Chris Nolan on why Dark Knight is 2D: "I never meet anybody who actually likes 3D" - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 06:10 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

I certainly am not a basher of 3D, but I am also not yet fully convinced that I should join the dedicated 3D cult members who want to silence anyone who is not mesmerized by it, to the point where they keep demanding that all non true-believers leave their temple at once.
It is no different that people expressing different viewpoints about various other video technologies and hardware on this site, so all you 3D cult members, stop telling those who are not members of your temple that they should not express their opinions about 3D. They have a much right to do so, as you do. Your attitude is going to sour people on even trying it, since they would not want to be linked with such a group of insular knee- jerks!

So you feel they have the right to say that because they aren't a fan of 3D, that Hollywood should stop making 3D movies?

What kind of a group do they fall into?
Lee Stewart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 06:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I have absolutely no problems with people that don't want to watch 3D, until they start pestering me with "3D is teh suck!!" statements all the time. Then it starts getting on people's nerves, and flame wars break out.

Let's take a look at this statement from earlier in the thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT View Post

All 3D does is give me a headache and make me miserable and I know I'm not unique in that regard.
He's not saying 3D sucks. He's not rambling on about the "gimmick" or how we're all stupid for buying into the format. He presented a very short, to-the-point statement about why he personally doesn't watch 3D. And I am 100% okay with that. I know it's not for everybody, and if someone simply says "it's not for me", that is a-okay.

The exact same thing applies to Chris Nolan's statement. He took an overly negative approach to 3D in that quote, and it's turned into quite the, uh... "discussion" here. What he should probably have said is what he said back when the studios were trying to pressure him into doing a 3D conversion on The Dark Knight. His attitude then was simply that 3D didn't serve the story, and the film had been shot in a 2D fashion, and a conversion, especially done just for the money, would only hurt the film, and do nothing to improve or help it in any way.

If he had said the same thing about TDKR, whether he's talking conversion or native 3D, I think we all would have been fine with it.

While I'm a fan of the 3D format overall, moreso recently, I know that it's not suited for everything, and it's not going to lessen my enjoyment of TDKR to "have" to see it in 2D. My only complaint is that I'm working this weekend and probably won't get to see the film until next weekend. I'm going to have to wear earplugs to the office next week to avoid spoilers.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #93 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 06:16 PM
Member
 
Mr Fusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It's a self-serving statement that DOES contradict himself. It's OK to charge more for IMAX because he likes IMAX, but it's not OK to charge more for 3D because he doesn't like 3D. It's as simple as that.

Thanks a lot Lee, that's exactly what I was getting at! Maybe I should have simplified my post to get the point across instead.

After reading through the rest of this thread though, I wasn't chiding Nolan for not filming TDKR in 3D. It's his movie and his vision. I was merely basing my response from a financial standpoint because in order for customers to see the IMAX-filmed scenes for TDKR in their entirety, they will have to pay a higher ticket price at 15/70 IMAX theatres to get the full picture. Similar to how normal theatres charge more for 3D films. The point is, Nolan should be mindful of citing one of the reasons for not filming in 3D is because of higher ticket prices, since seeing TDKR at an IMAX theatre costs more anyway.
Mr Fusion is offline  
post #94 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 06:30 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Fusion View Post

Thanks a lot Lee, that's exactly what I was getting at! Maybe I should have simplified my post to get the point across instead.
After reading through the rest of this thread though, I wasn't chiding Nolan for not filming TDKR in 3D. It's his movie and his vision. I was merely basing my response from a financial standpoint because in order for customers to see the IMAX-filmed scenes for TDKR in their entirety, they will have to pay a higher ticket price at 15/70 IMAX theatres to get the full picture. Similar to how normal theatres charge more for 3D films. The point is, Nolan should be mindful of citing one of the reasons for not filming in 3D is because of higher ticket prices, since seeing TDKR at an IMAX theatre costs more anyway.

I just checked the AMC Loews Lincoln Center in NYC which has the big IMAX theater. It's $7 to see TDKR for a matinee in one of the regular theaters and $13 to see it in 15/70 IMAX. $14 for a night show and $20 for a night show in IMAX. So it's a $6 premium for an IMAX ticket.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #95 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 08:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
GregK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
So Nolan doesn't like 3-D. Whatever floats his boat.

