The 82nd Academy Awards on ABC HD! - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 280 Old 03-10-2010, 09:05 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,412
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

There was no excuse to exclude Farrah.

And what about Gene Barry, Henry Gibson, Bea Arthur?

All of these were probably better known for their TV careers, but all were Academy members and had long lists of film credits. But these were not small name actors.

Very strange, not to have added just one more minute to the tribute to show these four big name actors, especially given the large list of deceased writers they included who no doubt were deserving as well but were probably largely not known to anybody but insiders, unlike these four who were known to just about everyone watching.
DSperber is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 280 Old 03-10-2010, 11:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSperber View Post

And what about Gene Barry, Henry Gibson, Bea Arthur?

All of these were probably better known for their TV careers, but all were Academy members and had long lists of film credits. But these were not small name actors.

Very strange, not to have added just one more minute to the tribute to show these four big name actors, especially given the large list of deceased writers they included who no doubt were deserving as well but were probably largely not known to anybody but insiders, unlike these four who were known to just about everyone watching.

Agreed.
Just more fodder for those who believe it really is only for the Hollywood insiders anyway. What's one more minute? It's not like they're gonna die again next year.

Art
adpayne is offline  
post #273 of 280 Old 03-10-2010, 06:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Perpendicular's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: California
Posts: 2,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

What's one more minute?

Thank you, but I really would not want to listen to James Taylor any longer than I had to.

OPPO BETA GROUP
Perpendicular is online now  
post #274 of 280 Old 03-11-2010, 05:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perpendicular View Post

Thank you, but I really would not want to listen to James Taylor any longer than I had to.

despite his religious views I think he still has a great voice.
vurbano is offline  
post #275 of 280 Old 03-11-2010, 05:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

I know this is furthering the off-topic discussion, but how can they do 3D without glasses? I know there is tech out there, BUT you have to sit in a specific location to get the 3D effect. And it is very expensive to produce.

What's the big deal about wearing glasses for a movie? Those of us with theatre rooms, and PJ's, sit in the dark to watch. We wear seat belts while in a car. Life is full of compromises.

I enjoyed Hurt Locker, but was more entertained by Avatar.

There was no excuse to exclude Farrah. They included many obscure "behind the scenes" people, that makes their excuse even weaker.

Art

the big deal? A family of 5 needs to spend 500 dollars for glasses. Friends coming over for the SB need to stop by the store and buy a 100 dollar pair of glasses? Go sell that to grandpa coming over for thanksgiving and wanting to watch the NFL turkey games in 3D. The neighbors next door coming over to watch Avatar? dont forget your 100 dollar glasses. This thing is DOA at this price and configuration.
vurbano is offline  
post #276 of 280 Old 03-11-2010, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano View Post

the big deal? A family of 5 needs to spend 500 dollars for glasses. Friends coming over for the SB need to stop by the store and buy a 100 dollar pair of glasses? Go sell that to grandpa coming over for thanksgiving and wanting to watch the NFL turkey games in 3D. The neighbors next door coming over to watch Avatar? dont forget your 100 dollar glasses. This thing is DOA at this price and configuration.

I see your point, but prices will come down as adoption increases. I'm not saying 3D will be as big as HD, etc. - just that it's too early to predict its utter failure.

Art
adpayne is offline  
post #277 of 280 Old 03-11-2010, 03:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PiratesCove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Homestead, FL
Posts: 4,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

I see your point, but prices will come down as adoption increases. I'm not saying 3D will be as big as HD, etc. - just that it's too early to predict its utter failure.

Art

3D TV may or may not fail......But, 3D is THE Future of the Motion Picture Industry for all Theater Chains. Why, because 3D makes three times more money than 2D. Real D 3D glasses cost $3-4 additional cost not the $100-200 for 3D shutter glasses.

BTW: "Avatar" will finacially, technically, and artistically influence ALL major future film studio releases.
PiratesCove is offline  
post #278 of 280 Old 03-11-2010, 04:29 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiratesCove View Post

3D TV may or may not fail......But, 3D is THE Future of the Motion Picture Industry for all Theater Chains. Why, because 3D makes three times more money than 2D. Real D 3D glasses cost $3-4 additional cost not the $100-200 for 3D shutter glasses.

BTW: "Avatar" will finacially, technically, and artistically influence ALL major future film studio releases.

They tried it in the 1950's and it faded - then 30 years later in the 1980's (Friday the 13th, Jaws, etc.) and it faded.

... now 30 years later they're trying it again. I wouldn't bank on it taking over the industry.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #279 of 280 Old 03-11-2010, 05:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiratesCove View Post

3D TV may or may not fail......But, 3D is THE Future of the Motion Picture Industry for all Theater Chains. Why, because 3D makes three times more money than 2D. Real D 3D glasses cost $3-4 additional cost not the $100-200 for 3D shutter glasses.

BTW: "Avatar" will finacially, technically, and artistically influence ALL major future film studio releases.

I'm not so sure. I've seen Avatar in both 3-D and 2-D and frankly, I liked the 2-D version better. It was sharper and brighter because it wasn't being viewed through cheap filtered glasses. I don't feel like I missed much not having the sprites dangle in front of my face; it was plenty cool and I got the "picture" just fine as I'm accustomed to doing at the movies.

I'm not sure I'm that eager to see another 3-D film, and pay the attached premium, for an experience that doesn't seem either truly three dimensional (which would involve some kind of holographic technology yet to be developed) or that much different. I'm certainly not going out and replacing my beloved CRT-HD display that still gives me such an awesome picture with a first-generation 3-D set. Or second. Or third. Etc.
archiguy is offline  
post #280 of 280 Old 03-11-2010, 10:00 PM
 
estoniankid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: los gatos, CA
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I'm not so sure. I've seen Avatar in both 3-D and 2-D and frankly, I liked the 2-D version better. It was sharper and brighter because it wasn't being viewed through cheap filtered glasses. I don't feel like I missed much not having the sprites dangle in front of my face; it was plenty cool and I got the "picture" just fine as I'm accustomed to doing at the movies.

I'm not sure I'm that eager to see another 3-D film, and pay the attached premium, for an experience that doesn't seem either truly three dimensional (which would involve some kind of holographic technology yet to be developed) or that much different. I'm certainly not going out and replacing my beloved CRT-HD display that still gives me such an awesome picture with a first-generation 3-D set. Or second. Or third. Etc.



whatever you do don't get a sony sxrd
estoniankid is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

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