Pretty illuminating Roger Ebert article from Newsweek on the contemporary influx of the new 3-D technology, guaranteed to spark discussion here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110
Why Ebert Hates 3-D
- Thread starter Uranium City
- Start date
Deliciously scathing and completely on point. Well said, Roger.
The one point he makes about shifting focus,
I'm pretty sure this is just a fad though, so I'm not gonna get too worried
Then again....
Thanks for sharing, dude
ZOMG, I want to see MaxiVision48!
The one point he makes about shifting focus,
I think isn't exactly true although I agree with it. I noticed in Avatar (cue ROC) that there were time when an object in the nearer 3D plane was out of focus. It drove me crazy! It was like he was calling attention to the fact that he was forcing me to see what he wanted, and I want to notice that for myself, thankyou.
I'm pretty sure this is just a fad though, so I'm not gonna get too worried
Then again....
Exsqueeze me?!
Thanks for sharing, dude
ZOMG, I want to see MaxiVision48!
I utterly agree. I thought there was something wrong with my eyes how it dulled down the picture. Now I know I'm normal.
Apparently the original Star Wars films will be re-released in 3-D as well. What do you call that... A re-re-release?
What else is Lucas going to do? He must be as bored as an out-of-work director living on a 200 million dollar estate outside San Francisco.
...
Apparently the original Star Wars films will be re-released in 3-D as well. What do you call that... A re-re-release?
What else is Lucas going to do? He must be as bored as an out-of-work director living on a 200 million dollar estate outside San Francisco.
...
George Lucas will never be satisfied with his movies. And he feels he has the right to change/update them and let the old versions die. Maybe he does, but I find it arrogant the way he talks about it...
</rant>
</rant>
Hey if re-releasing and finding new ways to beat a fully decomposed horse could get me worth 3 billion dollars, I'd do it faster than a Jedi-geo-metro-speeder.
But I digress..
It's amazing the bandwaggon it has created.
And as for the grossing factor, I wish they used "# of tickets sold" as a statistic along with the money because a ticket for Avatar 3-D must be at least double what Star Wars or older blockbusters were worth back then.
Star Wars: 460 mil in 1977. I mean... that's a lot of money in 1977.
LOL I found it:
Gone with the Wind: 1.5 billion with inflation fix
Star Wars: 1.3 billion with inflation fix
Sound of Music: 1.08 billion with inflation fix
ET: 1.07 billion with inflation fix
Avatar is 13th place with inflation fixes... behind the likes of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and 101 Dalmations.
hah. Eat that Jimmy.
But I digress..
It's amazing the bandwaggon it has created.
And as for the grossing factor, I wish they used "# of tickets sold" as a statistic along with the money because a ticket for Avatar 3-D must be at least double what Star Wars or older blockbusters were worth back then.
Star Wars: 460 mil in 1977. I mean... that's a lot of money in 1977.
LOL I found it:
Gone with the Wind: 1.5 billion with inflation fix
Star Wars: 1.3 billion with inflation fix
Sound of Music: 1.08 billion with inflation fix
ET: 1.07 billion with inflation fix
Avatar is 13th place with inflation fixes... behind the likes of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and 101 Dalmations.
hah. Eat that Jimmy.
Last edited:
I think the opposition to 3d is about as short sighted as was the opposition to sound and color. Sure, it is used in a gimmicky way and it's no where near perfected. It is just another layer of polish that in time will be a standard, just as color and sound has become.
One think I dislike about it(and it's a selfish reason) is that the camera's to shoot it are out of my reach, along with all the other indie film makers.
One think I dislike about it(and it's a selfish reason) is that the camera's to shoot it are out of my reach, along with all the other indie film makers.
You'd better tell the amateurs publishing their 3D films to YouTube to knock it off, then.
You'd better tell the amateurs publishing their 3D films to YouTube to knock it off, then.
Are they using the new tech. that James Cameron helped develop? The Stereoscopic 3D Camera, because this tech is what I'm saying is out of reach...for me anyways.
3d tech still has a very long way to go before it becomes as standard as color/sound. Some of the best stuff I've seen isn't being used by ANYONE yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
By far the most convincing 3d illusion yet.
p.s.Anyone know why my embedded youtube link is just a white block?
Last edited:
That's irrelevant.
People are out there doing what they can, with what they have.