So Nolan has said obvious B.S. to weakly back up his view. As Lee noted, "somebody" is buying these 3-D tickets. I haven't seen a gun pointed at anyone's back when they are deciding to spend more of their hard earned $$ on a 3-D ticket. It isn't rocket science.

Personally, I hope Nolan can continue to shoot movies however he wants. The only aspect I am slightly concerned about regarding this title and the Director's statements is how 3-D features are perceived, and how the future of 3-D movies is effected .. if at all.

As far as IMAX presentations charging considerably more than the standard digital and 35mm showings, it is worth mentioning IMAX installations are far out numbered by Real-D installations. This means the additional $$ generated by specialty showings will of course be less, given this is a 2-D release. And it will likely cost the latest Batman feature some boxoffice $$$, no matter how high the weekend box office grosses may be. This is also why even when only 30 to 40% of ticket sales are from 3-D presentations, it is still a good day for the studios.

http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Dark+Knight+Rises+Lack+will+limit+Batman+office/6959380/story.html


In short, 3-D brings in the $$. When 3-D ticket prices were only slightly higher, 3-D movie attendance was higher. When 3-D ticket prices went up even higher, the attendance started to take a dip, as can be seen in the various charts. But that attendance dip vs the 3-D premium price seems to have balanced out. People still want to see 3-D.
GregK is offline  
post #96 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 09:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
GregK took the words out of my mouth frown.gif

It's hypocritical of Nolan to be so gungho about IMAX but unexcited about charging a premium to see a 3D movie. IMAX, like 3D in most cases, is indeed more immersive, but for the other 90% of consumers you have to make sure that nothing important is lost in the standard shows. IMAX is just eye candy, just like 3D. That's not an insult to IMAX or 3D, but rather a reality check for anyone who praises IMAX but bashes 3D. Especially considering IMAX is such a tiny market compared to 3D.

Nolan's just doing damage control for the inevitable disappointment that will be TDKR's second place finish in 2012, which could have been avoided if he made it 3D. If he has the balls to say no to 3D when he feels like it, then man up and accept the financial defeat that comes with it. There's no denying that given the popularity of this movie, he's throwing a LOOOOOT of money out the window, as well as bragging rights to all the box office records Avengers recently broke.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #97 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 09:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
And the circle jerk continues!


Nolan: The Dark Knight Rises Isn’t in 3D Because Nobody Likes 3D


And this quote sums up the stupidity: "For those of us that fail to understand the magic of 3D, Christopher Nolan is our champion."

The media are not focusing on the fact his statement is patently false, or the fact he's producing a 3D movie for 2013. Nolan's opinion of 3D has never been very clear or concise, but he HAS said before that he wanted an Inception in 3D and there are rumors of a 3D Blu-ray. Also, he's producing a 3D movie (Man of Steel) with Zack Snyder directing. And through his criticism of poorly-implemented 3D, he CLEARLY acknowledges that 3D IS in fact right for certain movie... just not TDKR. And yet the ONLY thing the JOURNALISTS and rabid anti-3D luddites hear or parrot is, "BLAH BLAH BLAH EVERYONE HATES 3D." Such moronic, stupid behavior.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #98 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 10:01 PM
Member
 
Mr Fusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I just checked the AMC Loews Lincoln Center in NYC which has the big IMAX theater. It's $7 to see TDKR for a matinee in one of the regular theaters and $13 to see it in 15/70 IMAX. $14 for a night show and $20 for a night show in IMAX. So it's a $6 premium for an IMAX ticket.

Great example. As I posted earlier in this thread, the closest 15/70 IMAX to me is the Navy Pier IMAX Theatre in Chicago. According to their site, they want $16 for day shows and $18 for the evening and later. Plus I would have to factor in the 3 hour drive just to get there and we all know gas is not cheap right now.

