Public Enemy No. 1 -- Phil Hinton of AV/Forms

He was probably saying the same thing about blu-rays and DVDs and VHS. He probably has a collection of Beta tapes.

He's just a tubby little fellow from across the pond. I doubt the money-hungry powers-that-be in Hollywood who are converting every movie they can find to 3D are going to listen to this bloke. TV manufacturers as well are making way too much money from 3D to abandon it overnight, so I think we're okay for now.

It seems like most professional movie critics have this attitude. It bugs me too when reading reviews. I really don't understand all the animosity and smart-alec jabs directed at 3D. Well-done stereography adds so much to movies!

I suppose that most of it could be the result of poorly-done conversions like The Last Airbender and Clash of the Titans that made bad first impressions. Still, lumping native 3D movies into the same category as those is a rather jaded and close-minded way of thinking.

Perhaps it is because many of today's "professional movie critics" are nothing more than glorified bloggers. Like fashion designers, they tend to jump on a trend and pretend to make it their own, writing reviews they know will get widely read without really taking the time to be objective. And it doesn't help that most movies coming out these days (2D as well as 3D) are so poor that it is really difficult to find one that gets it all right (such as "Avatar"). The studios that spend millions to convert 2D movies to 3D would be better off to just fund films that are planned, written, and shot for 3D. They excel at rehashing hits from the past, so all they really have to do is find a few classics that would gain something from a "third dimension" and remake them. I'm not going to mention any names, but anyone who can royally screw up a film based on Greek mythology should probably seek employment in another industry.

8-tracks

S~

Link? I'd like to read this.

Could you post a link. I love 3d on my acer 9500. It is here to stay and will only get better.

Exactly. As far as "professional movie critic", should I have been aware that this person exists? As far as "attitude", every wanker that critiques movies thinks that people anxiously await their opinions.
This thread did little more than give this "OPINION " a bit of notoriety.
Being a critic on Amazon or Blu-Def Digest and the like, can't exactly be worn as a badge of honor.

He doesn't sound too terribly negative here. It is funny how he talks about how little the public has been interested in 3DTVs while going on to say how all high end TVs at the show were 3D despite little content. A few minutes later, he talked about how slowly HDTVs were adopted with high prices and zero content at first, but which of course eventually succeeded. He makes it clear that he personally doesn't want 3D but does want 4k. So he applies the example of HDTV's slow success to 4k but conveniently, not 3D. So the future of 4k is hopeful despite high prices and zero native content, versus 3D which has a fair selection of content right now and will be a standard feature in TVs to come.

On second thought, the logic is pretty darn negative. I've seen worse though, it's a typically shallow analysis of 3D.

He's obviously out of touch with reality. All you have to do is pick up any industry magazine and you'll see that Hollywood is definitely making a shift toward 3D production. If he wants to watch all those forthcoming 3D movies in 2D then let him.

Your mind is making connections and forming conspiracy theories where none really exist.

Roger Ebert has been one of the most vocal opponents of 3D. In every single review of a 3D movie he writes, he makes it a point to say that he thinks the 3D is worthless. Love or hate the man, he is far from a "glorified blogger." He has a Pulitzer for film criticsm, and is not known as someone who will "jump on a trend and pretend to make it his own."

The simple fact of the matter is that some people just don't like 3D and never will.


This is the real heart of the matter, isn't it?

If you perceive film critics in general to have a bias against 3D, you need to keep in mind that a professional critic is obligated to see every new movie that comes out. They see every 3D movie, including all the crappy ones. Given that the majority of 3D movies released today are lousy, half-assed conversions from 2D, it's no wonder that critics get burned out on the format quickly.

