| Author |
Message |
|
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
|
 Re: The 3D thread Stop the converting madness, it only dilutes the awesomness that is native 3D. Film it in 3D or put it out in 2D. Morons!
_________________
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:00 am |
|
|
|
Jack Sparrow
KJ's Leading Idiot
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 36949
|
Re: The 3D thread Nazgul9 wrote: Stop the converting madness, it only dilutes the awesomness that is native 3D. Film it in 3D or put it out in 2D. Morons! Yep I totally agree except for Alice (which was also shot in 2D and then converted into 3D) none of the converted live action movies have managed good 3D reviews. Alice also had the advantage because Wonderland and most of the characters were developed in CGI making it easier to convert it in 3D.
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:32 am |
|
|
|
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
|
Re: The 3D thread Magception wrote: Screw 3D. Shoot in IMAX. Bullshit. 3D wins easily over bigger 2D. Also, shooting a movie for maybe 1% of the population that can see it in IMAX is moronic. _________________
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:43 am |
|
|
|
Jonathan
Begging Naked
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:07 pm
Posts: 14737
Location: The Present (Duh)
|
Re: The 3D thread soagg wrote: Nazgul9 wrote: Stop the converting madness, it only dilutes the awesomness that is native 3D. Film it in 3D or put it out in 2D. Morons! Yep I totally agree except for Alice (which was also shot in 2D and then converted into 3D) none of the converted live action movies have managed good 3D reviews. Alice also had the advantage because Wonderland and most of the characters were developed in CGI making it easier to convert it in 3D. They also planned on having it in 3D from the start, unlike almost all of the other conversion jobs. Burton just didn't want to shoot with 3D cameras. It'll be interesting to see if any film can reverse the declining 3D ratio and have people show up overwhelmingly for 3D. One problem is that all of the recent movies are either CGI family films, or last-minute conversions (Titans, Airbender) that had terrible early word for their 3D. Step Up 3 and Piranha 3D were filmed for the format, so they could do well (Assuming they do well, period). Perhaps Tron: Legacy?
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:45 am |
|
|
|
mark66
Extraordinary
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:41 pm
Posts: 13054
Location: Augsburg (2,040 years young)
|
Re: The 3D thread Speaking of TRON I got reminded of SPEED RACER and I started wondering whether SR would have been a hit movie if shot in 3D...
_________________
Nothing Compares 2 U
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:58 am |
|
|
|
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
|
Re: The 3D thread I think (hope) people are educating themselves about native 3D vs converted 3D and won't settle for the latter in increasing numbers but will pay the premium for quality 3D.
_________________
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:58 am |
|
|
|
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
|
Re: The 3D thread mark66 wrote: Speaking of TRON I got reminded of SPEED RACER and I started wondering whether SR would have been a hit movie if shot in 3D... The only similarity is that both have races. Speed Racer looked like shit whereas Tron looks cool, 3D or no 3D. _________________
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:02 pm |
|
|
|
mark66
Extraordinary
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:41 pm
Posts: 13054
Location: Augsburg (2,040 years young)
|
Re: The 3D thread Nazgul9 wrote: mark66 wrote: Speaking of TRON I got reminded of SPEED RACER and I started wondering whether SR would have been a hit movie if shot in 3D... The only similarity is that both have races. Speed Racer looked like shit whereas Tron looks cool, 3D or no 3D. I kinda liked SR...
_________________
Nothing Compares 2 U
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:05 pm |
|
|
|
Mr. R
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:19 pm
Posts: 2231
|
Re: The 3D thread Nazgul9 wrote: Magception wrote: Screw 3D. Shoot in IMAX. Bullshit. 3D wins easily over bigger 2D. Also, shooting a movie for maybe 1% of the population that can see it in IMAX is moronic. No it's not. TDK's IMAX scenes were AMAZING, way better than any 3D, except for Avatar.
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:06 pm |
|
|
|
Lotan
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:25 pm
Posts: 1222
|
Re: The 3D thread Magception wrote: IMAX = Better resolution (film > digital in most cases), biggest picture, better sound.
IMAX HD with 48 frames!
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:09 pm |
|
|
|
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
|
Re: The 3D thread Magception wrote: IMAX = Better resolution (film > digital in most cases), biggest picture, better sound. The last two apply to every movie shown in an IMAX theater, including 3D movies. As for film > digital, you don't even notice any difference, you're just parroting your precious Nolan. _________________
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:18 pm |
|
|
|
Lotan
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:25 pm
Posts: 1222
|
Re: The 3D thread Magception wrote: Lotan wrote: Magception wrote: IMAX = Better resolution (film > digital in most cases), biggest picture, better sound.
IMAX HD with 48 frames! I haven't seen MaxiVision so I can't judge it. It's not MaxiVision, though. But still, you know what I want. 
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:29 pm |
|
|
|
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
|
Re: The 3D thread Magception wrote: Uh, film > digital is not just a feeling of Nolan. Go ask PTA, Michael Bay (yeah, fucking Michael Bay), Roger Ebert, QT, hell even a lot people on this forum. *lol* people on this forum... It's a religious war, similar to CD vs. Vinyl. If it's good enough for Cameron it's good enough for others. Filmmakers are increasingly switching to digital (even fucking Bay), analog will sooner or later be a thing of the past. _________________
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:22 pm |
|
|
|
Lotan
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:25 pm
Posts: 1222
|
Re: The 3D thread Quote: It's a religious war, similar to CD vs. Vinyl. No, it's not. CD vs Vinyl is similar to DVD vs VHS. Shooting digitaly is another thing. And as far as I know, music are still being recorded on analog 'master' tapes. Also, many analog movies are shown digitaly in theatres. I doubt that Tarantino ever said that blu-ray sucks because it's digital.
