Godzilla 3D - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 81 Old 05-21-2014, 12:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyburns View Post

But seriously folks...a Godzilla movie ought to be an epic 3D playground with zero limitations that's what i was hoping for no doubt the new X-men will be much the same
Our depth perception gets weak around 10-15 feet. To even recognize Godzilla and his fight scenes you'd need to be a hundred to two hundred feet away.

Also, Godzilla's screentime is pretty limited, that's how the writer and director wanted it for the psychological impact.

This whole "limitless filmmaking" concept is amateurish. Michael Bay, is that you?

P.S. I saw this in 2D, and the sense of scale was great. I didn't need binocular cues to know that Godzilla was ginormous.

3D is better for human scale stuff that can be filmed less than 10 feet away. Like Hugo, Life of Pi, Great Gatsby, Gravity.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 81 Old 05-21-2014, 04:43 PM
Member
 
ekaaaans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
This whole "limitless filmmaking" concept is amateurish. Michael Bay, is that you?

If Bay was looking to improve his game, imposing arbitrary limitations to the available film-making arsenal would be a pretty dumb first step. Zero limitations is not the same thing as gross excess.

 

I can think of a dozen different ways 3D could have been used effectively in this movie, that have nothing to do with the enormous size of the monsters. If as Tony says, the 3D is subtle...it's because the people involved wanted it that way. A waste of time and money imho...

ekaaaans is offline  
post #33 of 81 Old 05-21-2014, 08:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekaaaans View Post

If Bay was looking to improve his game, imposing arbitrary limitations to the available film-making arsenal would be a pretty dumb first step. Zero limitations is not the same thing as gross excess.
A "zero limitations" philosophy literally means that nothing is too much, including gross excess. Michael Bay gets away with excess because his target demographic loves explosions and overstylized fight scenes. So it doesn't apply to him since his audience wants that. Godzilla on the other hand is a movie that's trying to exercise restraint, e.g. in the amount of screentime allotted to Godzilla himself.
Quote:
I can think of a dozen different ways 3D could have been used effectively in this movie, that have nothing to do with the enormous size of the monsters. If as Tony says, the 3D is subtle...it's because the people involved wanted it that way. A waste of time and money imho...
I'd like to hear your ideas.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #34 of 81 Old 05-21-2014, 11:11 PM
Member
 
ekaaaans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
A "zero limitations" philosophy literally means that nothing is too much, including gross excess.

Gross excess is bad film-making. I'm sure no one is suggesting that bad film-making is a viable philosophy for directors. In the context you originally quoted above, zero limitations is specifically referring to the use of 3D in this particular movie.

 

As for ideas: It would take an unlikely lack of visual imagination to not recognize potential 3D spectacle in radioactive fire, crackling electricity, disintegrating power plants, shattering glass, tidal waves, HALO paratroopers, rockets, fighter jets, collapsing skyscrapers etc. Which is why I suspect they deliberately chose to go subtle.

ekaaaans is offline  
post #35 of 81 Old 05-22-2014, 09:22 AM
Senior Member
 
SFMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I saw the movie Tuesday night and after the showing I heard a couple talking in the lobby. The guy said "I noticed the 3D in the beginning but after awhile it didn't do anything." His date said,"we should have gone to the regular one."

So another couple underwhelmed by a competant but lackluster conversion. Will they pick a 3D showing for the next blockbuster thats plays? I was let down by this movie as the whole middle of the picture didn't really do much plus the writing was so by the book I didn't care what happened to the main characters. You knew the soldier and his family would be reunited in the end...blah...blah. They were such stock characters with zilch personalities. If the studios would spend as much time on the scripts as they do on setting up the effects sequences we would have more satisfying movies. But hey making that quick hundred million+ is the bottom line and audiences keep coming.
SFMike is offline  
post #36 of 81 Old 05-22-2014, 12:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFMike View Post

