I see the passion on both sides for this is strong. And the people who love 3D shouldn't worry if people keep going and it makes money. But from what I'm reading it looks like Hollywood might be getting nervous about the trend in the last 6 months.
Roger Ebert attacks 3-D Movies and makes some really good points.
- Thread starter televisionarchives
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 57
- Views 6K
Those putting most of the articles are 3D haters... they can't stand for some people to have something they cannot enjoy 
Ford, Lincoln Mercury" Rule #1: Live and let live"
quote]
Ford, Lincoln Mercury" Rule #1: Live and let live"quote]
As long as they keep making a 2d version I have no problem with the 3D alternative. But if they only put them on in 3D I won't go to the moviesThose putting most of the articles are 3D haters... they can't stand for some people to have something they cannot enjoy
quote]
If you put our a crap product you get crap in return. If you put out a good product people will spend the money for the experience. As of right now they are saying that 60% of Transformers 3 revenue has come from 3D ticket sales. This is what can happen when you put the effort into making the experience right for 3D.
Well, I'm back from seeing the "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" in 3D. The movie is good. If you liked the other 2 Transformers movies, you'll like this one. A lot of action, all your favorites are back (except Ms. Fox ), and I really like Shia Labeouf. I still feel he makes the Transformers movies believable, along with Bay's stunts/special effects. Labeouf, IMO, really plays his character
for real, not like some actors who tend to make you feel they know that you know they're talking to a green screen. Labeouf interacts with the Transformers. The new girlfriend I'm not sure about...she's hot, but maybe too hot for Labeouf, and her acting was rather underwhelming to me. Not that Megan Fox was any pro, but she seem to fit the part better, again, IMO.
Now to the 3D.This is only my second movie I have seen in 3D. The first was "Avatar" which I seen in IMAX 3D. The Transformers wasn't at an IMAX 3D theater. Now "Avatar" I felt surrounded by the 3D effects. I could see plant leaves beside me and those little "floaty" things kept making me move my head so I wouldn't get hit by one of them. I was really blown away by that 3D.
The Transformers movie had great action scenes, and you could see the depth of the 3D, but I still got the feeling of the old "Viewmaster". The edge of the screen was still a barrier, and there were only a few times that the 3D seem to go beyond that barrier. IMO, the 3D nether added nor took away from the story of the movie, but it did seem to distract me at times due to that barrier effect. Was it worth the extra 3 bucks? It was to me in the sense of seeing how the 3D was. Would I see another movie in 3D? I might. Maybe one of the upcoming Marvel movies, but next time I will make sure I see it at an IMAX 3D theater. If the "barrier" still exists, than I know that "Avatar" was the ultimate in 3D movies so far, and it doesn't matter if you see it at an IMAX 3D or a regular 3D theater.
Maybe those out there who have seen "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" in IMAX 3D can post their thoughts on the 3D effects.
Ghpr13
), and I really like Shia Labeouf. I still feel he makes the Transformers movies believable, along with Bay's stunts/special effects. Labeouf, IMO, really plays his characterfor real, not like some actors who tend to make you feel they know that you know they're talking to a green screen. Labeouf interacts with the Transformers. The new girlfriend I'm not sure about...she's hot, but maybe too hot for Labeouf, and her acting was rather underwhelming to me. Not that Megan Fox was any pro, but she seem to fit the part better, again, IMO.
Now to the 3D.This is only my second movie I have seen in 3D. The first was "Avatar" which I seen in IMAX 3D. The Transformers wasn't at an IMAX 3D theater. Now "Avatar" I felt surrounded by the 3D effects. I could see plant leaves beside me and those little "floaty" things kept making me move my head so I wouldn't get hit by one of them. I was really blown away by that 3D.
The Transformers movie had great action scenes, and you could see the depth of the 3D, but I still got the feeling of the old "Viewmaster". The edge of the screen was still a barrier, and there were only a few times that the 3D seem to go beyond that barrier. IMO, the 3D nether added nor took away from the story of the movie, but it did seem to distract me at times due to that barrier effect. Was it worth the extra 3 bucks? It was to me in the sense of seeing how the 3D was. Would I see another movie in 3D? I might. Maybe one of the upcoming Marvel movies, but next time I will make sure I see it at an IMAX 3D theater. If the "barrier" still exists, than I know that "Avatar" was the ultimate in 3D movies so far, and it doesn't matter if you see it at an IMAX 3D or a regular 3D theater.
Maybe those out there who have seen "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" in IMAX 3D can post their thoughts on the 3D effects.
Ghpr13
Ghpr13, I actually had to travel a bit to see Transformers in IMAX but I will say that while it was not as good as Avatar, it was pretty damn good. The depth was there and a lot of the sequences, especially the last half hour or so, was incredible. That said there were no scenes like Avatar with the floaters (A Christmas Carol did that well with the snow... kept feeling like I was in a snow storm) where you felt like you were in the middle of it. It did add to the film to an extent by helping show the size of robots and the height of the freefall but nothing of a full emersion. (Side note... we took my daughter to see "Born to Be Wild 3D" when it came out in IMAX and there were the scenes that you are talking about where bugs were flying by and the animals looked like they were coming off the screen right at you. Like JAG said, if you take the time and do it right it'll work in your favor.)
