Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > Film Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-09-2009, 15:54   #61
James45
Trusted User
 
James45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southend-on-Sea
Posts: 11,261
Thanks: 188
Thanked 66 Times in 45 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ste7en View Post
This is where confusion comes into play. People think that the domestic 3D tat is the same as the digital stuff at the cinema. They are MILES apart.
Just wait for Sky's 3D, you'll need a new TV but I've seen it, it's incredible!
James45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2009, 16:04   #62
Ste7en
Goin' Home to Satan
 
Ste7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Stranded in Chihuahua
Posts: 15,238
Thanks: 1,875
Thanked 333 Times in 247 Posts
I don't even have Sky HD, can't say I'm too bothered about not seeing the hairs on Jordan's nerps.

I have Sky+, that'll do.
__________________
My DVD Collection / My Feedback
Ste7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2009, 16:07   #63
SimonI
Rude Mechanical
 
SimonI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 6,358
Thanks: 272
Thanked 280 Times in 187 Posts
This is the thing: look how slow uptake of BD has been, even with people being sold HD tellys when they have no HD source; how do they expect to sell the idea of new TV and BD formats for something which will have very little material to play? And in a recession! And you have to wear glasses!
__________________
It's turtles all the way down!
All things prog | Yes World | DVD Basen | Home | MX-5 | Nausicaa | ET | My Criterion
SimonI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2009, 16:16   #64
RomerojpgX
Dead
 
RomerojpgX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hell
Posts: 10,543
Thanks: 38
Thanked 53 Times in 38 Posts
Well for one massive thing the vast majority of film makers are that, film makers. They want nothing to do with a age old silly gimmic like 3D. Good on them I say, as it is a stupid place to take the vast majority of films, new and old.

Many film makers will never even go digital never mind 3D, so as for 3D being the future it is a lame dream of a few cash hungry cinema people who think they are more forward thinking than any film makers before them, when in reality it is a gimmic.

It is pathetic the way old films are being re-done in 3D, I dont care one bit myself that Toy Story will now be in 3D, why the hell would I want that in 3D. re-doing films in 3D is the devils work.

3D is for silly horror films, kids films and the odd Blockbuster, no more. I dont want to be distracted by 3D in a 5 star masterpiece, as thats all it does distract.
RomerojpgX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2009, 16:40   #65
CrackD0wn
Trusted User
 
CrackD0wn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 958
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Were you abused by a 3D film when you were younger Romero?
CrackD0wn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2009, 16:46   #66
Guest 62452
Weapon of MAX Destruction
 
Guest 62452's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,962
Thanks: 37
Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts
Immersion has always been a primary goal of the artist. And this is no different in film. Whether it's the way a filmmaker composes shots or cuts them in the editing room, the best filmmakers aim for a level of immersion that will compel their viewers to forget that they are watching a film. Ironically, methods can be diametrically opposed - some believe that longer shots increase immersion whereas others believe that quick cutting is the solution to getting an audience to believe in the illusion with which they are being presented.

3-D is no doubt viewed by Hollywood as a gimmick. Another tool to create a unique spectacle to lure audiences back into cinema seats. But I think there is artistic merit to the medium. As with most other cinematic techniques, 3-D provides the most immediate tool for greater immersion. However, 3-D shares the Achilles' heel as the techniques that preceded it i.e. if used incorrectly, it can actually eject a viewer from the film experience.

Personally, I think film as a two-dimensional medium is a medium unto itself. Just because we have holographic technology, that doesn't diminish the beauty of a flat canvas. Indeed, the flat canvas implies a degree of separation and voyeuristic pleasure that 3-D arguably lacks. That sense of looking through a window. Of looking into another dimension. This isn't the same as actually being in the alternate universe, and the effects are quite different. Thus voyeurism has its own breed of immersion that 3-D doesn't have.

So yeah. There are arguments for and against it. Personally, I'm conflicted. I think the idea is cool, but I also feel as though something is being lost. But then, maybe that's always been the way with change.
Guest 62452 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2009, 16:47   #67
RomerojpgX
Dead
 
RomerojpgX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hell
Posts: 10,543
Thanks: 38
Thanked 53 Times in 38 Posts
Just by the really, really bad 3D Horror films in the 80's
RomerojpgX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 08:22   #68
Guest 70701
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
3D movies drive record summer at box office

http://www.reuters.com/article/filmN...58712F20090908
Guest 70701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 09:27   #69
Kirsten.Jet
Calvin Is Cool!
 
Kirsten.Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london
Posts: 185
Thanks: 2
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I hope not, 3D movies make me feel vaguely travel sick so the sooner they forget about it the better as far as I'm concerned.
Kirsten.Jet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 09:46   #70
Richie
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 23,671
Thanks: 238
Thanked 159 Times in 82 Posts
omigawdright! I can't wait to see The Matrix sequels in 3-D. Oh wait, I can.
Richie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 19:49   #71
Goooner1
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,928
Thanks: 211
Thanked 78 Times in 52 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie View Post
omigawdright! I can't wait to see The Matrix sequels in 3-D. Oh wait, I can.
I think The Matrix sequels would be best viewed in 0-D
__________________
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin
Goooner1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 21:08   #72
Guest 7607
Custom User Title
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 3,452
Thanks: 29
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
I do find this particular debate amusing because it has so many parallels with the Silent to Talkies period

3D as a medium is pretty interesting, but its simply not suitable for a lot of things. However, I am a fan of them it just needs to be applied in the right places - I'm happy that the Pixar stuff is in 3D now purely because its very hard to create accurate and believable depth of field with CGI anyway, so it makes it a lot more engaging.
Guest 7607 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
Cinema, Fad?, Future

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The R1 & R2 Fox Studio Classics, Cinema Classics & Cinema Reserve Thread John Hodson Film Discussion 332 14-10-2007 11:22
DVD Home Cinema without the cinema bit Guest 45579 Home Entertainment Hardware forum 4 10-01-2005 21:26
Back To The Future cinema showing in London Guest 17020 Film Discussion 9 19-07-2004 09:45
DLP and the Future of Cinema minicooper69 Film Discussion 12 25-05-2002 20:21

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.qq
Copyright ©2000 - 2021 Network N Ltd.