I saw the movie Tuesday night and after the showing I heard a couple talking in the lobby. The guy said "I noticed the 3D in the beginning but after awhile it didn't do anything." His date said,"we should have gone to the regular one."
The 2 people I saw Avatar with in theaters said the same thing. I just looked at them like they were crazy.
Quote:
I was let down by this movie as the whole middle of the picture didn't really do much plus the writing was so by the book I didn't care what happened to the main characters. You knew the soldier and his family would be reunited in the end...blah...blah. They were such stock characters with zilch personalities. If the studios would spend as much time on the scripts as they do on setting up the effects sequences we would have more satisfying movies. But hey making that quick hundred million+ is the bottom line and audiences keep coming.
I actively avoid 3D action films because the way they shoot dialog scenes is pointless in 3D. 3D movies I enjoy the most compose every single shot for 3D, e.g. Hugo, Life of Pi, Great Gatsby, Gravity, etc, and they do it without taking away from the story, but rather enhance it, and they tend to have a better emotional core, better dialog, and tend to be less generic stories, and are arguably better storytelling overall, and don't just exist for mindless amusement.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #37 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 01:21 AM
Senior Member
 
lurkor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I saw it and didn't care for it so much. Call me crazy, but I go to a Godzilla movie to see, hmmmm I don't know, Godzilla maybe. Is that really asking so much? A giant lizard who causes havoc and mayhem with reckless abandon with cheesy Japanese music. How on earth do you screw that plot line up? In all honesty the commercials where he eats Fiats were more entertaining to me.
lurkor is offline  
post #38 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 03:32 AM
Member
 
guitarman512's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I saw this on wed night aftrr a long shift. Fell asleep and missed the end. There was such bad crosstalk as well I'm Thinking about emailing a complaint to the cinema. I should have just seen it at home.;0(
guitarman512 is offline  
post #39 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 12:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurkor View Post

I saw it and didn't care for it so much. Call me crazy, but I go to a Godzilla movie to see, hmmmm I don't know, Godzilla maybe. Is that really asking so much? A giant lizard who causes havoc and mayhem with reckless abandon with cheesy Japanese music. How on earth do you screw that plot line up? In all honesty the commercials where he eats Fiats were more entertaining to me.
I don't know, maybe because Jaws? And maybe because a monster terrifying the world, I like to think of adjectives other than the word "entertaining."

People today are addicted to violence and action.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #40 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 01:54 PM
Member
 
splode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I don't know guys. I kinda see both sides here, but why can't we have both. For the "artsy" movies, conservative or just depth is okay. But when I go to a "fun" movie like Godzilla, Transformers, Star Trek, etc, why not have things flying out of the screen?

I'm not an "artist" of any kind and I don't know anything as far as the technical stuff regarding 3d. It even makes sense to me that not all movies should have stuff out in front of the screen or at least rarely. But come on, lets have some fun with the less serious movies.

I do think that 3d will be in danger, or is already in danger of not staying around unless the average person occassionally gets WOWED!
TonyDP, old corps and ekaaaans like this.
splode is offline  
post #41 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 02:23 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 123
I wonder how many of you saw the original Godzilla. The Japanese movie. I think I was 8 years old when I saw it and all I remember was thousands of Japanese people running and screaming in the streets of Tokyo. I recall that it was stupid back then and wonder if the plot is just as stupid today. The Japanese don't really know how to make a serious scifi. Let me know if the story is, well, stupid.
old corps likes this.
Don Landis is offline  
post #42 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 04:34 PM
Member
 
ekaaaans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by splode View Post

I'm not an "artist" of any kind and I don't know anything as far as the technical stuff regarding 3d. It even makes sense to me that not all movies should have stuff out in front of the screen or at least rarely. But come on, lets have some fun with the less serious movies.

It'd be nice if someone at Pixar adopted your philosophy. It's mind boggling that a movie like Cars 2 is skittish about breaking the screen window. And the point about 3D being in danger of going away can't be repeated enough. "If the 3D's weak, it might as well not be there" sayeth the completely logical consumer. We sure as hell shouldn't be paying extra to(not) see it.

TonyDP likes this.
ekaaaans is offline  
post #43 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 05:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
This is why I don't like popout:

44a31ce3_o.png


My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #44 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 06:20 PM
Member
 
ekaaaans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

This is why I don't like popout:

44a31ce3_o.png


It's advertised this way because things escaping the screen boundary, is what "3D" MEANS to the vast majority of people. It's what we'd all seen for decades in the theme parks, before it became commonplace in the average theater. The studio snobs can go on trying to alter that perception with the depth-only routine, but they're decreasing the overall appeal in the process. It should worry them that people like me who actually like 3D, are often deliberately choosing the 2D version of their movies. 

 

Edited to add: That Monsters vs Aliens pic is one godawful piece of graphic art. :(

TonyDP likes this.
ekaaaans is offline  
post #45 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 06:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Explain how Gravity 3D was super popular without needing popout?

Or Hugo, or Life of Pi.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #46 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 07:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,848
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Explain how Gravity 3D was super popular without needing popout?