Or I can just watch it near me at the local Rave Cinemas which charges $5 for regular screenings on Tuesdays (the entire day). They also have IMAX there but it's a digital one unfortunately. So I'm still debating whether or not to make the trip out there to Navy Pier to see TDKR.
Mr Fusion is offline  
post #99 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 10:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I love this user comment from the article above, and the fanboy drivel that comes from the 3D hater:
Quote:
Likes 3D:
Martin Scorsese
Ridley Scott
James Cameron
Ang Lee
Peter Jackson
Bryan Singer
Steven Spielberg
Henry Selick
Robert Zemeckis
Joseph Kosinski
Rob Marshall
Tim Burton
Michael Bay
Alfonso Cuaron
Baz Luhrmann
Wim Wenders
Jean Luc Goddard
Werner Herzog

Hates 3D:
Christopher Nolan

And then, to defend Nolan:
Quote:
Let me reiterate Nolan’s comment. Nobody WHO MATTERS cares about 3d.

If anything I would defend Nolan by saying, "Hey, that's a gross misrepresentation of his views on 3D. He actually says it has a place, and would have used it if he had more time on Inception. Then again, Nolan has also stuck his foot in his mouth by making generalized negative comments about 3D popularity that are untrue and piss me off, so he doesn't need any more help misrepresenting himself."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #100 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 10:25 PM
Member
 
MichaelDorsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

If technology doesn't make a movie good or bad then why did he shoot almost half the movie in IMAX - the current technological zenith of emulision film. And of which approx 70 to 80% of his audience will never see.
And if he is getting points on the BO take, then he may regret not getting the $100+ million extra that 3D tickets would have brought in. Shooting in 3D would definitely been cheaper than shooting in partial IMAX.

I guess he shot it that way because he wanted a spectacular 2-D movie shown in the IMAX format. The issue is artistic, not box office gross, obviously. I'm sure that Nolan new that he was costing himself some $$$ by not going 3-D. He probably knows more about the movie business than you or me and knows that 3-D isn't the best presentation format right now, just the best way to pad the BO.

MichaelDorsey is offline  
post #101 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 10:34 PM
Member
 
kikkoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Wow, seems like a lot of folks are not into 3D, especially due to the glasses and comfort level of wearing them. Of course they feel it's partly a gimmick as well.

Not every movie is made for 3D, that's for sure. There have been quite a few 2D to 3D conversions and poorly implemented 3D movies as well. But to me, there is no way Avatar, Hugo, the town chase scene in Tin Tin is better in 2D than 3D. Not even close. Those were really good implemented movies and scenes for 3D. The 3D brings an added bonus to the film in my opinion. Definitely can't wait to see Sammy's Adventures and have heard that The Great Gatsby preview was very nice.

It may be that I enjoy 3D so am I a little biased, but I do agree that there are a lot of poorly shot movies in 3D movies and conversions that is not helping those on the fence. For others who just think 3D is silly, I hope you get a chance to watch a really good shot movie in 3D in a true IMAX theater.

kikkoman is offline  
post #102 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 10:36 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelDorsey View Post

I guess he shot it that way because he wanted a spectacular 2-D movie shown in the IMAX format. The issue is artistic, not box office gross, obviously. I'm sure that Nolan new that he was costing himself some $$$ by not going 3-D. He probably knows more about the movie business than you or me and knows that 3-D isn't the best presentation format right now, just the best way to pad the BO.

The business of making movies is making money. To think otherwise is foolish. Nolan broke new ground with TDK by shooting in IMAX, the first Hollywood movie to do so. He has continued this with more than twice the footage shot in IMAX for TDKR.

But he is not the only pioneer or innovator when it comes to movie technology. Peter Jackson is also on that list by shooting THE HOBBIT in 48 fps 3D, the first time ever. Nolan could have shot TDKR in the same fashion. But he likes IMAX, not 3D. He has made that clear in his statement.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #103 of 320 Old 07-19-2012, 10:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Is IndieWire the only sane voice in this mess?

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/christopher-nolan-still-doesnt-like-3d-neil-blomkamp-says-48fps-has-an-alien-quality-to-it-20120719
Quote:
However, Nolan is keener on 3D these days, brought on by films like “Hugo,” but also more delightfully Baz Luhrmann's wonky extravaganza “The Great Gatsby.”

