Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott Page: <<   < prev  36 37 [38] 39 40   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 25/3/2012 4:20:26 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

Going to the cinema is expensive enough. There would be an irony if all this phony 3D spelled the death knell for cinema. I mean, with the costs of home cinema systems coming down all the time, while at the same time the equipment is improving why bother with the cinema at all? You can have plasma/LCD flatscreen 50inch tv's, Dolby surround sounds, comfort, popcorn and beer, blu ray heaven at home for a good price. And you get no idiots unwrapping sweets, talking, smoking, fighting or whatever to spoil your evening. Many people still attend the cinema for that romantacised element from our youth. But everything is so sanitised and impersonal now that any romance died long ago. I think it would be a good test would be to - if only for a month or two - have cinema and Blu Ray joint releases of major movies. My feeling is that most people would stop at home.


I'm a big fan of home video. We have a 42 inch plasma television, a large blu-ray and DVD collection (verging on 3000) and a comfortable home, but I still get a real buzz out of going to the cinema. I don't think cost is as big of an issue as many claim it to be either*. Yesterday I went to see The Kid With A Bike at my local arthouse cinema. The ticket was 6.40, and the film lasted around 90 minutes. I don't tend to snack in the cinema. So, for just over 6 I got a great movie, projected perfectly on a screen bigger than my house. I got to share the experience with a bunch of likeminded individuals (granted, the multiplex doesn't necessarily afford this), and all for the price of a couple of pints. I've never been to a football match, but I'm fairly sure the price of a football match ticket is more than 6.40 for 90 minutes of entertainment, and the same goes for gigs, playing golf or going to the theatre. The cinema is actually a fairly reasonably priced form of social entertainment. I can go out for an evening with my wife for less than 15. 15! Thats a relative bargain compared to going to something like the opera. Most of the leisure activities I've outlined above can be replicated in the home at a great discount compared to the actual activity, but its all about the experience, and for me the cinema experience is still hugely relevant and massively enjoyable.

*Full disclosure - Thanks to the nature of my work I don't have to pay for everything I see. I do however pay to get in to my local independent cinema, which is where I saw the film I'm referring to above.

(in reply to Sutty)
Post #: 1111
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 25/3/2012 4:24:06 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14579
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
Yeah, I don't know if I'm just lucky or if it's more to do with the type of films I go to see or when I'm able to see them (I rarely, if ever, go on a weekend - it's normally a middle of the day activity), but I rarely have any hassle with audiences when I go to see a film. As for cost, I usually avoid buying food there and just shell out for the ticket.

For two hours entertainment, I still think it's impossible to top.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 1112
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 25/3/2012 5:09:01 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
For two hours entertainment, I still think it's impossible to top.


Indeed. I sometimes think that with the accessibility and affordability of home video we downplay or forget just how satisfying the theatrical experience can be. And I'm not just talking about big blockbusters. Even a slighter picture like yesterdays The Kid With A Bike is an infinitely more powerful experience in the cinema than it is in the home, and my current favourite thing to head out to the cinema for is reissues or random screenings of favourite films and classics, things like La Grande Illusion, which screened at my local last week, or L'atalante, which was put out on general release by the BFI in February. Those are films I've seen countless times on DVD but I still wouldn't turn down the chance to see played properly.

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 1113
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 25/3/2012 5:24:30 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

Absolute bullshit! Why should those of us who have no interest in 3D (certainly in its current state) be punished or affected by the raise of normal ticket prices just to balance out costs. It really seems like Hollywood are forcing the 3D issue down the publics throat. As I have said in a previous post, the method is nowhere near perfect yet. And yet Hollywood and cinema houses are happy to up the costs of overall tickets. This really does stink. Going to the cinema is expensive enough. There would be an irony if all this phony 3D spelled the death knell for cinema. I mean, with the costs of home cinema systems coming down all the time, while at the same time the equipment is improving why bother with the cinema at all? You can have plasma/LCD flatscreen 50inch tv's, Dolby surround sounds, comfort, popcorn and beer, blu ray heaven at home for a good price. And you get no idiots unwrapping sweets, talking, smoking, fighting or whatever to spoil your evening. I think it would be a good test would be to - if only for a month or two - have cinema and Blu Ray joint releases of major movies. My feeling is that most people would stop at home.
Hell, you can even have 3D at home which is just as good or bad as you get at the cinema!


