Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message

spark1 -> Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion (13/3/2010 1:37:17 PM)

after hearing dr kermode state on his radio show that he only went to see the 2 d version of a 3 d release for the the 2 time in a row, i have to ask if this a deliberate boycott on his part and can we now trust his objectivity as a reviewer?



Deviation -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 1:42:43 PM)

Why? Because he won't see films with the pointless added gimmick? That's like judging Kermode becuase the film he saw a film was on DVD and not in the cinema.

If anything I'd ask the integrity of anyone who likes Twilight.



Rgirvan44 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 1:45:28 PM)

Does this mean for some people reviewing a film in 2D when there is a 3D option is no longer valid?

Cause that is some BS right there.



elab49 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 1:45:51 PM)

He's still reviewing the film, so I wouldn't question his objectivity (just, as Dev suggests, his taste on occasion - HSM3![:D]).

But if someone doesn't buy into the gimmick, then I applaud that. It doesn't take the place of decent films - and there is no suggestion it has improved the quality of a film, just, for some, the pretty visuals.



Tech_Noir -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 1:45:51 PM)

I refuse to watch colour talkies, they're not proper films!



boys_dont_cry -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 1:47:13 PM)

A deliberate boycott?

Yes.

As a lot of people are starting to realise, 3D aint all that.

To me, Avatar was just as good in 2d as it was 3d, only i didnt get a headache with the 2D version.

3D is a gimmick. End of. No film needs 3D, you can get the same amount of immersion from a very well directed 2D film. For instance, The scene in Dark Knight when Batman dives of the building in, your there with him and if you saw it in Imax, it feels like your falling.

And it all comes down to great directing, sound, cinematography......

Also, if im not mistaken, he didnt go to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D becasue the film was not made for 3d, it was retrofitted to be 3D.

I wont be watching Clash of the Titans in 3D for the same reason.

3D will go away when people begin to realise that thier paying a lot more money to see maybe 5-10 minutes of actual 3D footage.



Rgirvan44 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 1:49:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

I refuse to watch colour talkies, they're not proper films!


It is hardly the same thing. Did people have to pay more to see colour films back in the day?



boys_dont_cry -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 1:54:13 PM)

My fear with the 3D is that a LOT of cinemas are pumping a LOT of money into converting screens to show 3D films. Even my local independent cinema are converting later this year.

They wont be too happy if studios stop making films in 3D (or indeed, converting films pointlessly to 3D).

I think this may be a really horrible never ending cycle.



Deviation -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 1:56:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

I refuse to watch colour talkies, they're not proper films!


That's a silly comment.



elab49 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:01:03 PM)

And not really analoguous - you'd have to come up with an example of something that existed in more than one form. Like the practice of refilming foreign films with English language casts in the 30s. Or refusing to watch The Departed, 'cos it is a duff remake.

Oh. Wait. [8|]



paul_ie86 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:01:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

I refuse to watch colour talkies, they're not proper films!


But sound and colour stock were natural developments. Can you say the same about 3D?



spark1 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:06:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Does this mean for some people reviewing a film in 2D when there is a 3D option is no longer valid?

Cause that is some BS right there.



yeah, i understand that the 3 d retro fit thing is bit suspect
but i have been checking reviews and opinions that have dismissed films like 'avatar' as deficient and lacking substance in its 2 d version.

but wouldn't their opinions change if they saw them in 3 d?
even kermode thinks the 3 d does bring the 'wow' factor to 'avatar'.




elab49 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:06:41 PM)

Colour stock might have been natural but the business use of it wasn't - it wasn't used for a long time when it could have been, and then, combining it with widescreen etc in the 50s, was for exactly the same reason we're getting 3D now (as, also, they did in the 50s) - to get bums on seats after attendances fell from about 80M to 40M. To make cinema an 'event' again. 3D failed, but the widescreen swords and sandals epics and westerns lasted a good long time before being accepted as commonplace. But the problem was that, arguably, that need was informing the decisions on what was made. 3D still flopped though. As it did in the 80s.



paul_ie86 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:11:04 PM)

Does that mean when it fails that it will be reintroduced in 2040 again? [:D]



Hobbitonlass -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:11:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: boys_dont_cry


3D is a gimmick. End of. No film needs 3D,

I agree that films don't need 3D but I do think that some films are enhanced by 3D.  Avatar for example.  Rather than having 3D chucked at me it was the other way round in that it drew me in.  It is getting however, for me, to the point where I watch a trailer, become interested, then as soon as I see the "Coming soon in 3D" message at the end I feel all deflated.



paul_ie86 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:16:08 PM)

I don't think Avatar was enhanced by 3D. I was just as bored watching it in 3D as I imagine I would have been had I seen it in 2D.