Collider and SlashFilm are extremely open-minded and appreciative of 3D as well.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #104 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 05:03 AM
Member
 
Rbentley100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Personally I am indifferent to 3D. When going to watch a film at the cinema I will choose the showing that suits the time I want to watch it, more than 2d vs 3d.

3d has a moment of being 'nice' (Promethius[realised im not sure how to spell it offhand :/]) and moments of being down right awful (Transformers dark side of the moon). I have found though whenever 3d is done well it has detracted from the film itself. i.e. I focus on the scenary, and think, that looks cool.

I am not saying 3d doesnt have a place, and I am sure if they can sort it out so you never have to wear glasses etc and viewing angles etc can all be ironed out (long way off of happening, would have to have some sort of retina tracking camera for this) then it will become commonplace. But for now, it is a gimmik (to me).

If Nolan has decided it would detract from his film to put in 3d then thats his call. If he decided to shoot a film in black and white, there would be no uproar. Take Sin city as an example (not quite B&W but close). But because people want to defend 3d it becomes a flame war.

If you like 3d, dont panic it is here to stay now!

Rbentley100 is offline  
post #105 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 06:04 AM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbentley100 View Post

If Nolan has decided it would detract from his film to put in 3d then thats his call. If he decided to shoot a film in black and white, there would be no uproar. Take Sin city as an example (not quite B&W but close). But because people want to defend 3d it becomes a flame war.
If you like 3d, dont panic it is here to stay now!

It becomes a flame war because the people that don't like 3D want to spread their negativity by posting on every forum including ones like this which are clearly aimed at fans of the format! It's not constructive and frankly extremely tiresome. Nobody here including those of us who are very vocal in our support of 3D though are remotely frightened to criticise 3D. The recent discussion on The Amazing Spider Man demonstrates that.

As for Nolan's views of 3D, well he seems rather confused to me and I wonder how much of that stems from his inability to work out how to use 3D effectively. He's a brilliant film maker in my opinion but 3D is another tool he could use if only he would take the time to explore the possibilities it offers and stop using the rather sorry and inaccurate excuse that nobody liked 3D to mask his insecurities with the format.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #106 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 06:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
mike1812's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Yes, as we sit here bickering over whether 3D is good or bad, there are families and friends mourning the loss of loved ones in Aurora, Colorado right now due to some nutjob who decided that the premiere of TDKR would be a great time to shoot up a bunch of people. SMH. . .
mike1812 is offline  
post #107 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 07:03 AM
Member
 
Rbentley100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1812 View Post

Yes, as we sit here bickering over whether 3D is good or bad, there are families and friends mourning the loss of loved ones in Aurora, Colorado right now due to some nutjob who decided that the premiere of TDKR would be a great time to shoot up a bunch of people. SMH. . .

Yes, tragic news. My heart goes out to the families affected. terrible news! Definately trvialises 3d vs 2d :/

Rbentley100 is offline  
post #108 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 12:01 PM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Yes, just heard about this in the UK on the BBC News. God alone knows what goes through the minds of these nut jobs when they do this sort of thing.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #109 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 12:21 PM
Senior Member
 
cshawnmcdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 41
You ever stop to think that maybe Nolan didn't go with 3D for TDKR because when Anne Hathaway bounced onscreen in that cat suit, it may have been physically possible to put someone's eye out? wink.gif Great googelty moogelty that woman has... assets.

I've always paid the upcharge for 3D without too much complaint.

My home theater is under construction and I was waffling between the Optoma HD20 and added expense of the HD33.

But a funny thing happened while watching The Avengers. Toward the climax of the big fight scene it hit me like a wiffleball bat to the nuts: "Meh. I'm over 3D."

The gimmick played out and it played out with the suddenness of a marathoner hitting the 20 mile wall. Kind of like the moment I realized the Beach Boys don't rock and Tyler Perry in drag isn't funny.

If you like 3D, let your freak flag fly. We are cool. But me? I'm over it. And I'm okay with that.