I edit on a $450 PC. Why? Because I can't afford a $250,000 professional editing suite of my own.
Did people suddenly decide that shooting video was pointless all of a sudden, when the Varicam was first released? Have people stopped filming on consumer-grade HD cameras, because they can't afford to buy/rent a RED One?
No, they make do with what they have. If they don't have it, they fake it or make it. Those ubiquitous 35mm adapters that you can get for about $300 now? Before those were commercially available, people were popping the tops off SLR cameras and shooting through that to get as close to a "real" lens as possible. Google up the people who made "Marla" - they even created a handy DIY schematic so anyone could get on board with that particular revolution.
No matter what the current cutting-edge technology is at the time, the real deal is always exclusively in the hands of a few people for a while. The majority of everyone else (people like you and me) have to get creative and resourceful, if trying to emulate that. Those people making the 3D films right now, on YouTube, sure as heck aren't using Cameron's latest whizbang camera... and I doubt they'll ever see one... but they are out there creating 3D content with the best tools they have at their disposal, while you are saying that you can't make anything 'cos you can't afford "real" 3D tools. And when that out-of-reach technology finally does trickle down eventually, who is going to be in the best position to utilize it best? Yup, the people who are already familiar with more than just the theoretical basics.
In other news:
South Park Episode about Lucas & Spielberg
Ya, making stuff that is not even close to feature quality 3D, that is my point. It is, as if, with all the recent developments in digital cameras, Hollywood is trying to set another bar to keep indie film makers out. Keep in mind I like the use of 3d from a consumer perspective, it's just the game of cat and mouse from a filmmakers perspective I grow weary of. Makes me just want to stick to my paint brushes as that medium hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot in 30,000 years. Film making is just so damn new, what like over 110years old?
Can't make feature 3d films is what I'm saying and I'm correct in saying so. I never said people shouldn't try for the obvious reasons you listed.
Ya that eps is awesome, love me some sp.
No, it is a fad. It was a fad in the 1950's, it was a fad when it came back in the 1960' 1970. 1980's, 1990's, and now it's a fad again. There will be bunch of 3D movies, people will get sick of them, it will disappear, and we'll see it again in 10 or 15 years.
Ya I can't argue with that history. But at some point I feel it will stick. Maybe when it reaches a point that it's holographic, or interactive like in that video clip I linked.
well, the point about forcing someone's attention to something is not new, just like 3D cinema is nothing new. in the early days, many people said the same thing about film: that they were forced to look at what the director chose, whereas when watching a theater play they basically could concentrate on whatever they wanted.
I've never seen a 3D movie so far, none of the recent 3D movies interests me as far as the story is concerned. I think these films tend to focus too much on the technical aspects but do not have anything to offer (for me) on the story level.
Last edited:
Firstly i'd like to say that the introduction of 3D and the fact that it's made it "out of reach of indie film makers" is a good thing.
Why is 3D good? I agree with what people are saying; its not necessary, films were made before it and they were great, whats it adding? blablabla.
But the point is that Avatar as a stand alone film wouldnt have been nearly as good as it was without it, is this a license to print money? No. Because what james cameron has done is unlike any other 3D out there. The actual cinema experience, i believe was enhanced (especially on a 50 ft IMAX screen), i was sucked in, i was in a constant state of awe and amazement at the visuals and i truly believe that it made the film better - not as a gimmick but as another dimension of perfection to enhance the movie going experience.
We are on the cusp of something great here, we're not talking about blue and red lenses anymore, we're talking full colour, bi focal 3D. It's beautiful. Sure it may disappear for a few years until the next big 3D breakthrough occurs but this step is as vital for its future as Jurrassic Park was for CGI.
The fact that we cant afford 3D cameras of that quality, puts us back where we deserve to be. We are indie film makers after all and over the last few years we've become comfortable and less creative due to the fact that we can get affordable equipment that is cinema quality. What happened to the good old days of intuitive and ingenuity? The days of Robert Rodriguez and his amazing story have gone and i think its about time we all got a kick up the backside - after all, we've got to have something to look forward to when we're making Hollywood blockbusters
Oh and i've made a quick and easy video for how to make stereoscopic 3D for your own films, it might be useful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpOtwDDHkV4
thanks
x
Why is 3D good? I agree with what people are saying; its not necessary, films were made before it and they were great, whats it adding? blablabla.
