and discs are very disappointing as of July 2011. 2011 was expected to be the big year for 3D. Also theater attendance of 3D has been tapering off. It's reminding me of what happened to 3D in the early to middle 1950s which I remember very well.

Posted on May 9, 2016 10:09:56 AM PDT
ROcK~N~Rolla says:
It's 2016 and 3D is still here.

So much for the Naysayers!

Posted on May 9, 2016 12:08:52 PM PDT
And it's still a gimmick. The box office for 3D has been declining for several years. Samsung--the largest maker of TVs equipped with 3D--has exited the 3D business.

Posted on May 9, 2016 12:12:46 PM PDT
ROcK~N~Rolla says:
Yet, 3D is still here... as it will always be in some form or fashion. Regardless of what the naysayers have to say about it.

Posted on May 9, 2016 12:16:46 PM PDT
And, as usual, Rock misses the point. But, as a filmgoer without a shred of aesthetic sensibility, he would like the obviously gaudy.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2016 12:21:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 9, 2016 12:23:17 PM PDT
ROcK~N~Rolla says:
And as usual, W.A.S. is clueless as always. 3D movies are still being shown in the cinema. That's the whole point. As they will continue to be over the coming years.

And just wait until Avatar 2 and 3 come out in 3D! Avatar 2 & 3 in 3D = Big Box Office success!

Posted on May 9, 2016 1:55:35 PM PDT
Budas Root says:
What has 3D contributed? Any time something comes flying at your face out of the screen that's 3D!

Posted on May 9, 2016 3:01:43 PM PDT
And, as usual, Rock misses the point, or rather, points.

1. 3D adds nothing to a film except for some superficial eye candy.
2. 3D television is almost dead, and that is important, given how important the secondary markets are for film.
3. Finally, 3D attendance at the theater has been going down for the last several years. People are increasingly less willing to pay a three or four dollar premium for the product. Yes, you will still see some--brainless big budget efforts--but the trend is clear. Within a few years, 3D will be completely marginal. (And very little is more brainless than Avatar.)
4. The problem, further, is most 3D films aren't filmed with stereoscopic cameras, but converted from 2D material. It's badly done.

I've seen a few notable bits of genuine 3D filmmaking--there was a very fine short film that Universal had in their Hitchcock attraction in the theme parks. (They've eliminated the Hitchcock attraction, alas, at least in Florida.) Technically, Captain Eo--the Lucas/Michael Jackson collaboration--was fine, although the material was trivial. But it's an eye candy fad.

Posted on May 9, 2016 4:17:31 PM PDT
WAS:

Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" and Warner's "House of Wax" are listed as being available in blu-ray 3D. "The House of Wax" (1953) was a big hit for Warner Bros. So they insisted that Hitchcock produce his next film in 3D. He hated the process but had to go along with it. By the time the film was ready for release, the fad for 3D was already diminishing and the film was shown in most local theaters in 2D. 3D is currently having its biggest success in I-MAX theaters.

I agree with you that interest in 3D is fading as it did in 1955, but I-MAX will probably do its best to keep it going.

Many flat screen 3D TVs were (and probably still are) being sold without some customers' being aware of it. Of course you had to buy the glasses in order to get the 3D effect. Believe it or not View-Master stereoscopes which originated in 1939 are still being manufactured and sold mainly for children. I think Hasbro Toys now owns the View-Master division.

Posted on May 9, 2016 5:00:07 PM PDT
BGT: I've seen both House of Wax and Kiss Me Kate in glorious 3D, theatrically (film fesitval material), as well as a number of less well-made films from the 1950s, as well as (of course) some in the current crop, and for that matter in the short-lived revival of 3D in the 70s and 80s.

We are still some years away from a fully immersive 3D / virtual reality experience. I will look forward to that--but it will require us to rethink film in interesting ways. The Wild Palms series dealt with just that.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2016 5:20:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 9, 2016 5:27:11 PM PDT
ROcK~N~Rolla says:
And these are all things that have already been stated before in the past. My point is that in the 4 years since this thread was originally started, 3D movies are still around. And 4 years from now they will still be around as well. They will always be around, period. In fact, they never really even left. So to answer the title of the thread: "What has 3D contributed to cinema?", obviously it must be contributing something or else it would not be around at all.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2016 8:26:17 PM PDT
Rock-N-Rolla:

I suggest you google: "3d tv and movies still a fad?"

It looks like 4K is the new technology for television -- ultra, ultra high definition.

Posted on May 10, 2016 11:27:08 AM PDT
If something is still around, it "must be" "contributing"?

Zombie films are still around, and they contribute nothing.

Increasingly, and you may consult numerous articles, 3D is restricted to large-scale action films and gaudy IMAX presentations, and it's a way to get a few more bucks out of the gullible public.

Aesthetically, it contributes nothing. I have yet to see a 3D film that used the technique as anything but a gimmick.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2016 11:30:32 AM PDT
ROcK~N~Rolla says:
Wrong again, as usual. Zombie movies, TV shows, and books are more popular than ever before. Shows how much you know.

Posted on May 10, 2016 11:53:05 AM PDT
Rock: And shows what you fail to know. Popularity isn't merit--and I've talking aesthetic merit, not popularity. In fact, the popularity of zombie material is exhibit A on the dumbing of so-called entertainment.

Well, we know what you watch.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2016 11:56:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 10, 2016 11:56:38 AM PDT
ROcK~N~Rolla says:
All that you are doing is giving your opinion on the matter and nothing more. It doesn't change the fact that 3D and Zombie movies are still contributing to people's entertainment and wallets. The End.

Posted on May 10, 2016 12:12:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 10, 2016 12:14:29 PM PDT
And all you do is express yours. That which makes money--pornography, for instance--isn't necessarily good. Curious for you to put your opinion on the side of profit, considering you sneering remarks about management elsewhere.

Thanks, I'll take my well-informed views. If you think eye candy and zombies are good things, then there is no hope for you. Of course, we all knew that already.

The End.
Fin.
Ende.
Finito.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2016 12:15:41 PM PDT
ROcK~N~Rolla says:
Yada yada yada!

Posted on May 10, 2016 12:17:10 PM PDT
And the peanut gallery is, as usual, inarticulate.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2016 12:41:10 PM PDT
ROcK~N~Rolla says:
Hahah! And as is usual W.A.S. has to resort to his typical act of denigration.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Movie forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  58
Total posts:  534
Initial post:  Jan 22, 2012
Latest post:  May 10, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions