Roger Ebert on 3-D

[Brian Hulnick]

After seeing a couple of great 3D movies (Up and Avatar)I got caught up in the 3D buzz, but after seeing the mess that was Clash Of The Titans and reading about the general lack of movies available on 3D Blu-ray I have to admit I have gone off the boil somewhat. I don't see anything happening unless the studios got off their fat corporate asses and start releasing some content, that is content not locked to a particular TV manufacturer. Even Toy Story 3 that did very well at the cineplex and which is arriving on Blu-ray on November 2nd has no 3D release date. This ain't funny.

[Brian Hulnick]

Finally a movie that everyone wants in 3D Blu-ray and you have to purchase a HDTV and Blu-ray player combo to get it. That's right James Cameron's epic CGI fest is coming to 3D Blu-ray this December 1st but only if you purchase a selected Panasonic 3D ready HDTV/ Blu-ray player combo.

I smell FAILURE.

[ryans]

Its been almost 3 months since the last post and to be honest 3D has not gone any further. Still almost zero films released, certainly no live action movies. Still smells like failure to me.

[Brian Hulnick]

I believe that 3D will go the way of Beta Max and Laser Discs, into oblivion.

[Brian Hulnick]

I watched the extended cut of Avatar last night (16 Minutes of extra footage) and couldn't really imagine it looking any better in 3D, at least at home any how. The colors simply popped out of the screen and the dimensionality was awesome.

[Brian Hulnick]

I'm still against 3D for home viewing. However, on Monday I went to watch Tron Legacy with my girlfriend and to be honest I was simply blown away. Not just by the movie, which was superb, but by the quality of the 3D imagery. This film was screaming out for 3D and I was not disappointed, neither was my GF, in fact I think she enjoyed it even more than I. That is saying something as I have been waiting for the sequel since forever. I hope they bring both films out on Blu-ray without too much delay as my girl has not seen the original.

[John Sprung]

I watched the extended cut of Avatar last night ....

 

I hardly ever walk out on a movie, but I walked out on Avatar after what seemed like hours. But it was actually only 45 minutes.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[ryans]

I hardly ever walk out on a movie, but I walked out on Avatar after what seemed like hours. But it was actually only 45 minutes.

 

-- J.S.

 

It's a love it or hate kind of movie.

[John Sprung]

Not so much a hate it -- more just massively bored. It's kinda like a Maxfield Parrish comic book. One reviewer called it "Dances with Smurfs".... ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brian Hulnick]

I liked Avatar on my first viewing, but could understand why some people did not. Dialog was never Mr Cameron's strong point, visual are. But the same could be said for George Lucas. Compare the dialog from episodes 1-3 with episodes 4-6 and there is a MARKED difference. I actually believe that Mr Lucas did not in fact write episodes 4-6. I know that he had extensive help from Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg and Brian De Palma. I believe they may have been more involved than was initially believed. Episodes 1-3 seem to have been written by someone who works for the cartoon network. But I digress. The added footage on Avatar- Extended really did make a hell of a difference, to me anyway. Give it another spine, you may like it more this time, without all the pressure of 3D.

[ryans]

I believe 3D for home viewing would have worked if the studios had really wanted it to. I believe they honestly do not. They want you to pay top dollar to watch some tripe, just because it is 3D. Unless you watch it on a 10 foot screen its really not worth it.

[Phil Rhodes]

I watched Avatar on a plane. Generally quite like Cameron, and to compare him to Lucas is an insult of the greatest order. I suspect Avatar was just very careful and moderate on the basis that it cost rather a lot of money and they needed the widest possible audience share. That sort of thing always leads to tedium. I didn't think it was that awful, and remember I was watching it on a 5", 640x480 TFT with mono audio, a loud roaring noise in the background, and people slamming drinks trolleys into my ankles every four minutes.

 

I want to see Tron Legacy, but I really don't want to see it in 3D.

 

P

[Brian Hulnick]

In fairness my only comparison is that both directors are a bit heavy handed and clumsy with dialog/ emotions. You really need to watch this with no distractions to fully appreciate it.

[Brian Hulnick]

Given all the possible health risks and side effects, I would still much rather watch my movies in 2D only.

