3-D films WON'T last long...

General Discussions, Polls, Lists, Video Clips and Links
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 823
Joined: February 22nd, 2007
Location: Belgium

Post by Jeroen » April 5th, 2007, 7:33 am

Weren't there rumors about Indy IV in 3D?
I think I read something on Joblo or Comingsoon about that.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 5th, 2007, 8:20 am

I was at Elstree Studios over the weekend and heard a LOT of Indy rumors from people "close to production". I can't say a lot for breaking their confidence, but 3D is certainly an option.

The only thing that could scupper that is that they are DEFINITELY shooting on FILM, which is Spielberg's choice, and also to maintain continuity with the first three. Miniatures and effects will also be mostly "real world", and the word is that WETA might be in the frame for that.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 823
Joined: February 22nd, 2007
Location: Belgium

Post by Jeroen » April 5th, 2007, 8:52 am

and the word is that WETA might be in the frame for that.
Now that's interesting, George Lucas working with WETA.
ILM's minature departement closing seemed to be good for something.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9044
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » April 5th, 2007, 8:38 pm

The only thing that could scupper that is that they are DEFINITELY shooting on FILM, which is Spielberg's choice,
Oh right, Spielberg loves Film and hates Digital right? (Just what I've heard.)

That must be kind of a sore point between him and George......:wink: :P


***********************************************

BTW, if you ever read Roger Ebert's Attack of the Clones review (he didn't like it at all, but he loved Phantom, weird huh? :wink:) one of the things he comments on is that the digital effects look washed-out, dark and dingy....then he mentions later that someone wrote to him on how George shot the film on Digital, which was why it didn't look so good on Film. He actually saw the film on Digital later on (in a theater) and added on his original review that it did look much, much better that way.


Miniatures and effects will also be mostly "real world", and the word is that WETA might be in the frame for that.
I know Temple of Doom used miniatures a lot (pre-CGI days) but man, they did it really, really well. :D
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 6th, 2007, 8:50 am

So, Meet The Robinsons...

I have two choices...a cheaper, but good, theater that's running it flat, and a more expensive, slightly out of town place that's running it in digital 3D.

Now, as someone who really didn't think 3D added anything to Chicken Little, is it worth the extra? The only thing I remember from ChickLit was the annoying reflection of the stair lights and exit signs in those darn glasses!

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 8201
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Location: Orlando
Contact:

Post by James » April 6th, 2007, 10:40 am

Even if you don't care about the 3-d, seeing it digitally projected is worth it.

And to be honest I don't want the 3-d to be overwhelming. I like the depth it adds but I don't want to be distracted by gimmicks. MTR is like that. Things don't pop off the screen every minute, it's just nice and subtle.

That said you're not missing anything by seeing it in 2-d other than have to watch a possibly scratched and dirty print!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9044
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » April 6th, 2007, 7:21 pm

Hope you have a great time Ben! :)
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

James wrote:That said you're not missing anything by seeing it in 2-d other than have to watch a possibly scratched and dirty print!
Seeing it first weekend helps with that, and this time it's a simul-release, so no waiting on used prints.

I know the guys down at my local real good, and they treat their films well. The bit I saw of it the other night was rock-steady and very clean, but I think I'll make the trip slightly outta town and go see it in 3D.

I missed last night, but will get there hopefully over the holiday.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9044
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » June 5th, 2007, 3:09 pm

Cool article on moviegoing in general, 3d, etc....:)


http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... ywood.aspx


It's just like last summer though....on JHM it's Attack of the Pirates articles!! :P :? AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! :roll: J/K :P


I'd rather hear more about how they're planning to promote Ratatouille and what they'll do in the event that it's not a gigantic blockbuster, especially with Pixar's recent statements that several of their top directors want to go live-action.....:? And how they're planning to go head to head against Shrek 3 and now Surf's Up.

(As well as Enchanted vs. Bee Movie this November.)
Last edited by ShyViolet on June 5th, 2007, 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 61
Joined: May 17th, 2007
Location: DC

Post by rebelrex » June 5th, 2007, 3:14 pm

Ben wrote:I was at Elstree Studios over the weekend and heard a LOT of Indy rumors from people "close to production". I can't say a lot for breaking their confidence, but 3D is certainly an option.
that would be awesome :D

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9044
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » July 2nd, 2007, 9:51 pm

You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » July 3rd, 2007, 6:56 am

Haha:

"He is the animation guru who, in the Eighties, single-handedly resuscitated a dying Disney brand (remember The Rescuers?) with a string of populist hits that included Aladdin and The Lion King."

...what, like The Rescuers Down Under? ;)


Now, I love that movie (love both of them in fact), but at the time the first was a big critical and box office success, so 1) it's not the best movie to take the nadir of Walt Disney Animation to task for, and 2) convenient that they didn't bother to include the fact that a sequel was one of the first out of the gate!


