Saw my first 3D movie in a theatre today... What a dissapointment! - Page 3

Well Lee, I would have to disagree in the aspect of what kind of feel a director wants to convey. Blair Witch didn't even use a steadycam because they wanted the feel of a camcorder. Schindler's List didn't even use color to add to the somber tone of the subject matter.

Some movies will have the feel ruined by shooting in 3D. Some movies will benefit from 3D, some will not. Some will even be detracted by its use.

And all of that is your opinion because the subject of movies and how people percieve them is a totally subjective issue . . . to each his own.

Yes but we are talking 3D in this thread.

Art

I think it has happened and is happening.As I said, CGI for it's own sake as one example. As far as 2001's cutting edge technology not helping it's box office I'm not sure how in the world you could know that. What would it have been without it ,as slow and cerebral as that film was ?

I see fewer films which really tug at you, make you think ,or really effect one and more effects driven stuff all the time. This of course is my opinion I believe that it remains to be seen if the explosion of 3D and the concommittant scewing of box office will just result in more 3D.

I just know if my taste for films is not effects driven generally but only occasionally than 3D does little for my confidence in the forecast.

Films like No Country For Old Men, Gattacca, Road to Perdition, Cinderella Man,There Will Be Blood,The Natural,Doubt, just to name a few on BD that aren't effects driven but are great films with great stories and acting I worry instead we will see Transformers III,2013th etc type films because they can use 3D.

I'm not sure where you get that effects driven box office has never driven away good story driven films when in fact the opposite has been true.




Art

Do they really need to? I assumed the films you normally watch had you tugging at yourself.

I actually prefer those outside my theater. I think it was Big Butt MILF Tug Jobs Vol III ,they just don't make em like that anymore.

Art

That was my point. It wasn't lack of effects or 3D or any other technology that caused 2001 to flop initially. A slow and cerebral film like that would not have done well anyway. (It finally made a profit when re-released after Star Wars came out.) So you can't blame technology for its lack of box office.
I "get that" from the fact that movies like No Country For Old Men, Gattacca, Road to Perdition, Cinderella Man, There Will Be Blood, The Natural, Doubt, were not driven away. They got wide releases and went on to win awards.

Like 2001, a slow and cerebral film like No Country was not going to make loads of money at the box office. But that's not because it had to compete with Transformers that same year.

You make it sound like a zero sum game, asthough Road to Perdition didn't do well because Spider-Man came out the same year. They have different audiences. Road to Perdition wouldn't have been a blockbuster, irrespective of whether Spider-Man had come out that year or not.

Likewise, Dreamworks' 3D CGI-fest Shrek Forever After is not going to take audiences away from movies like Green Zone. The fact that every anti-Iraq-war movie has failed at the box office explains why Green Zone flopped. Not the fault of 3D or CGI or any other new technology.

BLADE RUNNER was an effects driven filmed that flopped at the box office. It was only through home video that the film became a cult classic.

If you enjoy 3D then it really doesn't make a difference, IMO, what the movie is about.

How many of the 1950'd 3D movies were effects driven? Very few.

I'm sorry but I just disagree with your conclusions. You made the comment that effects couldn't save 2001 when you don't have any way to know what it would have done without effects so your conclusion there is flawed.

I'm not sure why my concern that 3D will balloon and be used as a substitute for great writing as a way to save commercial cinema thus giving us fewer story driven films bothers you so much.

I know that there is no way that you can predict the impact any more than I can and this is simply my opinion.

If I go back and watch films that are effects driven, generally, they don't hold up as well as those story driven films. I can only care about 3D so much then I habituate to it and if the story is weak then it just becomes a bore.

You feel that 3D reducing the space for story driven films in box office count,screens etc could never happen with "your generation" (whatever that is) but I do. I also feel that we have too little time behind us in the use of 3D to know.

Art

We need to be consistant, if 3D is different this time around, as you say ,then comparing them to 50's 3D isn't valid.

Art

Well, I don't think it is my opinion on the two examples given as it was taken from director's commentary but if you want to discount what I say as exclusively opinion when I had director comments from well known films to back it up as an example, I suppose that is your prerogative. Perhaps The Hangover would have been funnier in 3D?

Sure it it. What is a movie? A visual and aural method of telling a story.

What is different from the 1950's movies from today's movies as far as 3D? It is still Stereoscopic 3D using 2 views - L & R that require you to wear glasses - primarily polarized glasses. The only real difference is they no longer use film as the capture medium.