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:38 pm |
|
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Re: The 3D thread Lotan wrote: Quote: It's a religious war, similar to CD vs. Vinyl. No, it's not. CD vs Vinyl is similar to DVD vs VHS. Shooting digitaly is another thing. And as far as I know, music are still being recorded on analog 'master' tapes. Also, many analog movies are shown digitaly in theatres. I doubt that Tarantino ever said that blu-ray sucks because it's digital. Um, no.... Barely anyone would prefer VHS over DVD now, but I know a lot of true fans of music who love vinyl still... _________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
Lotan
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:25 pm
Posts: 1222
|
Re: The 3D thread Magception wrote: But I highly doubt QT will ever say, "don't watch it in theaters; wait for blu-ray" unless the movie itself isn't that good. Aren't "new" theatres play movies digitaly? Either way, I was under the impression that shooting digitaly is different from analogue because of the things such as lightning, time of day etc.
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:58 pm |
|
|
|
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
|
Re: The 3D thread Magception wrote: I understand the push for digital, and from a economic and hassle perspective, it makes sense. But if you have the time, money, and skill, you should shoot in film. According to who? Again, you're parroting some filmmakers but you yourself can't even tell the difference. _________________
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:04 pm |
|
|
|
Lotan
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:25 pm
Posts: 1222
|
Re: The 3D thread I didn't mind Zodiac being digital.
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
|
Re: The 3D thread Magception wrote: And really, I'm basing it off of my own experiences. Sure, I guess some may prefer the digital look, but I don't. What is the "digital look"? I'm basing it off of my own experiences as well. I can't really tell "ok, this is digital" and you can't either. Movies get tweaked so much after shooting took place through color grading and whatnot that it blurs the differences, if there are any, even more. If anything, movies never looked as good as now in digital 3D. The level of detail is amazing. _________________
|
| Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:14 pm |
|
|
|
Passionate Thug
Top Poster
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:01 am
Posts: 5264
Location: Wakanda
|
Re: The 3D thread Interesting article and analysis... http://gizmodo.com/5592956/is-3d-alread ... e=true&s=iIs 3D Already Dying? Quote: Since the high-water mark of Avatar, where 71% of the revenue came from 3D screenings, numbers for big-budget 3D movies have plummeted to less than 50%.
Obviously Avatar was a unique case in that it was basically sold as a 3D "experience," so if you saw it in 2D you were missing out. But then three months later the animated How to Train Your Dragon pulled in 68% of its revenue from 3D screens, hardly a significant drop-off.
Fast forward a mere four months and you have Despicable Me, another 3D animated kids movie, pulling in 45% of its revenue from 3D screens.
What's this mean? It means that now that people have had a chance to experience 3D in theaters, they're opting to spend $10 on a 2D screening rather than $15 on a 3D screening when given the option.
It's not great news for Hollywood studios that have sunk boatloads of money into 3D cameras and tech, but it's much, much worse news for consumer electronics companies such as Sony and Panasonic who are betting the farm on people wanting to upgrade two-year-old HDTVs to 3D HDTVs. But if Hollywood finds that making 3D movies isn't as profitable as they thought, they'll stop doing it. And without that content, no one will have any reason to buy a 3D TV.
|
| Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:09 pm |
|
|
|
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
|
Re: The 3D thread I hope 3D dies out. It's more annoying than not.
And I don't need a 3D TV or 3D Nintendo DS, either.
|
| Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:24 pm |
|
|
|
MadGez
Dont Mess with the Gez
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:54 am
Posts: 23323
Location: Melbourne Australia
|
Re: The 3D thread Thank God! This is great news and hope it declines further. 3D should only be used for a few animated films per year and thats enough.
While it may have worked for Avatar, Its nothing more than a gimmick and nothing that a good story or visuals cant beat.
Really, Avatar looked good in 3D (havnt seen it in 2D) and so did TS3 but Dragon 3D didn't look all that great to be honest,
_________________
What's your favourite movie summer? Let us know @
http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=85934
|
| Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:29 pm |
|
|
|
bl1222
Veteran
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:36 pm
Posts: 3900
|
Re: The 3D thread 3D is overrated and unnecessary for some films.
|
| Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:50 pm |
|
|
|
MadGez
Dont Mess with the Gez
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:54 am
Posts: 23323
Location: Melbourne Australia
|
Re: The 3D thread 3D is very juvenile. Its good for something different, but you don't want to see it all the time. Hence why its fine for a kids film but thats about it. In the long term, the hyper inflated ticket pricing can only turn away audiences. Good thing of it peters out like it has in the past (50s/80s) and remains an event for a handful of films per year.
_________________
What's your favourite movie summer? Let us know @
http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=85934
|
| Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:12 am |
|
|
|
SolC9
Forum General
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:11 pm
Posts: 7195
Location: Wisconsin
|
Re: The 3D thread I don't have a problem with 3D if the movie was made for 3D. I just don't like
the tacked on 3D as a money grab. I loved Avatar, TS3, and How To Train Your Dragon in 3D. But I didn't bother with Clash of the Titans or The Last Airbender. I saw those in 2D. The only movie the rest of the year that I'll want to see in 3D is Tron Legacy (and maybe Megamind). If I go to it, I'd probably see the 3D version of Resident Evil: Afterlife. But I'm far from sold on it.
I don't mind 3D, but I think half a dozen 3D films a year is enough.
|
| Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:45 am |
|
|