If you own a cinema card its on average a lot cheaper that buying/renting blu-rays every month. I still go to the cinema as often as I can as no home system can replicate a 30ft screen and the audio and visual quality of a pristine digital print. Plus there's also IMAX which is amazing.


< Message edited by Spaldron -- 25/3/2012 6:20:22 PM >


_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Sutty)
Post #: 1114
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 25/3/2012 9:12:29 PM   
Sutty


Posts: 3552
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: the front row
I get that completely. For all my ranting I do still love the cinema. But why should the prices of tickets to see 2D movies inflate to cover the cost of a format - 3D - that some of us have no interest in whatsoever, and the users have far from perfected. It's ridiculous and unfair.

_____________________________

"Lord, make me your instrument of peace. Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is darkness, light."

"When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathin'"

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 1115
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 25/3/2012 10:46:57 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

I get that completely. For all my ranting I do still love the cinema. But why should the prices of tickets to see 2D movies inflate to cover the cost of a format - 3D - that some of us have no interest in whatsoever, and the users have far from perfected. It's ridiculous and unfair.


I agree, I've never been a fan of 3D in general as 90% of 3D films are conversions/rip offs and they should never have bumped up those prices but as a cine-card owner 3D films don't cost anymore than 2D films (providing you have you're own 3D glasses with you).

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Sutty)
Post #: 1116
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 27/3/2012 10:08:28 AM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
For two hours entertainment, I still think it's impossible to top.


Indeed. I sometimes think that with the accessibility and affordability of home video we downplay or forget just how satisfying the theatrical experience can be. And I'm not just talking about big blockbusters. Even a slighter picture like yesterdays The Kid With A Bike is an infinitely more powerful experience in the cinema than it is in the home, and my current favourite thing to head out to the cinema for is reissues or random screenings of favourite films and classics, things like La Grande Illusion, which screened at my local last week, or L'atalante, which was put out on general release by the BFI in February. Those are films I've seen countless times on DVD but I still wouldn't turn down the chance to see played properly.


Some films only really work on the big screen.

I always found 2001 hard going. I saw it on TV when I was a teenager, on DVD when I was in my early 20s and again a few years later: and while I appreciated the artistry that went into making it, it left me cold. A couple of years ago I found out the BFI were showing their 70mm print (one struck under the direct supervision of a certain S Kubrick if accounts are to be believed) at the NFT, and as I was living 20 minutes away from Waterloo Station at the time I decided to go.

On the big screen, for the first time it worked for me. I finally felt I had seen the masterpiece that I'd heard so much about.

I've watched it since on Blu-ray, and even if I sit close enough so the screen takes up a similar portion of my view, and crank the sound up it just loses so much the impact it had in the theatre.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

I agree, I've never been a fan of 3D in general as 90% of 3D films are conversions/rip offs and they should never have bumped up those prices but as a cine-card owner 3D films don't cost anymore than 2D films (providing you have you're own 3D glasses with you).


I don't get why conversions are hated almost as a point of principle.

There have been some shockingly bad ones of course (Clash of the Titans being the obvious one) but others have been pretty good.

I thought Thor worked well, and wouldn't have been able to tell it wasn't native 3D if it wasn't for the anamorphic tells to some shots. Even then I wasn't sure as they could have be added in post. Even the much criticised Star Wars 3D was fine. I much prefer added depth as opposed to things sticking out of the screen so in that respect, for me, it was successful. I actually think it is one of the more naturalistic uses of 3D I have seen. Fairly similar to how Pixar use it.

Even films shot 3D have converted shots. Avatar had around 40 and The latest Tranformers (a film where the 3D was about all that did receive any sort of critical praise) was almost 50% converted footage.

I get that there are those who hate 3D. I understand their view even if I don't share it. There are many good arguments you can use to bolster your case, but as far as I can tell the conversion argument has ceased to be one of them.

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 1117
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 27/3/2012 10:12:02 AM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


I thought Thor worked well, and wouldn't have been able to tell it wasn't native 3D if it wasn't for the anamorphic tells to some shots.



Ahh. See I thought that Thor's 3D was poor: just because of how dark and smudgy the Ice planet became.

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1118
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 27/3/2012 10:19:08 AM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


I thought Thor worked well, and wouldn't have been able to tell it wasn't native 3D if it wasn't for the anamorphic tells to some shots.



