Is 3-D For Me – Or Are You Thor?
Watch out. That’s The Mighty Thor’s hammer coming straight for your mightily bespectacled head.
The march of the 3-D movies continues trampling the
Multiplexes. Movies are being retrofitted left and right so they can have 3-D scenes. Movies that were shot in 2-D, that were meant to be seen in 2-D, will be released in 3-D and up-priced to 12 or 15 bucks; more, if you’re going to
IMAX. And they’re building a lot of IMAX theaters. A whole lot.
So we’ve got the Thor movie, already filmed, being retrofitted. And the Captain America movie will be in 3-D. Yeah, that’s just what they’re going to need to make The Red Skull look dangerous.
I understand we’re just a couple years away from an
amazing new teevee set that will make today’s 3-D tubes look like wallpaper.
We’ll see, but until then I can’t tell you how pleased I am to hear that
director Christopher Nolan is shooting the next Batman movie in 2-D… unless, the producer tells me, the studio demands it. Humph. We’ll see.
If time is the fourth dimension, then I want a 4-D movie
to take me back in time when movies were entertainment and art and not simply “me-too” gimmicks. As Roger Ebert brilliantly states, “3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension… It is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the
movie-going experience.”
Okay. My position on the future of 3-D, like Roger’s, is spelled out.
What do you think?
I feel about 3-D movies the same way I felt about the rash of 3-D comics in the 80s; “didn’t we try this in the 50s?” I guess we’re far enough removed from it that 3-D movies are an entirely new concept to a couple generations.I don’t really enjoy, either 3-D movies OR comics to be honest. Maybe it’s me, but the few 3-D movies I’ve seen since this fad came back haven’t benefitted from it and I sure as Hell don’t like paying $12 for a movie. In fact, when I saw Clash of the Titans my wife wanted to see the 2-D version and like a gullible fool I insisted on the 3-D version because I had an image in my head of how cool the kraken would be. I was very disappointed, needless to say.
There was only one 3-D comic that I thought was both worth the effort and worth re-reading: Simon and Kirby’s Captain 3-D (w/Mort Meskin, Steve Ditko and I think George Tuska). I like the two issues of Tor 3-D, but that’s about it. Certain pages and pin-ups here and there were quite nice, particularly in the 80s. But it’s a fad, and in movies it’ll become a fad as soon as a few of the horde of IMAX 3-Ders bomb.
At least the Simon/Kirby Captain 3-D comic was a disertation on the history of 3-D, not an exploitation vehicle of a “fad” that might become a like-it-or-not future trend in visual entertainment. The real question will be if the Suits will accept that the film bombed because it relied too heavily on gimmicks or will industrial greed force the audience to “evolve with the medium.”
Back in 1975, WDCA channel 20 in Washington DC broadcast the original “Creature from the Black Lagoon” in its original 3D. They had you configure the colour balance to better achieve the effect and put on the “funny glasses” and it looked pretty good, considering I had a standard NTSC 19″ TV.Now things need to be “certified” for 3D. WHY? 3D is simple to achieve and a waste of (my) money.I will not bother to see any movie in 3D unless I absolutely HAVE to see it and there are no 2D theatres showing the feature.
Would John Ford have made 3-D movies?
I’d have loved to see him try.
Monument Valley in 3D.
Yowza!
It is belived he helped to shoot some secenes during the climax of “Hondo” I don’t know if that is true or not.
I don’t like 3D for a different reason than some people I have to wear glasses, I can’t see make out things in distance (unless I’m less than 1-3 feet away) and I hate having to wear 3D glasses over my normal glasses.
I feel about 3-D movies the same way I felt about the rash of 3-D comics in the 80s; "didn't we try this in the 50s?" I guess we're far enough removed from it that 3-D movies are an entirely new concept to a couple generations.I don't really enjoy, either 3-D movies OR comics to be honest. Maybe it's me, but the few 3-D movies I've seen since this fad came back haven't benefitted from it and I sure as Hell don't like paying $12 for a movie. In fact, when I saw Clash of the Titans my wife wanted to see the 2-D version and like a gullible fool I insisted on the 3-D version because I had an image in my head of how cool the kraken would be. I was very disappointed, needless to say.