No. I didn't know who he was either. I wasn't specifically referring to him as a professional movie critic although I figured he probably helps run that other AV blu-ray site. I just meant that if you go to Rotten Tomatoes and read some linked reviews about a native 3D movie like Underworld: Awakening, 14/15 "professional" critics that bother to mention 3D only do so to tell you something like:

- 3D is a gimmick
- 3D is the flavor of the month
- The 3D was worthless
- The 3D added nothing
- Apparently it was in 3D but I didn't notice
- Glad I watched it in 2D

The best compliment 3D usually gets is:
- It didn't add or detract from the story


If they actually do see every 3D movie in 3D, then you would think that they would have some appreciation for the ~33% that are shot with 3D cameras and use the medium effectively to show depth, extend a couple of pop-outs, and immerse the viewer. Do these people who get paid to watch and critique movies actually not see the cinematic beauty that good 3D adds? It opens up the visual space so much. I really just don't understand. Maybe most of them just care about the story and not the audio/visual experience (which is half the fun!).

I wasn't referring to Phil as a professional movie critic either. I referred to Phil as a "professional movie critic". The quotation marks differentiate an individual with credentials, from sarcasm intended to identify Phil as an Internet website blogger

Agree with him or not, Ebert is generally accepted as a credible professional movie critic. I do see his point in reference to 3D, but I still enjoy 3D movies.
I can appreciate Eberts dislike of 3D, but would disregard the opinions of the "professional movie critics". If I wanted a movie review I would not seek out Amazon, Phil, Rotten Tomatoes or Blu-Ray Digest.

Except that Phil Hinton doesn't review movies at all. He's a reviewer of AV equipment for avforums. So your comment is totally off the mark, quotation marks or not.

Those that can . . . do.

Those that can't do . . . teach.

Those that can't teach . . . critique

This is my major beef with film criticism in general.

If I had to see every movie, I would probably find fewer and fewer things to like about them. It seems that if a film is quirky, or different, it will be better received by most critics. I understand that, but it may not translate as well to the common movie goer.

Regarding Ebert's disdain for all things 3D. Since he personally doesn't like it, he should NOT review films in 3D. It is a conflict of interest, in my view.

Art

Even among movies natively shot in 3D, a good number of them aren't shot very well. I enjoy 3D, but when I saw Fright Night last year (a native 3D production), I felt that it added absolutely nothing to the movie.

There are only so many qualified stereographers in Hollywood, and the most talented of those are spread thin over a small number of productions (Avatar, Hugo, maybe Transformers 3 and a few others). The rest of the people shooting 3D are either novices who haven't quite gotten the hang of the format yet, or outright hacks.

He usually doesn't have a choice. Critics go to whatever preview screenings the studios set up for them. Ebert has said on a few occasions that he requests 2D screenings when they're available, but he's often forced to watch in 3D, even for crummy conversions like The Last Airbender.


Those who can't do any of the above... whine about them on the internet.

Fair enough. I would certainly agree with the sentiment that careful planning and scene setup make a huge difference. Well-done stereography can even add to the emotional tone of a scene. However, I still find most of the S3D movies by less experienced directors to be much more visually engrossing than 2D and 2D-3D.

I actually watched Fright Night on BD3D last night and really enjoyed the 3D. I did have to customize my backlight and dynamic luma settings first though because the movie is so dark. That really helped, but the lack of lighting still squashed depth a bit. I noticed lots of shots were set up with either prominent foreground objects or long hallways that recessed back into the screen, and that kept mundane indoor and darker nighttime scenes from ever looking like 2D. The depth in one shot where two characters were sneaking around a corner and hiding from the vampire really made me feel tense like I was in the room with them.

It also had some really fun pop-out. They threw CG items right at the camera a lot, which I imagine would look really stupid in 2D. Plus, the particle effects when vampires died looked awesome floating around in my living room. And then, I suppose some little things like nasty vampire hands and fangs looked a bit more menacing poking out of the screen than they would in 2D, adding to the "Surprise! Look at me!" effect. The 3D certainly wasn't necessary to tell the story, but the visual experience made it much more entertaining and immersive for me than it would be in 2D. I could tell 3D was definitely the way the director intended the movie to be seen.

Speaking from experience?

Public enemy #1 should be someone who people actually listen to. And they should have a long track record of bashing 3D. Does Phil Hinton fit this description? I have yet to hear a strong argument.