Or Hugo, or Life of Pi.
'

Gravity did have popout, quite a bit of it actually. The scene where the ISS is destroyed had about twenty tons of debris flying straight towards and past the viewer's line of sight (everybody at the two showings I saw was flinching in their seats during that sequence). It was one of the best examples of pop-out because it really drew the viewer into disaster that was unfolding and was probably the most memorable scene in the movie for me. There are also other examples of pop-out like Clooney reaching out of the screen to grab the bolt that is floating away (the scene is repeated later when Sandra Bullock reaches for a screw driver that is similarly floating out. And there was the scene of the Marvin the Martian bobblehead floating out of the screen when Clooney and Bullock inspect the derelict space shuttle.

Hugo also had plenty of stuff breaking the plane of the screen from barking dogs' snouts to swords during Mellies' flashback scene to snow wafting in front of the camera and that great scene where all of the drawings fall out of the box and float around in front of the viewer.

While examples like these may not be as in your face as a lance going into your eye, they definitely do pop out of the screen and add an extra layer of immersion to the experience.

Can't speak to Life of Pi as I haven't seen it.
TonyDP is offline  
post #47 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 07:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Those are great examples of popout where they don't call attention to it being popout, but rather call attention to the item that drives the narrative, and there's nothing comical or offputting about those particular uses.

However, these movies did not become successful because of those popout moments. They were successful because they were a seamless and stimulating and fresh blend of visual storytelling from start to finish. 3D was never an afterthought during the blocking process, it was always a primary focus of the director.

People who hate 3D tend to list films like Hugo, Life of Pi and Gravity as exceptions, and tend to mock in-your-face techniques that they might have preconceived notions about. So if you ask me, the most important thing that Hollywood can do to save 3D is to let 3D happen organically when the directors want to do it, but even then there are still going to be directors who willingly take on a 3D but do it poorly. But overall it would still mean fewer mediocre 3D films oversaturating the market, ruining it for the rest, and it would shut up a lot of haters. Because right now every mediocre 3D movie they see is just reinforcing their beliefs. But if every 3D movie they saw was on par with Gravity visually, they'd never have anything bad to say, except about how their theater was too dim, etc.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #48 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 07:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 47
The difference in those films you mentioned is that, native or converted, they were filmed as 3D from the start. Any film that shoots that way will always have a superior presentation than one that wasn't, IMO.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #49 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 10:07 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
It should worry them that people like me who actually like 3D, are often deliberately choosing the 2D version of their movies.

Nah! for every person who finds themselves miserable because the director didn't produce his work to suit you and your rules, there are hundreds like me who come away with a smile and satisfaction that I was entertained during the film. The most entertaining of all is watching little kids trying to reach out and grab the images popped out into my room during a 3D movie while laughing and giggling. That, my friend, is what it's all about. And if you are still miserable over how these directors preset their craft, you are more than welcome to make a film your way. Heck, I'm sure I would find your rules entertaining too. I have no rules, except to just have fun.
Barry C likes this.
Don Landis is offline  
post #50 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 10:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

The difference in those films you mentioned is that, native or converted, they were filmed as 3D from the start. Any film that shoots that way will always have a superior presentation than one that wasn't, IMO.
Sure, it helps to actually put effort into a native shoot, but good conversion can still beat bad native 3D. Just saying, there are no guarantees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Nah! for every person who finds themselves miserable because the director didn't produce his work to suit you and your rules, there are hundreds like me who come away with a smile and satisfaction that I was entertained during the film.
2D revenues outpace 3D 2:1 for the average movie. So much for haters being outnumbered 100:1.
Quote:
I have no rules, except to just have fun
Applying this to food, you'd enjoy everything from strawberry milkshakes to piles of crap.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #51 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 11:18 PM
Member
 
ekaaaans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post


Nah! for every person who finds themselves miserable because the director didn't produce his work to suit you and your rules, there are hundreds like me who come away with a smile and satisfaction that I was entertained during the film. The most entertaining of all is watching little kids trying to reach out and grab the images popped out into my room during a 3D movie while laughing and giggling. That, my friend, is what it's all about. And if you are still miserable over how these directors preset their craft, you are more than welcome to make a film your way. Heck, I'm sure I would find your rules entertaining too. I have no rules, except to just have fun.

If I WERE making a film my way, it would have aggressive 3D...or none at all. Which is why I prefer to buy 2D versions of movies that play it too conservative.

 

I appreciated this line from Kurt Loder's review of Oz: The Great and Powerful:

"If we must have 3D, let’s really have it. Not just for tastefully subtle depth effects; let’s have gold coins, gouts of water, and heavily fanged flying baboons sailing off the screen and right into our faces."