There was a quote from the director of the last Pirates film that said he was told to put the last Pirate film in 3D by Disney so he took a 2 day course at Sony on post effects and did a "fair job with what I was trained to do." As a result this is why 3D is in trouble.... everything "Must be 3D" but they do it poorly and as a result people say "I didn't see any 3D" and stop paying extra. I can run down a list of "3D films" over the past two years starting with Clash of the Titans that were the worst 3D I've ever seen to the point I had to question if it was me.
There was a quote from the director of the last Pirates film that said he was told to put the last Pirate film in 3D by Disney so he took a 2 day course at Sony on post effects and did a "fair job with what I was trained to do." As a result this is why 3D is in trouble.... everything "Must be 3D" but they do it poorly and as a result people say "I didn't see any 3D" and stop paying extra. I can run down a list of "3D films" over the past two years starting with Clash of the Titans that were the worst 3D I've ever seen to the point I had to question if it was me.
There were reports that Bay reused quite a bit of his The Island footage.
That obviously was not shot in 3D and had to undergo conversion.
This could be the reason for the 3D-effect being "uneven"...
Diogen.
Duckydan,
Thank you for your info on Transformers in IMAX 3D. I could see the IMAX helping to make the bots seem really huge. I have said from the start, that the downfall of 3D will come at the hands of Hollywood. Hollywood thinks only of money, therefore, after the success of "Avatar" the 3D push was on. Only no one picked up the torch of 3D from Cameron to try to achieve the "immersion" 3D that "Avatar" had. It was only a push to get on the 3D bandwagon to the bank. So the 3D "experience" became tainted quite early on. Add to that the premium that was being charged for 3D viewing, and you have the formula for turning away the public, and once again reviving the long tradition of calling 3D a "gimmick".
I feel that this "push" by Hollywood, has put directors and producers into a hard place. Hollywood is not letting the 3D technology to mature naturally. IMO, making a 3D movie has to be extremely hard to have just the right balance of 3D. You don't want too many "in your face" "ping pong ball" scenes, but you do need enough 3D to break that 2D barrier of the screen. That's what "Avatar" did so well.
I'm almost wanting to hunt down an IMAX 3D theater where I live and see the Transformers movie again, just to compare.
Take care,
Ghpr13
Diogen,
That very well could be. One thing I will give Bay, his Transformers movies have some of the best effects I have ever seen. When I saw the first Transformer movie, I could not get over how the "bots" would change from a moving car into the bot...it was just so fluid and real! It's one thing to have a stationary object "transform", but to do with with an object that is moving and continue that flow of motion as it "transforms" into a robot, and the robot is still moving forward! I still am in awe of those scenes.
Take care,
Ghpr13
It was actually one scene that lasted less than a minute and was in the background of the decepticon. (You can see the one minute clip on youtube). It was noticable if you've watched the Island (which is a limited number of people to begin with) but it didn't take away much and the scene still had it's depth aside from the car flipping. The decepticon was still throwing cars at the screen which did the job.
The flagship cinema chain in Maine has dropped the extra fee for 3D to 1 dollar.A friend who works at one of their theatres said that people complained of the 3 dollar charge and started to see a drop in numbers for the 3D version of films.
My gripe with the $3 charge is that they demand the glasses back. I have a passive 3D set which means I can use the Real D glasses at home and was told by a guy at the door that the theater owned the glasses and by taking them I was stealing. They actually have signs now on the door that the glasses are property of the theater. YET if I bring my own glasses I still have to pay the $3 fee.
I read an interview over the weekend on IGN which stated that he reused footage because when filming the scene he was shooting the stuntwoman got hurt (she's now paralyzed) and as a result rather than reshooting it was easier to use preshot footage.
I tried to go see Transformers Dark side but it's been sold out, the 3D version. May try again this weekend.
When I first got my 3D front projector and 3D Blu-Ray Player I was really excited about watching these movies in 3D. But that excitement has now taken a back seat to actually shooting and editing my own 3D HD family videos. I'm editing and shooting 3D every day of the week now and it is so exciting, I can't recall, maybe when I finally stopped shooting film and bought my first video camera with portapack recorder I've been this excited about shooting video. 3D is lots of fun and watching my own work makes me feel like I back there again. Never quite got there with 2D.
When I first got my 3D front projector and 3D Blu-Ray Player I was really excited about watching these movies in 3D. But that excitement has now taken a back seat to actually shooting and editing my own 3D HD family videos. I'm editing and shooting 3D every day of the week now and it is so exciting, I can't recall, maybe when I finally stopped shooting film and bought my first video camera with portapack recorder I've been this excited about shooting video. 3D is lots of fun and watching my own work makes me feel like I back there again. Never quite got there with 2D.
Check out this classic Siskel and Ebert Show with Space Hunter 3D back in 1983Siskel & Ebert org - Star Wars-Jedi / Blue Thunder (1983)
No. That one is new. The one I linked to is from 1983.Is the episode that is being discussed in this thread from "At the Movies" on the web?
Ghpr13
Is is now on his website. http://www.ebertpresents.com/
Here is what Roger thinks.http://www.ebertpresents.com/episodes/episode-125/videos/232
I like 3D when it is good, and I will pay to see it in the theater. What makes me mad and now I make an effort to investigate up front is the fake 3D. If the 3D was done after the fact I will only see in 2D. If it was shot using 3D cameras, I will make an effort to see in 3D. I have seen T3 2x in 3D.
Hollywood could kill 3D by continuing to try to push trash movies using 3D to try to juice all they can out of 3D. If audiences start to think that 3D just is not worth it any more, 3D lovers would be out of luck if the format dies off.
