Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OT: 3D movies (rant inside)


Dave Bryce

Recommended Posts

Clearly in the minority here, but I get a kick out of well done 3D movies. I enjoyed Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon in 3D, with the glasses over my own glasses with no ill side effects. The only thing I don't like is the increased price. I go to fewer than a half dozen movies a year though, so it's not going to ruin me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Loved Avatar in 3D. Just saw Tron Legacy and 3D couldn't save such a bad movie. I'd love to see original TRON in 3D. As far as home 3D, the price would have to drop significantly. I've read that no glasses, home 3D will happen some day. Watching sports at home would probably be amazing in 3D if no glasses were necessary.

AvantGrand N2 | ES520 | Gallien-Krueger MK & MP | https://soundcloud.com/pete36251

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kids and teens love 3D.

 

Kids and teens see far more movies in theaters than adults do.

 

3D is here to stay.

 

The only modern movie I've seen in 3D is Avatar in an IMAX theater. I thought the movie was only OK but the presentation was transformative. I'd see another decent movie like that (filmed specifically for 3D IMAX and not digitally remastered after the fact) again without question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Alice In Wonderland and it was way too dark. I don't care for 3D either. Avatar was visually stunning but the 3D didn't add THAT much to it. Plot and character-wise it was a hack. If I wanted to watch a movie with that story I'd go back to Dances With Wolves. I think the main reason the movie became the #1 grosser of all time (unadjusted) was due to the higher pricing for 3D tickets.

 

Thank goodness Christopher Nolan isn't shooting The Dark Knight Rises in 3D. Just more IMAX.

 

Yeah he hates a lot of over use of technology thank god!

"Danny, ci manchi a tutti. La E-Street Band non e' la stessa senza di te. Riposa in pace, fratello"

 

 

noblevibes.com

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've now seen 2 totally 3D movies, Avatar and the latest Narnia movie. Avatar sucked, worst movie I've ever seen, but it was visually stunning. Narnia was a good movie, but the 3D was unnecessary - the story was good enough.
A ROMpler is just a polyphonic turntable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dissenting voice and 3D aficionado here.

 

It would take me about 30 seconds with Google to find nearly identical rants from the early 1960s about how horrible stereophonic audio was, and how ridiculous it was to have to pay extra to hear two channels.

 

The fact is a lot of those first stereophonic recordings were abyssmal, with drums panned all the way to one channel and silly sound effects taking precedence over musicality. The same thing is happening with 3D television and movies. It will take a few years for artistry and subtlety to rise from the morass of mediocre gimmickry, but I believe it will happen. "Avatar" is an example of what's possible, I hope to someday see that quality of visual joined with a decent original story. Some of the Imax 3D movies such as "Across The Sea of Time" have been truly brilliant.

 

While there are some of us who can't see stereoscopically, most of us see "3D visuals" every minute of our waking lives. A good recording engineer knows how to make effective use of the stereo sound field to enhance a track without drawing attention to panning effects. Film makers are beginning to acquire similar skills with 3D.

 

Having said all that I think Tron was a crap movie. I resent having paid any money for those tickets!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen several 3D movies (Avatar, Alice, Inception, Polar Express...), and I must say that the only one where 3D was used in a nice creative way has been Ice Age 3. Why? Because it was used in the spirit of the movie - to create comic/exaggerated effects.

In none of the others it was integrated with the movie well enough, so that you forget it's there. I think that technology needs to make a few more steps in order to look natural.

 

I'm very glad, too, that the third Batman/Nolan episode is being shot in 2D.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3-D will gain traction with the kids as the video games start w/3-D versions as well as all the animated and sci-fi/fantasy stuff.

 

I won't pay a dime for 3-D.

 

Looking at the Top 10 film lists for the year and none of them are 3-D or big budget films.