Just keep talkin'. I'll let you know when you're right.
cshawnmcdonald is offline  
post #110 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 12:39 PM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by cshawnmcdonald View Post

If you like 3D, let your freak flag fly. We are cool. But me? I'm over it. And I'm okay with that.

Well that's fine. You stick with your quaint 100 year old moving 2D picture technology. smile.gif
cbcdesign is offline  
post #111 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 12:42 PM
Senior Member
 
cshawnmcdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

Well that's fine. You stick with your quaint 100 year old moving 2D picture technology. smile.gif

Dude, are you kidding? I still watch porn acted out by Pulcinella puppets.

Just keep talkin'. I'll let you know when you're right.
cshawnmcdonald is offline  
post #112 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 03:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
elvisahmed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 504
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Bravo Nolan Bravo! I feel like giving out a standing ovation as he has done it again. A satisfying closure to this saga.
Unfortunately I didn't catch in IMAX but did the next best thing and watched it today in an Ultra AVX theater by Cineplex. Found something odd though I found the aspect ratio to be off for some scenes in the first hour or so for some scenes (I am assuming they were shot in IMAX) worse was that I found picture quality to be soft as well for those scene. So just to give a heads-up to fellow AVS Forum folks I would wait and watch it IMAX. One of those rare movies I will watch again on the big screen. Sound is of reference level IMHO (Ultra AVX theaters rock!)
elvisahmed is offline  
post #113 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 04:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
benclement11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Also not a huge fan of 3D. My main gripe is people shooting movies specifically for 3D. All of the camera tricks are the same and I think it sometimes ruins the movie when watching in 2D( IMO). 3D is a gimmick and it will never completely overtake 2D, ever. Not a hater, just see that as the truth.

Panasonic P60ST50-Yamaha RX-V467 receiver-Sony PS3-Velodyne SMS-1-Canton 430 mains, 455 center and 402 surrounds-Rythmik FV15HP subwoofer- Pro-ject Debut III turntable- I also have a pair of Mark K's DIY design, the ER18DXT's
.
My humble entertainment room

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
benclement11 is offline  
post #114 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by benclement11 View Post

Also not a huge fan of 3D. My main gripe is people shooting movies specifically for 3D. All of the camera tricks are the same and I think it sometimes ruins the movie when watching in 2D( IMO). 3D is a gimmick and it will never completely overtake 2D, ever. Not a hater, just see that as the truth.
By "ever", I assume you mean "the foreseeable near future". As soon as we stop watching content on a flat 2D screen and go to full-bore holographics, then I think 3D will indeed surpass 2D.

What we're doing now is a workaround, I understand that (and I support the format), a way to watch 3D content on a 2D screen. But the 2D screen isn't going to last forever, ever. I give it less than a hundred years.
David_B likes this.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #115 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 08:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, Not as far east as Vegas
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 162
I have been to the Navy Pier IMAX and I can say it may be worth the trip, if you have time
go, I don't think you will regret it.

"Bring out yer dead!".."Wait I'm not dead yet!"..(Sound Austrian here) "WRONG !!" (You know what happens next..)
tenthplanet is online now  
post #116 of 320 Old 07-20-2012, 08:31 PM
Senior Member
 
jrobitaille23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnetonka, MN
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
the replies on this thread should really be about Nolan, TDKR and his statements about 3d. Why people feel the need to say yay or nay about 3d is besides the point. Nolan made a stupid generalized statement and he should be called out on it. Judging by 3d sales for movies done correctly in that format, and done well, TDKR would have done very well in 3d. I saw it this morning and it was brilliant. He really closed this trilogy so perfectly IMHO. That said, I could totally see how amazing it would have looked in 3d. He could have raised the bar but he chose not to and made a stupid statement to justify his fear and laziness. Talking about going to 3d post production for a blu ray release of Inception, producing somebody else's 3d film...it all points to him not willing to take it on himself. I think he would be great and it IS his call after all, but don't play games and make those statements.
jrobitaille23 is offline  
post #117 of 320 Old 07-21-2012, 01:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbentley100 View Post

