Movie Talk Posts
Nick - wrote on 2012-06-08 17:23
I think my opinion of what good 3-D is clear. There aren't any. Everyone in Hollywood jumped on the bandwagon after Avatar to simply make a ton of money. That is why I said I only watch movies in 2D now. 3D simply is not worth it.
Protozoid - wrote on 2012-06-08 17:17
Neither of you guys responded to the issues in my post.My point was that 3-D is another tool, and another decision that is maade. That decision can be made artistically, or it can be motivated by money, but isn't everything Hollywood does motivated by money? At least Ridley Scott is more of an artist than James Cameron. Avatar in 3-D was impressive, but the movie stank. The same may be true of Prometheus, but the 3-D is certainly deservered. Both are space operas with alien planets and beasts. Why does one deserve 3-D and not the other?Nick, what do you mean by "deserving" 3-D? Only good movies get 3-D? Are you saying that it's okay to charge more for good movies, but not only because they are 3-D?If some 3-D is okay, then obviously you think that good 3-D photography is possible. If you believe that, please answer my original question: What is good 3-D?Because some of the world's greatest filmmakers are making 3-D movies and using them to make artistic statements. I consider that debate ended.So far I've seen three 3-D films: Avatar, Tron: Legacy, and Tintin. Of the three, Avatar was the least interesting, visually. Ridley Scott's artistic sensibility dwarfs these films, so I'm fully expecting not only a good 3-D presentation, but for Ridley to be a trend-setter in how he utilizes it.I'll have more thoughts on the 3-D after I see the film Sunday.
Nick - wrote on 2012-06-08 15:59
I completely agree with Snoogans. It is all about the money and gross revenue. Very few (maybe even only Avatar) deserved to be 3D cause it was designed and filmed in 3D and looked great. All others take away from the movie, make scenes darker, and ruins the movie. I only watch movies in 2D now, it is better. I don't waste my money.
Snoogans - wrote on 2012-06-08 07:57
Well, Protozoid, I will counterpoint. The only reason that 3D has overfilled our movie screens today is because of money. Avatar made more money than any other film before it and it was done in 3D. 3D costs more per ticket and thus makes the studios more money. About 95% of all new 3D movies, in our theaters today, are filmed (or converted) in this way as a studio choice and not an artistic one. Not every movie benefits from 3D, some of it even looks bad and most of us regular theater goers are just plain tired of it at this point. It's because of these reason that our current tidal wave of 3D is called a 'fad' by many.
Protozoid - wrote on 2012-06-07 18:04
Also, every single ad for Prometheus mentions the 3-D. I don't debate Ridley Scott + 3-D + Alien Prequel. I want to see it because it will be a cultural event, like the original, and the 3-D is a part of the experience. If the original Alien had been released in b&w, I'm sure some snob would prefer that version because "color is a fad."Doesn't mean he hasn't confused the artist's intentions with his own preferences.
Protozoid - wrote on 2012-06-07 18:00
3-D isn't going away, guys. Remember, various forms of the technology have been around for nearly 60 years, and every once in a while a B-movie producer dusts it off for a revival. Like b&w and color, widescreen and fullscreen, 3-D and 2-D are just a different choice the artist makes when he begins a project.3-D is stereophonic vision. Do you refuse to buy albums that are mixed in stereo? It's the same thing.Now that Wim Wenders and Werner Herzog (the German New Wave personified) have both filmed documentaries in 3-D, I think it's time to open the debate on what makes a good 3-D movie, not whether or not the effect is a gimmick. Is color a gimmick? Yes, originally, it was. Widescreen? The most gimmicky gimmick of all, perhaps -- to compete with TV. 3-D was also developed for competition with home video.So, what constitutes good 3-D photography? That's a more constructive debate, I believe.
Chris Kavan - wrote on 2012-06-06 17:57
Another week - another blockbuster - this is actually one of my more anticipated movies of the year. I have been diligent in avoiding spoilers on this one, so I'm going in completely blind other than the few spots I've caught on TV. I'm also interested to see just how much the 3D screens bring in on this one. Hopefully this is a sci-fi film that manages to meet expectations.
Moviehead - wrote on 2012-04-28 17:44
I agree that 3d will go away, but i don't think it will be soon. I think there will be many more of them before people get sick of it. But i dont care that much anyway, most of those films would suck in 2d as well.Fake depth, well said, its value is shock more than beauty.
Alex - wrote on 2012-04-26 17:09
MovieHead - 3D is not better. It is different and worse. Colors are distorted, brightness is reduced and in exchange we get a fake depth of field. 3D sucks. But if it was shot in 3D and the director's vision is realized (like avatar) it is what I choose to watch a movie in if the time fits. It is a fad (yet again) that will die eventually. But when it comes back again, hopefully it will be more virtual reality vs fake depth of field with shitty glasses. For prometheus, I am not sure which I will see it in - depends on how I feel about it. Most likely 2D.