Ahh. See I thought that Thor's 3D was poor: just because of how dark and smudgy the Ice planet became.


But was that a limitation of the 3D conversion process or the projection?

Even shot native 3D those scenes, which were already dark would have lost more light due to the way the polarising filters eat it.

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 1119
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 1:17:42 PM   
Sutty


Posts: 3552
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: the front row
The Ice planet scene look fine in 2D though. So it must be the retro fitting of the 3D no? I certainly think more practice is required behind closed doors in relation to the format. Dont think the mass public should be high price paying guinea pigs. Unitl such a time that 3D is perfected, I'm steering well clear.

_____________________________

"Lord, make me your instrument of peace. Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is darkness, light."

"When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathin'"

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1120
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 1:26:58 PM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1662
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
I didn't mind 3D so much at the start as up till Coraline I could see them for nothing on my Unlimited Card since then have only seen 2. I think now with most Cinemas having 3D installed that they could stop charging the extra fee & only charge extra if you require the glasses that way 3D may possibly have a future but as it is I think it won't be too long before we see it crash & burn.

(in reply to Sutty)
Post #: 1121
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 2:28:05 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

The Ice planet scene look fine in 2D though. So it must be the retro fitting of the 3D no? I certainly think more practice is required behind closed doors in relation to the format. Dont think the mass public should be high price paying guinea pigs. Unitl such a time that 3D is perfected, I'm steering well clear.


Not really.

It is more likely to be down to one of the major problems with the 3D projection process. When you project in 3D using the current system you necessarily lose a significant amount of light on the screen due to the nature of the filters which polarise the light and the lenses in the glasses which filter out the light meant for the other eye. Even with active systems there is some light loss. If you run a 3D print with the same light source and at the same brightness as you would a 2D print, you can lose more than 2/3 of the light by the time it gets to your eyes.

This is true whether the film was shot in native 3D or shot 2D and post processed.

Dark scenes will appear darker, sometimes objectionably so. Sometimes the 3D print will be graded brighter to compensate but that will not help much if the cinema you are viewing it in is running the projectors to provide better economy rather than providing a better quality image.

With a 2D print you don't have the filters or the glasses eating up the light, so it will, all else being equal, be brighter and the dimness you saw will not be present or at least greatly mitigated. Saying that this is down to the 2D to 3D process is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc statement. Saying it is down to the 3D process as a whole is entirely logical and reasonable at which point it becomes a question of personal choice and whether the trade-offs are worth while to you.

The brightness issue is one of the arguments against 3D which is reasonable and bears close scrutiny. There are others but as time goes by whether it was shot native 3D or not is becoming more and more moot as long as the post processing is well done. When it reaches the point where no-one can tell any more (and there are those of the opinion that point is already here) it will only be brought up by those who seek to denigrate 3D as a matter of dogma rather than those who seek to enter into constructive debate.


(in reply to Sutty)
Post #: 1122
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 2:36:47 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
I saw Hugo in 3D and it looked terrific, never noticed any real light loss there. On the other hand I've seen a few 2D films projected very darkly so its swings and roundabouts really.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1123
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 2:38:51 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8297
Joined: 31/7/2008
What DPP said. Unless you have one of the newer digital projectors specifically designed for 3D (which the overwhelming majority aren't, they have had 3D added to them), you lose footlamberts by virtue of the process which gives the 3D effect. Some systems have been reported to lose as much as 70% of their light output in 3D, which coupled with the glasses is a lot and a reasonable cause for complaint.

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1124
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 2:44:17 PM   
Darth Marenghi

 

Posts: 3222
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester
Kodak's new laser projection technology is supposed to be twice as bright as the current 3D systems, so that should make a big difference in the next couple of years.

_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.


(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 1125
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 2:50:39 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

I saw Hugo in 3D and it looked terrific, never noticed any real light loss there. On the other hand I've seen a few 2D films projected very darkly so its swings and roundabouts really.


It doesn't matter if you are watching a 2D film or a 3D film; whether it is a film print (subject to adequate quality control at the lab) or a digital print, the quality of the presentation is directly proportionate to the quality of the screen it is shown on.

The same print can look wonderful or awful depending on whether the screen in question is well appointed, well maintained and whether the management is seeking to cut corners on things like lamp life by turning the brightness down to eke a few hours more from an ageing bulb.

I'd rather pay a little more and go to a better screen than to be left underwhelmed by the presentation at a bad one.