[Brian Hulnick]

3D at home will seriously screw up your eyes.

[Steven Childs]

Have these health risks actually been conclusively proven?

[John Sprung]

Have these health risks actually been conclusively proven?

 

Marty Banks at U.C. Berkeley is working on 3D issues, and did a presentation at HPA last year:

 

http://bankslab.berkeley.edu/publications/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brian Hulnick]

I believe cross talk produces head aches/ weariness. When the image meant for one eye switches over to the other eye by mistake. Ghosting also causes headache as does almost undetectable flickering, especially those who may be prone to headache, seizures, epilepsy and young children.

[Chris Millar]

I watched Avatar on a plane. Generally quite like Cameron, and to compare him to Lucas is an insult of the greatest order. I suspect Avatar was just very careful and moderate on the basis that it cost rather a lot of money and they needed the widest possible audience share. That sort of thing always leads to tedium. I didn't think it was that awful, and remember I was watching it on a 5", 640x480 TFT with mono audio, a loud roaring noise in the background, and people slamming drinks trolleys into my ankles every four minutes.

 

I want to see Tron Legacy, but I really don't want to see it in 3D.

 

P

 

ha, ditto just last month !!! I'd already seen it in IMAX, but decided heck if I was flying around the world but sitting next to 'use all the arm rests all the time' Arthur Socks-Off-Dickwad that I better pad out all the art house section with a bit of Avatar ... I even ventured into a rom-com for about half an hour, but it didn't last.

 

But Tron - for whatever reason, it actually works in 3D - the only one I'd recommend actually

[Justin Hayward]

Letter to Roger Ebert from Walter Murch on 3-D...

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

[Brian Hulnick]

This man knows what he's talking about. He gave detailed but easy to digest reasons why 3D will NOT work.

[Brian Hulnick]

Has Spielberg spoken yet about 3D? Is he for or against it?

[Markshaw]

I believe he's indifferent to it. Has no plans to release any of his movies in 3D as of yet.

[Otis Grapsas]

If a technology is indeed artistically useful and aids storytelling, it becomes a standard sooner or later. That's true evolution. A human with a larger brain is evolution. One with 4 ears might be cute, but that's not going to make the subject more fit for survival. If it's important, the audience demands it and it becomes a standard within a relatively short timeframe. It happened with sound and color, even in technologically mediocre implementations. It didn't happen with 3D. All we have seen with 3D is short bursts of marketing with little success and this has beeen going on for 6 decades which is a lot in the modern world, where information travels fast and marketing can be very effective. The last comeback of 3D was massively marketed and even targeted to home users with wide compaigns from consumer electronics companies. Still, I don't own a 3D set and I don't demand the films I see to be in 3D. I don't know anyone who does. 3D has no general application in filmmaking. We still still be discussing about 3D becoming a standard in 2060.

 

What is important about 3D is that it comes at a time when good storytelling is very rare. Screenwriting is seriously ill while everyt other filmmaking component has reached astonishing levels of quality, substance and professionalism. 3D is used to get people in the theaters and get the theater installation market to grow. It cannot maintain an audience IMHO and I have seen some data that supports this view. Like all products that have no substance, it will be marketed in expensive bursts with mediocre monetary returns, but it will not establish itself.

[Matt Stevens]

3D is easily the biggest buzz kill for me in my lifetime. I have seen far fewer films this year than in any year prior. Why? Because I despise the Real3D image that is dim, dark and dank. It does not look good and if I want to see a non 3D version of said film, I am forced into the much smaller auditorium with poop sound because the 3D version has the best screen in the building.

 

My beloved Ziegfeld Theater displayed the horrific 3D version of CLASH OF THE TITANS and I walked out after 15 minutes (demanding and receiving a refund).

 

3D is not all bad. I did enjoy AVATAR and TRON, but I saw both in real IMAX 3D, where the image is bright. That being said, I watched the 2D portions of TRON without the glasses and yes, the screen was brighter. And better.

 

Being forced to pay nearly $20 in NYC to see 3D films on non-IMAX screens is an abomination and I just won't do it. When I have I have been disappointed at best, angered at worst. I pray to God that this fad ends quickly.