I have found though whenever 3d is done well it has detracted from the film itself. i.e. I focus on the scenary, and think, that looks cool.
Good stereography is as welcome as 2D cinematography, in my book. It's natural to be overly distracted by good 3D and then later build up a resistance so you can concentrate on everything at once. Avatar was my first 3D movie and I was blown away by the images and it distracted me from the dialog for the first 5 minutes- but I soon adapted and settled in and 3D became just another complementary element to enjoy like cinematography, music, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benclement11 View Post

Also not a huge fan of 3D. My main gripe is people shooting movies specifically for 3D.
I think it's weird that you don't like 3D because the films play to 3D's strengths. Not only is that untrue- most live action 3D is shot in 2D with barely an ounce of attention to 3D detail- but the few movies that have made full use of 3D, like Avatar and Hugo, are on most 3D haters' exceptions list because they were shot with 3D in mind from start to finish. We need more movies that have been shot with 3D in mind.
Quote:
All of the camera tricks are the same and I think it sometimes ruins the movie when watching in 2D( IMO)[/
All 2D's camera tricks are the same too. We're just used to them...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #118 of 320 Old 07-21-2012, 01:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrobitaille23 View Post

the replies on this thread should really be about Nolan, TDKR and his statements about 3d. Why people feel the need to say yay or nay about 3d is besides the point. Nolan made a stupid generalized statement and he should be called out on it. Judging by 3d sales for movies done correctly in that format, and done well, TDKR would have done very well in 3d. I saw it this morning and it was brilliant. He really closed this trilogy so perfectly IMHO. That said, I could totally see how amazing it would have looked in 3d. He could have raised the bar but he chose not to and made a stupid statement to justify his fear and laziness. Talking about going to 3d post production for a blu ray release of Inception, producing somebody else's 3d film...it all points to him not willing to take it on himself. I think he would be great and it IS his call after all, but don't play games and make those statements.
Yeah, whenever Hollywood types bash 3D they're always cherry picking the bad movies and cliches and never want to acknowledge when 3D is done well and never want to accept that Hollywood is still relatively inexperienced in 3D, which is the main problem. If more movies were like Avatar or Hugo, 3D would be doing so much better. I think the truth is that people look at 3D as a platform of software rather than at the merits of the tool itself. So it's like the Playstation Vita-- great hardware and great potential, but the software support is unimpressive compared to Mario, Zelda etc and therefore Vita is unappealing as a platform. I think it's wrong to look at 3D like a console that is judged by its games- it should instead be judged based on the potential for greatness. Hollywood's 3D, at least its live action 3D, is subpar as a result of bad creative decisions fueled by little more than a love of money. The main problem with live action 3D to date has been the forcing of conversions on filmmakers who wouldn't have made a 3D movie otherwise. And the movies that HAVE been shot in 3D (aside from a few great movies) have been mostly made by Paul WS Anderson and other teeny horror action directors who I can't stand. :P Fortunately I foresee a pretty big leap in quality with more movies achieving gold-status 3D now that more capable filmmakers are trying it and more native 3D rigs are being used.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #119 of 320 Old 07-21-2012, 12:16 PM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by benclement11 View Post

3D is a gimmick and it will never completely overtake 2D, ever. Not a hater, just see that as the truth.

I think your completely and utterly wrong frankly. 3D will almost certainly overtake 2D eventually just as surround overtook mono and colour overtook black and white.
We are in the very early stages at the moment but as the technology improves and film makers learn how to shoot in 3D, more and more programs and movies will be shot that way and 2D will be phased out. 2D just isn't a natural way to see anything when most of us have sterescopic vision.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #120 of 320 Old 07-21-2012, 01:40 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

I think your completely and utterly wrong frankly. 3D will almost certainly overtake 2D eventually just as surround overtook mono and colour overtook black and white.
We are in the very early stages at the moment but as the technology improves and film makers learn how to shoot in 3D, more and more programs and movies will be shot that way and 2D will be phased out. 2D just isn't a natural way to see anything when most of us have sterescopic vision.

I seriously doubt that. Not with over 20% of the population having physical issues with 3D which BTW did not exist with either of the two examples you listed.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Reply 3D Content

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off