There was only one 3-D comic that I thought was both worth the effort and worth re-reading: Simon and Kirby's Captain 3-D (w/Mort Meskin, Steve Ditko and I think George Tuska). I like the two issues of Tor 3-D, but that's about it. Certain pages and pin-ups here and there were quite nice, particularly in the 80s. But it's a fad, and in movies it'll become a fad as soon as a few of the horde of IMAX 3-Ders bomb.
At least the Simon/Kirby Captain 3-D comic was a disertation on the history of 3-D, not an exploitation vehicle of a "fad" that might become a like-it-or-not future trend in visual entertainment. The real question will be if the Suits will accept that the film bombed because it relied too heavily on gimmicks or will industrial greed force the audience to "evolve with the medium."
Back in 1975, WDCA channel 20 in Washington DC broadcast the original "Creature from the Black Lagoon" in its original 3D. They had you configure the colour balance to better achieve the effect and put on the "funny glasses" and it looked pretty good, considering I had a standard NTSC 19" TV.Now things need to be "certified" for 3D. WHY? 3D is simple to achieve and a waste of (my) money.I will not bother to see any movie in 3D unless I absolutely HAVE to see it and there are no 2D theatres showing the feature.
Would John Ford have made 3-D movies?
I'd have loved to see him try.
Monument Valley in 3D.Yowza!
It is belived he helped to shoot some secenes during the climax of "Hondo" I don't know if that is true or not. I don't like 3D for a different reason than some people I have to wear glasses, I can't see make out things in distance (unless I'm less than 1-3 feet away) and I hate having to wear 3D glasses over my normal glasses.
I like 3D but I don’t like hollywood crap. My beef is with the pricing. There’s no reason 3D movies should be higher priced. They’re trying to make you believe it’s as special as IMAX. It aint. People think the charge is for the glasses but the execs say it’s because it’s a special event. So who pays for the glasses?
It’s the audience’s fault. Once people accept the charge there’s no going back.
Actually, there is – but not necessarily so high or permanently.
CDs originally cost more than LPs, and CD players cost more than turntables. It was a new startup technology.
It costs thousands to upgrade a house for 3D films (3D is the main thing driving digital projection in many or most markets) digital conversion of a theater ain’t cheap.
And true 3D films are more expensive to shoot, since they require pretty much all-new equipment in a lot of areas, particularly lenses – most people have no conception of the cost of lenses for shooting professional quality images. (In the past, for some film formats {like Panavision, or VistaVision, used mostly for SFX images in later years}, there were only one or two cameras that had to be rented {and heavily insured} to shoot in that format.)
OTOH, there should be a leveling of prices as digital penetrates further.
Unfortunately, in accord with The Way Things Work In The Real World, it will very likely be achieved by the prices for non-3D films rising…
I like 3D but I don't like hollywood crap. My beef is with the pricing. There's no reason 3D movies should be higher priced. They're trying to make you believe it's as special as IMAX. It aint. People think the charge is for the glasses but the execs say it's because it's a special event. So who pays for the glasses? It's the audience's fault. Once people accept the charge there's no going back.
Actually, there is – but not necessarily so high or permanently.CDs originally cost more than LPs, and CD players cost more than turntables. It was a new startup technology. It costs thousands to upgrade a house for 3D films (3D is the main thing driving digital projection in many or most markets) digital conversion of a theater ain't cheap.And true 3D films are more expensive to shoot, since they require pretty much all-new equipment in a lot of areas, particularly lenses – most people have no conception of the cost of lenses for shooting professional quality images. (In the past, for some film formats {like Panavision, or VistaVision, used mostly for SFX images in later years}, there were only one or two cameras that had to be rented {and heavily insured} to shoot in that format.)OTOH, there should be a leveling of prices as digital penetrates further.Unfortunately, in accord with The Way Things Work In The Real World, it will very likely be achieved by the prices for non-3D films rising…
3-D Is a sad gimmick. It’s cute at Disney world. Everywhere else… it’s a waste of time. It’s a waste of money. I want 5-D movies… where if you hate the movie, you can say the title backwards, and send the movie back to the director for whence it came. Ratava!
3-D Is a sad gimmick. It's cute at Disney world. Everywhere else… it's a waste of time. It's a waste of money. I want 5-D movies… where if you hate the movie, you can say the title backwards, and send the movie back to the director for whence it came. Ratava!