 

The whole internet download and 3-D thing smells like the usual early inroduction of competing standards. I haven't done Blu-ray yet. Or upgraded DirecTV to HD. I'm just starting to get the itch for HD, Blu-Ray and lengthy downloads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://gizmodo.com/5614433/this-is-the-first-imax-3d-porn-movie-yes-imax-3d-porn

 

A return of the 'dirty mack brigade'? Reminds me of a drama about Morecambe and Wise (UK comedians popular in the 60s & 70s) that was on the other night. They started out playing a strip joint. A girl would do her routine then they'd do their act and totally die on stage as a disinterested audience looked on. When met with total silence, Morecambe said something along the lines of "Fair enough, it's difficult clapping with one hand"

 

The only 3D movie I've ever seen was Beowulf. As a film it was poor and I wouldn't even have considered seeing it had it been 2D. However, as pure entertainment it was excellent and I loved the experience. There was no blurriness, I had no headache...don't see what the problem is.

 

3D TV is starting to take off over here. Personally, I'll wait five years or so until the dust settles. Better technology by then (perhaps no need for glasses) and cheaper.

 

Eventually computers will be 3D...it's inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the IMAX "Sea" movie, and the only 3D Hollywood movie I liked was Hitchcock's old film "Dial M For Murder."

 

It was shot in 2 and 3D, but no theaters had the equipment to show 3D in its day. It debuted in 3D for the first time in Boston in 1980. It was completely subtle and really immersed you in the story, with only two scenes that jumped out at you for effect. A good director like Hitchcock knew that overuse of the technology would ruin the story.

 

In that way, a movie like "My Dinner With Andre" might actually benefit from 3D. :)

 

Otherwise, I don't like 3D movies, because they're either overdone or the movies are dumb.

 

Apple is reportedly developing a 3D monitor that doesn't require glasses. It follows the movement of your eyes to make small focus adjustments wherever you are looking, and supposedly will have a slight holographic effect, as though the image stands off from the screen. Could be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the concept of "My Dinner With Andre" in 3D might be analogous to a recording of a solo violinist in stereo. Why have it be in stereo? It's just one violinist! So show me one commercially released solo violin recording from the last 30 years that isn't in stereo!

 

Although 3D imagery dates back to the first days of photography in the mid 19th century, the current wave of 3D cinema and movies is still young, and there are still hacks doing crap work amongst a growing number of artists using the medium effectively.

3D can add an astonishing sense of realism to computer animation, just have a look at the 3D Shrek DVDs included with some 3D TVs.

 

The other amazing bit of technology is the new 3D digital cameras, such as the Fuji W3, available on Amazon for less than $400.

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/3d/camera/finepix_real3dw3/

 

It is truly an amazing experience to see a 3D photo or video you shot on one of those big 3D TV screens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the concept of "My Dinner With Andre" in 3D might be analogous to a recording of a solo violinist in stereo. Why have it be in stereo? It's just one violinist! So show me one commercially released solo violin recording from the last 30 years that isn't in stereo!

 

I had this one in high school, it's solo violin in quadraphonic :laugh: . clonk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dissenting voice and 3D aficionado here.

 

It would take me about 30 seconds with Google to find nearly identical rants from the early 1960s about how horrible stereophonic audio was, and how ridiculous it was to have to pay extra to hear two channels.

 

 

or indeed, the people who (even today) insist that CDs sound crappy and artificial compared to the "warmth" of vinyl. Or those who think multichannel is gimmicky and nothing beats a good pair of stereo speakers.

 

Some people just get locked into a particular level of technology that's in their comfort zone, and for the rest of their lives they don't want to change.

 

The world keeps turning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure it is a "comfort Zone" as much as it is convenience.

 

If 3D technology was convenient and ubiquitous, and the content was good I would jump on it as fast as I did HDTV (2004-ish.)

 

Let's face it--most entertainment isn't worth high quality delivery.

 

I would laugh just at hard at Carl Spackler (Caddyshack)on B/W just as much as I did in HD.

 

On the other hand, Lacy Underall would look good in 3D.... :love:

Steve Force,

Durham, North Carolina

--------

My Professional Websites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people just get locked into a particular level of technology that's in their comfort zone, and for the rest of their lives they don't want to change.

 

Take into consideration that most members of this particular forum are highly into technology, including people who are even shaping new music technology. For these people, I don't think it's a fear of change as much as geniunely not liking the artistic qualities of the change.

