Customer Discussions > Movie forum

What has 3D contributed to cinema?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 506 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 7:36:34 PM PST
Fake 3D. So sad.

Posted on Jan 29, 2012 7:56:27 PM PST
Georgedc says:
3D's best contribution is to "real life events" such as sports, concerts and porn. These events are interactive with the user and 3D bring outs that reality best. 3D for movies is not so important to me. I'd wait for glassless 3D TV's for tv shows and movies.

Posted on Jan 29, 2012 9:42:09 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2012 9:46:57 PM PST
J. Baker says:
>D. Larson says:
"Aren't all movies a desperate attempt to make money?"<

>I says: "No, not all movies. Not a "desperate attempt" anyway."<

And now I come across a funny a propos quote from one of the Crazy Coen's, Joel:

"Ethan had a nightmare of one day* finding me on the set of something like 'The Incredible Hulk', wearing a gold chain and saying, "I've got to eat, don't I?""

*notice, he said "day": they both nap a lot during the day, between writing, so wouldn't that be more properly a "daymare"?
Anyway, they're a good example of filmmakers who don't always have to desperately struggle to pull in the greenbacks for their movies.
Clint Eastwood and Woody Allen are a couple others who can coast on their reputations, and make films for themselves as much as anyone else now.
There are plenty more examples I could give, but I don't want to get obscure about it.

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 12:56:48 AM PST
W. Grieve says:
Is the Hobbitt being filmed in 3D..if yes why!

It's a toy and was used for a particular demographic..vacuous and simple.

There is a visual honour to great cinema...and it has nothing to do with toys. Why aren't all movies Imax?

Cheers Warren

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 8:56:48 AM PST
Re: The Hobbit: The answer is yes, as you would know if you took 10 seconds to google the question.

A new element has been adding to the issues around 3D and older films. Let me summarize a clear position:

1. Active conversion: Taking an existing film, converting it to 3D via the computerized processes without the involvement of the filmmaker, and then releasing it either theatrically or on home video media--for all the reasons outlined at length above, completely unacceptable, morally, ethically, and aesthetically.
2. Passive conversion, as in watching a 2D film converted to 3D on the fly via technology in your DVD/Blu-Ray player: pretty much the same as watching a film with the color badly adjusted, or with the aspect ratio altered to fit a 16x9 frame completely (which would involve some sort of cropping, and therefore changing the director's intent where the film were in the Academy ratio (1.37:1) or any widescreen process wider than 16x9--well, your gadget can do that--but why would you? It speaks to a kind of witless arrogance--I know what I like, and damn what the filmmaker has laid down. Aesthetically, it's nonsense. Anyone who has any respect for the art of film, and any understanding of why filmmakers make certain choices within the confines with which they must work--those who are cinematically literate--will not do such a thing. It's like putting ketchup on a meal prepared by a great chef--both arrogant and insulting.

I find it ironic that, even as we get technology that can improve the quality of the film experience in the home (large screens, higher-definition video sources) we also get technology that degrades the experience (watching films on tiny portable devices, the ability to ruin the way a film looks for home viewing.)

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 12:15:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 31, 2012 12:19:36 PM PST
Episode I of the Star Wars saga, "The Phantom Menace," has just been released to theaters in faked 3D.
How this does at the box office will be an indication of the future of 3D movies and home video. This picture has the initial disadvantage of being among the worst of the six Star Wars films.

At the risk of being repetitive, the general public has never maintained a lasting interest in 3D except perhaps for View-Master. Remembering the 3D movie rage of the early 1950s, it lasted about four years, 1951 to 1955 and then disappeared. Then there was a small spurt of 3D movies in the 1970s, among them "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein," a real stinker.

It's my prediction that the next two years will determine if 3D becomes a widely accepted standard or makes another meteoric disappearance. The "disappointing" sales of 3D TVs in 2011 does not bode well for it.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 1:10:27 PM PST
Razor X says:
I'm amazed and somewhat discouraged at how some people still don't get that it isn't acceptable to alter someone else's work of art. Even if the original version isn't damaged, the fact that an alternative version that the original artist didn't sanction, exists, is an affront. 3D isn't just a viewing option, it's a presentation option, and only the person who created it should have a say in how it is presented. This is the same argument that took place 25 years ago over colorization, except I think that converting a classic film to 3D is a more intrusive violation than colorizing it.

William A. Smith has got it exactly right. Pity that so few people can see that.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 1:24:18 PM PST
douglasG says:
"Pity that so few people can see that."
There is a reason only a few people see it that way. Most people are not so delusional.