 

Employing subtle 3D(particularly in animated movies) is like using a private jet to drive to work on the turnpike. I mean sure, you'll get there but...:(  

ekaaaans is offline  
post #52 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 11:24 PM
Member
 
ekaaaans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Can't speak to Life of Pi as I haven't seen it.

I saw it in 2D, but Cinemablend gave it a 5/5 for pop-out 3D.

ekaaaans is offline  
post #53 of 81 Old 05-23-2014, 11:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekaaaans View Post

If I WERE making a film my way, it would have aggressive 3D...or none at all. Which is why I prefer to buy 2D versions of movies that play it too conservative.

I appreciated this line from Kurt Loder's review of Oz: The Great and Powerful:
"If we must have 3D, let’s really have it. Not just for tastefully subtle depth effects; let’s have gold coins, gouts of water, and heavily fanged flying baboons sailing off the screen and right into our faces."

Employing subtle 3D(particularly in animated movies) is like using a private jet to drive to work on the turnpike. I mean sure, you'll get there but...frown.gif  
This idea that 3D is synonymous with things traveling along the Z axis is like demanding that 2D have stuff flying across the X and Y axes. Sounds whack.

The notion that 3D should be strong, or at least adequately noticeable? Ok, totally on board with that. The 3D should be roughly accurate compared to our real world depth perception. I don't want it to be exaggerated, I just want to feel a sense that I'm looking into or out of a window or portal.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #54 of 81 Old 05-24-2014, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Sure, it helps to actually put effort into a native shoot, but good conversion can still beat bad native 3D. Just saying, there are no guarantees.
That's not what I meant. I meant shooting with 3D in mind, regardless of whether you're actually using 3D cameras. Gravity is a conversion, but it was planned, and shot, as a 3D film from the start. 3D films are framed and shot differently than 2D films.
Don Landis likes this.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #55 of 81 Old 05-24-2014, 10:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

That's not what I meant. I meant shooting with 3D in mind, regardless of whether you're actually using 3D cameras. Gravity is a conversion, but it was planned, and shot, as a 3D film from the start. 3D films are framed and shot differently than 2D films.
Man, how did I not catch that?

In general you're right, but there are still no 100% guarantees that if you plan ahead, you'll rise above all the films that didn't-- Jurassic Park and Titanic, for example, look better than some planned 3D efforts.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #56 of 81 Old 05-24-2014, 12:29 PM
Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Nah! for every person who finds themselves miserable because the director didn't produce his work to suit you and your rules, there are hundreds like me who come away with a smile and satisfaction that I was entertained during the film. The most entertaining of all is watching little kids trying to reach out and grab the images popped out into my room during a 3D movie while laughing and giggling. That, my friend, is what it's all about. And if you are still miserable over how these directors preset their craft, you are more than welcome to make a film your way. Heck, I'm sure I would find your rules entertaining too. I have no rules, except to just have fun.


Spot on, Mr. Landis. smile.gif
Barry C is offline  
post #57 of 81 Old 05-24-2014, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,149
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Explain how Gravity 3D was super popular without needing popout?

Or Hugo, or Life of Pi.
'

Gravity did have popout, quite a bit of it actually.

 

Not "quite a bit of it", no it didn't.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #58 of 81 Old 05-24-2014, 03:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,149
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 676

By the way, we're back into this abyss again?


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #59 of 81 Old 05-24-2014, 04:51 PM
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Directors tend to lock into an art form based on what they learn and who they learn it from. Nothing new here. Changing status quo in an art form (ie. 24fps 2D film) has always been evolutionary--read slow to change, because if we do what sold in the past we will make money in the future. 3D is a learned technology, not a taught technology, and therein lies the problem. And we all know that in the end it's always more about money than art or science. And, I must say, why do people think that putting objects through the 3D window is crap? To me it can be fun, interesting and drag me into a scene that is a yawner. It's just as much crap to say that having things in the audience lap is crap as it is to say that not having it is art--who says so and why are you/they the appointed 3D gods? As a famous star told me, when the audience loves something to an extreme, the media will say it's a gimmick, and from then on, any true "artist," director will shun it like the plague.
ekaaaans likes this.
threed123 is offline  
post #60 of 81 Old 05-24-2014, 08:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 47
It's not crap if it serves a purpose.

And that whole "appointed 3D gods" door swings both ways. Both sides of the argument use it, so it's pointless to even bring it up.
tgm1024 likes this.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 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