 

I was in the theatre the other night, and the surround sound took away from the film. That might be due to the theatre's speaker configuration, but every time someone knocked on a door I was taken away from the film. It wasn't natural, it made no sense. That's not an effective use of technology in this case (or in that particular film).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not as simple as rejecting new technology out of hand. There are several other factors involved in this case. One is whether that technology in its current state is worth the extra money. Another is whether it's being well-implemented, and yet another is whether or not people are being forced to choose between paying extra to watch 3D or not watching the film at all.

 

Oftentimes, technology isn't well-implemented in it's early stages. Remember stereo mixes with the drums in one speaker and the vocals in another? When I encounter an old mix like that, I often push the mono button on my mixer. I don't do that because I reject stereo, I do it because that style of mixing distracts me from the song.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

My Blue Someday appears on Apple Music | Spotify | YouTube | Amazon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The convergence isn't right.

 

The whole physical Blu-ray or download Blu-ray, DVR, Internet TV thing needs to stabilize. First run movies will be available on release (some like 'Howl' were released to PPV at the same time as theaters).

 

Mobile TV hits in 2012 and the home networking options for DVRs from the major cable/Satellite players still are in the DRM age of MP3 players. Then there's the 3-D glasses and all that nonsense with little valuable home content.

 

Not a bad time to buy mew. Bad time to upgrade all the other stuff IMHO. My 10 year old DirecTV box has features I don't want to give up for their new boxes. I'll be on Microsoft Ultimate TV forever--likely the last person in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3D is here to stay.

 

Normally here I would disagree with you, stating something like if its crap quality, people will eventually dislike it and it will be gone. But then I think of how CD quality has been replaced with compressed audio. Or how a voice message between two cell phones has been replaced with text messages that take 10 times as long to do. I am waiting for the day to arrive soon where messages will be sent between phones using Morse code, and they'll charge and extra $30 per month for unlimited dit/dah-ing. (You might be tempted to laugh here, but what if years ago someone told you that someday you would need to use multiple keystrokes per character on a miniature keypad to "type" a reply to someone? - and pay MORE to do that?)

 

I will really think phones are high tech when we send text messages using a voice response algorithm for each character entered and message readout using phonemes. Driving would be totally safe while "texting".

 

It would take me about 30 seconds with Google to find nearly identical rants from the early 1960s about how horrible stereophonic audio was, and how ridiculous it was to have to pay extra to hear two channels.

 

But it didn't take them long to get that one figured out. Contrast that to the quadraphonic craze of the 70s. Talk about junk. I sure am glad THAT never caught on.

 

Lou

---------------

To B-3 or not to B-3, that is the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kids and teens love 3D.

 

Kids and teens see far more movies in theaters than adults do.

 

3D is here to stay.

 

I agree.

Kawai C-60 Grand Piano : Hammond A-100 : Hammond SK2 : Yamaha CP4 : Yamaha Montage 7 : Moog Sub 37

 

My latest album: Funky organ, huge horn section

https://bobbycressey.bandcamp.com/album/cali-native

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the OT on the OT... I need to vent.

 

Seen Tron Legacy yesterday - it was perhaps my worst 3D experience so far. We had slightly lateral seats in the theatre, and I can't say if being out of the sweet spot was the only cause, but objects in rapid movement, *and* objects which were closest in the 3D field, appeared slightly doubled! That was unnerving in itself. (Of course, if you tried to watch without glasses, the whole screen was out of focus.)

 

Also, there were several scenes that weren't 3D at all, and in that case, the glasses only made the whole color scheme darker and muddier. Those particular scenes looked much better *without* the glasses. Even more unnerving.

 

Other than that, the acting was very poor, including Jeff Bridges, who gave his worst performance so far IMO. The story was rather silly too. (What, the son goes in the 20+ years old dad's secret office, and there is electricity, and everything still works? And under a ton of dust... a big, working touch screen? Please! :freak:)

 

That said , most of the visuals were magnificient, and the few scenes where the integration with 3D was good, very enjoyable. But that wasn't enough for a two-hour movie, by far. What a disappointment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kids and teens love 3D.

 

Kids and teens see far more movies in theaters than adults do.

 

And kids grow up. ;)

 

I have nothing against the technology, I just see it for what it is: a way to get 4 more bucks a seat. I also see it in the future as a further way to not write a good story, like so many movies these days. Gimme a good story and you can tell it any way you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...