But the point is that Avatar as a stand alone film wouldnt have been nearly as good as it was without it, is this a license to print money? No. Because what james cameron has done is unlike any other 3D out there. The actual cinema experience, i believe was enhanced (especially on a 50 ft IMAX screen), i was sucked in, i was in a constant state of awe and amazement at the visuals and i truly believe that it made the film better - not as a gimmick but as another dimension of perfection to enhance the movie going experience.
We are on the cusp of something great here, we're not talking about blue and red lenses anymore, we're talking full colour, bi focal 3D. It's beautiful. Sure it may disappear for a few years until the next big 3D breakthrough occurs but this step is as vital for its future as Jurrassic Park was for CGI.
The fact that we cant afford 3D cameras of that quality, puts us back where we deserve to be. We are indie film makers after all and over the last few years we've become comfortable and less creative due to the fact that we can get affordable equipment that is cinema quality. What happened to the good old days of intuitive and ingenuity? The days of Robert Rodriguez and his amazing story have gone and i think its about time we all got a kick up the backside - after all, we've got to have something to look forward to when we're making Hollywood blockbusters
Oh and i've made a quick and easy video for how to make stereoscopic 3D for your own films, it might be useful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpOtwDDHkV4
thanks
x
"But the point is that Avatar as a stand alone film wouldnt have been nearly as good as it was without it"
That's the understatement of the year. The 3D is the only reason to see it, without the 3D, it goes from, "well that was visually pretty cool" to "Jesus, that movie totally sucked, what a hunk of crap".
That's the understatement of the year. The 3D is the only reason to see it, without the 3D, it goes from, "well that was visually pretty cool" to "Jesus, that movie totally sucked, what a hunk of crap".
That's an interesting point and it certainly could go that way. Maybe in 20 years it will just be the new color. But I think the key would be to make it look good without glasses. So more like holograms than just a 3D illusion.
Robert Heinlein thought up that kind of thing. I love his name for it: stereovision. lol
Oh god, though, I just hope CNN doesn't get it's hands on this technology. I do not want a hologram of Wolf Blitzer in my living room. No sir!
Plus one.
it's a fad. I think this fad will last longer than it did in
the 50's and 80's because the tech is better 50 and
30 years later. But just like any other fad, people will
tire of it. Sure, some filmmakers will use it well and a
lot will use it poorly, but as Ebert says, there is no
NEED for a movie to be in 3D.
I think it will stick around as a genre “experience”, and has a huge realm of possibility for use in advertising, music videos, cartoons, concerts (And more), but not as the film norm.
It’s interesting that a big boy (Cameron) made it work, and will be interesting to see how other big players use it (And I don’t doubt some will do it well), but when too many all form no substance films come to exist solely for the purpose of being in 3D, and too many suits are staring down the investment barrel equivalents of Water World, then the fate of 3D as the norm will be decided, but not 1st without a phase of “Ooo! Ahhh! Yawn!.”
I’m waiting to see who will gamble on it with something along the lines of the next Saving Private Ryan, and try for the balance of what could add to a serious dramatic experience OR go down in the flames of poor taste on a grand scale. All in all, I think ice crème is great, and is here to stay, but it hasn’t and won’t take over breakfast, lunch or dinner.
-Thanks-
It’s interesting that a big boy (Cameron) made it work, and will be interesting to see how other big players use it (And I don’t doubt some will do it well), but when too many all form no substance films come to exist solely for the purpose of being in 3D, and too many suits are staring down the investment barrel equivalents of Water World, then the fate of 3D as the norm will be decided, but not 1st without a phase of “Ooo! Ahhh! Yawn!.”
I’m waiting to see who will gamble on it with something along the lines of the next Saving Private Ryan, and try for the balance of what could add to a serious dramatic experience OR go down in the flames of poor taste on a grand scale. All in all, I think ice crème is great, and is here to stay, but it hasn’t and won’t take over breakfast, lunch or dinner.
-Thanks-
All I'm gonna say is "Well said, Mr. Ebert."
I tend to say that a lot though.
Heh.
I've yet to experience anything in 3D that makes the concept essential to any aspect of enjoying a film.
I tend to say that a lot though.
Heh.
I've yet to experience anything in 3D that makes the concept essential to any aspect of enjoying a film.
It can make a 3rd rate Disney movie worth paying $15 to see at the IMAX though, see Avatar.