It was the 3D movies of the 1980's where they went for the gimmick of throwing things at the camera not the 1950's.

http://today3d.blogspot.com/

Nothing I guess,then I guess you feel it will fail thgis time as well.




My point is you have said before that when it is said that it is just the 50's over that it's different this time. If it is then it is inconsistant to use the 50's model now to support your position.

Art

Lack of effects wouldn't have helped 2001 do better. In fact, quite the opposite. My point was that the latest technology didn't keep that film from flopping, just as 3D won't do the same for slow and cerebral films today. So the low box office of a modern classic like No Country isn't due to technology. It, and the other films you mentioned, weren't going to do big box office anyway.
Huh? This is a discussion forum. Replying to a post doesn't mean I'm bothered. Just means I'm expressing a different opinion. That's what people do on a discussion board: discuss. If everyone agreed, there wouldn't be much discussion.
No problemo. But I hope you understand that there are other opinions, based on a century of film history. Using the past as an indicator is not something uncommon nor unreasonable.
Correct, I don't feel movies are a zero sum game. For example: home video growth doesn't have to be at the expense of theatrical runs. The '80s and '90s demonstrated this, as the home video business AND theatrical audiences grew simultaneously.

Same with 3D (or any other technology for that matter). If you had been watching Transformers or Meet the Robinsons a couple years back, and been concerned that CGI-fests and 3D movies were "reducing the space" of story driven films, then your concerns would have been proven unfounded a few months later when Atonement, No Country For Old Men, Into The Wild, There Will Be Blood, etc., were released. How come those films weren't "driven away" by Shrek:The Turd and Beowulf?

Ugh! Sanjay, why did you have to mention Beowulf? I am starting to convulse again...

(What I wouldn't have given to have Peter Jackson make that film)

3D will fly. If the Chea-pet can sell, so will 3D. Just not to me---EVER!

Because it's a good example of what Art is talking about: CGI and 3D for the sake of..... well, CGI and 3D. Technology used purely as a gimmick, adding nothing (zero) new or fresh to the old tale. "Ugh!" indeed.

General question: 3D has come and gone several times in the past never lasting. Taking sports and gaming out of the equation ( just movies ) why is this time any different. This time around its more expensive then ever. Not sure the fact we are now in the digital age is enough of a difference.

not really. it also had angelina jolie's butt. now imagine that in 3D

Modern 3D is better. If you've seen Avatar or How To Train Your Dragon, compare the 3D to the old anaglyph red/blue version. Big difference. You'll also notice that 3D has lost much of its gimmickry. Films like Up and Coraline don't have anything jumping off the screen at you, just a wonderful sense of depth. The main difference, especially after Avatar, is that studios are paying attention to how much it can add to revenues (especially if the film is good to beging with). That alone may help it stick around this time.
Beowulf was in 3D. Alas, that wasn't Angelina's butt, but essentially an elaborate cartoon.

Why are you guys trashing Beowulf it is great eye candy on 3-D you say this based on your 2-D viewings.

I also want to see Hondo in 3-D.

I must assume you haven't seen the 3D previews of such likely gems as Piranha 3-D, Black Friday 3D et. al.

The one I'm really anticipating is Stewardesses 3D

You're right, I haven't. I was going by the last few films I saw in 3D (How to Train Your Dragon, Avatar, Toy Story 1&2, Up, Monsters vs Aliens, Coraline, Bolt, Meet the Robinsons, Superman Returns, Chicken Little), none of which had anything flying off the screen at me, just used the 3D for depth. The only 3D film I saw that did have some gimmicky shots was Beowulf (spear pointing in the face, etc). But that seems to be the exception these days, not the norm.

No,these are great films and they don't need 3D nor would 3D have added anything,they have great rewatch potential and will stand the test of time without technology while films like Avatar athough not bad will be remembered for the technology.


No ,I guess you're right this will be the third time for 3D, it's failed twice before.




I feel the same except I disagree in that I feel that in the past two decades there has been an erosion in the numbers of great stories for effects driven shoot em up trash.


But what films were ? See this comment or even your observation can't be shown to prove anything really. There are only so many screens. If they are filled with effects driven films,or if the studios safe policy for not taking chances continues ,then who know how or what would have filled the screens.

Still my opinion is that it is a valid concern even if "your generation would never let such a thing happen"

Art

Not true. Avatar had some flying stuff. A canister fired at the good guys gun platform that flew in your face and the floating in your face seeds. But so what? They were two good effects. Some will be good, others will be bad. Just like girls. Or you boys. What's the point?

When is that to be released, this is destined to be a classic.

Art

Which...3d or Chia Pet? Personally I love my Chia Pets.