Deviation -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:27:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Does this mean for some people reviewing a film in 2D when there is a 3D option is no longer valid?

Cause that is some BS right there.



yeah, i understand that the 3 d retro fit thing is bit suspect
but i have been checking reviews and opinions that have dismissed films like 'avatar' as deficient and lacking substance in its 2 d version.

but wouldn't their opinions change if they saw them in 3 d?
even kermode thinks the 3 d does bring the 'wow' factor to 'avatar'.




The reviews saying that Avatar lacked substance and was deficient in anything decent in 2D were absolutely bang on. (except action scenes and flying chameleons, and Weaver)

And if the film needs head-on gear to be spectacular then that makes Avatar even worse. A film should be great to watch by itself, without pop-up enchantment and frivolous glasses, if it needs that to be good with those, then it is far worse then I ever imagined. And if we are talking about directors who used 3D, Andre deToth (who was blind from one eye and didn't like the tool)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>James Cameron, since House of Wax had enough immersion in it to work brilliantly even without some annoying glasses.


If I'm going to be honest, there is only one film I really want to see 3D, it is becuase the gimmick actually like it can do the film favors becuase of its plot and style. This is Tron Legacy.



Bezerker -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:39:21 PM)

I saw Mark Kermode do a talk to coincide with his new book the other week in Leeds. One of the first things he did was to do a gag about 3D, specifically Avatar. He got three smurf dolls hanging from a coat hanger and waved them about, to represent 2D Avatar. Then he put the hook on the end of a big pole and dangled it around towards the audience, to represent 3D Avatar. Needless to say, it was one of the worst parts of an otherwise very good show. Not that I'm a fan of 3D, it's just a fairly duff gag.




Deviation -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:39:30 PM)

Speaking of which, Precious in 3D, Scorsese, that is a sad suggestion, very sad....



homersimpson_esq -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:43:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bezerker

I saw Mark Kermode do a talk to coincide with his new book the other week in Leeds. One of the first things he did was to do a gag about 3D, specifically Avatar. He got three smurf dolls hanging from a coat hanger and waved them about, to represent 2D Avatar. Then he put the hook on the end of a big pole and dangled it around towards the audience, to represent 3D Avatar. Needless to say, it was one of the worst parts of an otherwise very good show. Not that I'm a fan of 3D, it's just a fairly duff gag.




You fail. It was a great gag when he did it in Bristol. Clearly Leeds-folk have no sense of humour...

Anyway, Kermode also pleged to Mark Cosgrove, the boss of the Watershed cinema that if a) David Lynch ever makes a 3D film and b) if the Watershed shows it that he will come in person and eat his shoe. (An obvious reference to his hero Herzog, of course.)



Dirty Hartigan -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 2:44:15 PM)

I think with the stuff that's been shot in 3D from the start does need to be reviewed in that format, because it's a different experience. The retrofitted stuff (based on seeing it in Superman Returns) is kind of a cheat, so I can understand why Kermode wouldn't bother in that instance.



Tech_Noir -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 3:35:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

I refuse to watch colour talkies, they're not proper films!


That's a silly comment.



You're a silly comment.



Deviation -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 3:36:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

I refuse to watch colour talkies, they're not proper films!


That's a silly comment.



You're a silly comment.


Your face is a silly comment.

EDIT: Apologies.



elab49 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 3:38:43 PM)

Boys, boys, boys - feel free to take the slapstick to PM. [8|]



Tech_Noir -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 3:40:07 PM)

We're just kidding.



juanvasquez -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 3:41:36 PM)

I can't see what all the fuss is about. My local cinema shows them in both formats, so if I don't wanna watch a film in 3D, I'll go watch the 2D showing. Simple as that. If a films good, it's good, regardless of dimensions.



elab49 -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 3:42:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juanvasquez

. If a films good, it's good, regardless of dimensions.


Absolutely.[:)]



BlueBalls -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 4:34:50 PM)

Sign me up for this so called "boycott". I don't like having failed 50s technology rammed down my throat and nor should you.Now, successful 50s technology being rammed down my throat is a different matter. Anyone for a slice of fresh hydrogen bomb?

Ba-dum-dum-tssssssssssshhhhhh!

Lame!!!



Deviation -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 4:49:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juanvasquez

I can't see what all the fuss is about. My local cinema shows them in both formats, so if I don't wanna watch a film in 3D, I'll go watch the 2D showing. Simple as that.




And I would pretty much agree with this if it wasn't for the pressure some filmmakers are doing on 3D.

quote:


If a films good, it's good, regardless of dimensions.


And truer words have not been said in this thread.



rich -> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott (13/3/2010 6:20:35 PM)

It's already been said, but 3D should not determinte if a film is good or not. So yeah Kermode has a good point.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125