3D is just a viewing option.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 1:34:16 PM PST
Razor X says:
If the filmmaker had wanted his work to be viewed in 3D, he would have made it that way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 1:54:17 PM PST
douglasG says:
If a film maker doesn't want people to view a film differently, the maker should never allow the public to have this choice. When a film maker gives up their rights(ownership) to a film they no longer have a say on how it is viewed. It is the owners right to distribute it how they please.
If you don't like viewing a film differently, watch the original how you think it should be viewed and opt out of any other viewing options.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 2:38:04 PM PST
Razor X is entirely right. And when a filmmaker is dead, who speaks for him then?

See my post above. Yes, someone with the necessary technology and a copy of the film can view it in ways the filmmaker would never countenance--which only shows that viewer's contempt for the artist, his witless arrogance, and his appalling bad taste.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 2:46:40 PM PST
douglasG says:
Because the film is still available in its original state one can also still view it that way. It is a choice. 3D is just a viewing option. If you don't want it don't choose this option. No one is forcing you to are they?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 3:55:12 PM PST
J. Baker says:
>Bruce G. Taylor says: " among them "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein," a real stinker."<

Huh, I disagree. I think it's among the best movies made in 3-D. And it's very good without 3-D. It was beautifully filmed, very clever camp. The acting is perfect. Paul Morrissey is an underrated director.
Did you not know it was a comedy?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 4:05:59 PM PST
J. Baker says:
Razor X,

>>"This is the same argument that took place 25 years ago over colorization, except I think that converting a classic film to 3D is a more intrusive violation than colorizing it."<<

Exactly right.

I suppose douglasG is going to now accuse me of using "Razor X" as a puppet account. He just can't stand to think there are more than a few people on here with a different view and a conscience about movies.

It is he and his ilk who of course are delusional. And with his constant uncomprehending refrain "3D is just a viewing option" I'm beginning to think he's suffering from demencia as well.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 4:27:53 PM PST
Boss Oxmyx says:
Mystery Science Theater is just a viewing option for sci-fi/horror films.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 5:59:03 PM PST
douglasG says:
3D is just a viewing option. You have yet to prove otherwise.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 6:05:10 PM PST
J. Baker says:
Oh my god! They're self-cloning! The pod chorus rings out: "just a viewing option".."just a viewing option..."just a viewing option"...."just a viewing option."

Soon the whole world will be chirping it.

I warn you, people: You're Next!! You're NEXT!!!

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 6:11:25 PM PST
douglasG has yet to prove that he is anything but a bot programmed by a fool.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 6:12:38 PM PST
Thank you, Razor X and Z. It's refreshing to see common sense.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 6:14:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 31, 2012 6:15:04 PM PST
Razor X says:
It's not just a viewing option because films can be broadcast or sold, and if a person's first experience with it is an altered version, then it's not having the impact that the creator intended. I imagine most of the people defending the practice of altering films would feel differently if they created something and someone else took it upon themselves to alter and distribute it without permission. It's not a difficult concept to grasp; I suspect that it is less a matter of those arguing the opposing viewpoint not understanding than deliberately choosing not to "get it."

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 6:15:45 PM PST
douglasG says:
You can view movies the way 'you' feel they should be viewed. 3D conversion has not taken this option away from you. Has it?

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 6:24:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 31, 2012 6:26:06 PM PST
douglasG: Are you honestly so arrogant that you think that you can improve on the way the filmmakers made the film in the first place? Do you skip most of the chapters when you read? Do you reprocess music when you listen to it? Are you so freaking egocentric that your pathetic little wants overpower what honest artists do?

No taste. No integrity. No brain.

You're a bot. A badly written one coming from some little dweeb in Warner's marketing organization.

Only finger-quoting Margo uses quotes that way. It's an idiotic affectation.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 6:36:29 PM PST
douglasG says:
"Are you honestly so arrogant that you think that you can improve on the way the filmmakers made the film in the first place?"
Your words not mine.
3D conversion is just an option. It is irrelevant to whether it adds or takes away from the way a movie was originally made. If you don't like what 3D does to a film don't watch in 3D. You can still watch the film in 2D. It is a choice, an option. If it sounds like I am repeating myself. It is because I am. I don't need to change and or elaborate my comments. Unlike your point mine is valid.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 6:37:53 PM PST
Razor X says:
"You can view movies the way 'you' feel they should be viewed. 3D conversion has not taken this option away from you. Has it?"

It isn't about how *I* feel they should be viewed; it's about how the filmmakers wanted them to be viewed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012 6:39:10 PM PST
Razor X says:
"3D conversion is just an option. "

It's a poor option unless it is done with the permission of the filmmaker.
[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:  57
Total posts:  506
Initial post:  Jan 22, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 19, 2012

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

Search Customer Discussions