On 3D...it adds something to big event movies, but do I need to see The Queen in 3D? No. Did I really get something out of seeing Chicken Little and Meet The Robinsons in 3D? Not really. Do Pixar support the format? I didn't see Cars or Ratatouille advertised in DisneyDigital3D anywhere.

At an Imax screen - sure. We're already enveloped by the movie and the 3D aspect truly makes it an event outing, worth the extra bucks for the experience.

But all I got as an "extra" in my 3D glasses with those Disney flicks was the reflection of the lit-up stairs in the auditorium and two extra Exit signs bobbing around my head depending on how I positioned myself. And in future I'll have to pay extra for that?

Count me out. I'll go the cheaper, flat screen next door, thanks. :(


On the piracy issue...even simpler than the method described by the comments in that link is to place one side (usually the left) of the glasses filter over the camera lens. Presto...instant flat version.

GeorgeC

3D films -- colossal waste of money...

Post by GeorgeC » September 22nd, 2008, 2:42 pm

Posted a topic similar to this a year or two ago, but for some reason it doesn't come up readily on a search...

Here, we go again!


**************************


3D films are going to be as faddish now as they were in the 1950s.

Let me explain.

1) Technological differences aside, the effect still requires 3-D glasses (one green, one red lense) that give many people headaches. Most people don't go to movies to get headaches.

2) The 3-D effect looks just as convincing now as it did then in the 1950s. In other words, some stuff sorta pops out but it's mostly like looking through a bad Viewmaster reel disc of puppets in a sea of puffy cotton backgrounds amidst flat paned backgrounds and flat crowds. It's not really like "real life." 2-D/flat film projection still looks a lot better minus the headaches and silly glasses you have to wear. Uniform "common sense" appearance versus uneven, jagged anarchical appearance (3-D effect) is stilll preferable to many people...

(Full-color, full-motion holography is the ultimate 3-D answer but will probably be so expensive I don't know if it will ever be practical outside of governmental and military applications.)

3) You have to pay extra for films made and projected in "3-D". With the average cost of moviegoing closing in on at least $10 in most American cities, people are being charged an additional $3-$5 for the privilege of seeing a film that looks arguably worse than a traditionally projected film.

Let's be clear on this -- it's already cheaper for most families to buy the DVDs on release date than it is to take families to the movies which can cost the same as going to a mid-scale restaurant and theater chains/studios want an extra ~$20 (family of four) for tickets/admission?

4) Considering that theater chains are already being forced to upgrade to all-digital projection in the near future, why the extra expense of equipping with a film projection technique that already failed over 50 years ago?

Doesn't make sense.


************

It's all about content. Produce content people want to watch, then maybe they'll come to theaters. Otherwise, wrap the same old garbage in tinfoil (3-D projection) and studios will continue to throw good money after bad.

Other than that, there needs to be a rethinking of movie theaters. Megaplexes obviously aren't coping with the downfall in theater attendance and only by raising ticket prices has the traditional theater
infrastructure been able to continue to be supported. (Likewise, for a lot of these "record-breaking" box office numbers. Compared to the late 1930s and 1940s, ticket sales are still way off. "Gone With The Wind" and "Snow White" really have nothing to fear from today's films in terms of gross and ticket sales. B.O. does not take into account inflation and actual ticket sales on most "record tally" lists.)

As lovely as having a megaplex on every street corner in a city is, it really isn't anymore necessary than having a Mega Wal-Mart every 3 miles or Starbucks on every street corner, either. Laws of diminishing returns apply here, too.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9996
Joined: September 1st, 2006

Post by Daniel » September 22nd, 2008, 3:01 pm

GeorgeC wrote:Posted a topic similar to this a year or two ago, but for some reason it doesn't come up readily on a search...
Are you referring to this? ;)

Yes, some good points. I've never see a 3D film before in theaters, (with those special glasses) at least I don't recall. I've seen DVDs yes, Spy Kids 3 comes to mind, and I didn't much care for it; too distracting.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: 3D films -- colossal waste of money...

Post by Ben » September 22nd, 2008, 6:48 pm

GeorgeC wrote:(Full-color, full-motion holography is the ultimate 3-D answer but will probably be so expensive I don't know if it will ever be practical outside of governmental and military applications.)
...and theme park attractions! :)



BTW, I merged these new comments with the thread from a while back.

As I think I said back then, or at least meant to, the main reason I'm not a big 3D fan is that the theater light reflections in the specs drive me nuts. Back in the Imax days, the steps leading up the stadium seating would be lit up, even through the film in case people needed to take a break mid-way, and one could never get rid of those reflections in the glasses. With standard-size projections, I still find the exit signs reflecting in the specs, making the whole process tiresome. And I'm not totally sold on digital projection yet anyhoo...I won't ever forget watching Spidey 3 and <I>really</I> noticing the jaggies, some line juggling and diagonal break up...stuff that I thought was actually unacceptable for a new format that should supposedly be replacing film.

Maybe 4K will be better...!? ;)

Post Reply