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 1126
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 2:50:58 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8297
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

Kodak's new laser projection technology is supposed to be twice as bright as the current 3D systems, so that should make a big difference in the next couple of years.


I don't know, the cost will be prohibitive so I can't imagine it changing for quite some time. The only reason 3D is as common as it is is because of distributors subsidising the cost of digital and 3D installations at a lot of cinemas (which is also one of the reasons for the ticket premium). I can't see them rushing out and replacing all that tech anytime soon just because some people notice the image is dark.

(in reply to Darth Marenghi)
Post #: 1127
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 3:03:32 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


I don't know, the cost will be prohibitive so I can't imagine it changing for quite some time. The only reason 3D is as common as it is is because of distributors subsidising the cost of digital and 3D installations at a lot of cinemas (which is also one of the reasons for the ticket premium). I can't see them rushing out and replacing all that tech anytime soon just because some people notice the image is dark.


It is astonishing how fast what was once state of the art becomes yesterdays news in the brave new digital world.

Compare it to the old analogue world where what is commonly deemed the best theatrical film projector ever made will be celebrating its 60th birthday in a couple of years, with many units still going strong and which, properly maintained, could continue to do so for at least as long again.

Laser projection looks extremely promising if reports are to be believed but outside of flagship venues I doubt we'll see them in any great number for a long while yet.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 1128
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 4:02:55 PM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

Kodak's new laser projection technology is supposed to be twice as bright as the current 3D systems, so that should make a big difference in the next couple of years.


See: this makes no sense to me. Dark scenes at nighttime with shadows or black exteriors can't really get brighter. Black is black so it will always look duller...no?


No racist.

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to Darth Marenghi)
Post #: 1129
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 4:29:47 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

Kodak's new laser projection technology is supposed to be twice as bright as the current 3D systems, so that should make a big difference in the next couple of years.


See: this makes no sense to me. Dark scenes at nighttime with shadows or black exteriors can't really get brighter. Black is black so it will always look duller...no?


No racist.


There's a difference between dark scenes that are usually lit well enough so you can still make out what's going on and having the film projected at such a low contrast that you cant see shit. Or something like dat.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 1130
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 28/3/2012 5:33:38 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

Kodak's new laser projection technology is supposed to be twice as bright as the current 3D systems, so that should make a big difference in the next couple of years.


See: this makes no sense to me. Dark scenes at nighttime with shadows or black exteriors can't really get brighter. Black is black so it will always look duller...no?


No racist.


If the film-maker intends the scene to be very dark so that very little can be seen that is one thing. However if things the film-maker intends to be seen are obscured by bad projection, poor mastering, or any other issues, that is another. It is very easy for scenes which are designed to be dark but not completely black to become all but incomprehensible simply because there isn't enough light to illuminate the darkest parts of the picture or the print being shown was made a few points too dark.

Conversely there may be times when things which were never meant to be seen are in view due to the image being too bright. On at least one release of Citizen Kane on DVD a young Joseph Cotten is visible in a scene where his character should have been well into old age. Whoever made the master had that scene too bright so what should have been a faceless, shadowy figure was clearly, and anachronistically recognisable.

It is all about what photographers might call exposure latitude, and engineers might call dynamic range. Both basically refer to the difference between the minimum and maximum value of information possible to be captured on a particular medium and how many graduations there are between them, and whatever you call it, it amounts to much the same thing. Photographers measure latitude in stops.

A stop is simply a way of measuring dynamic range where each stop doubles the amount of potential information capable of being stored. A one stop black and white system would have 2 tones: totally black or totally white. A two stop system would have black and white but 2 shades of grey between them: or 4 tones. 3 stops would have 8 tones; 4 stops 16; 5 stops 32 and so on. the more stops you have the more precise the information you can capture. A colour system simply has different different elements sensitive to different parts or the light spectrum, each of which will ideally be equally sensitive. So a 5 stop colour system would have 32 tones for each of the primary colours.

Those who have read my witterings in the past will know consumer video is 8bits per channel: that is each of the three primary colours is stored to a precision of 8 bits.

8 bit in video terms is more or less equivalent to 8 photographic stops (the difference is in how the information is spread out across the tonal range rather than how many discrete tones there are). In fact bit and stop can be pretty well used interchangeably in imaging terms. 8 stops/bits allows for 256 tones between minimum and maximum. If your camera has a 14 bit sensor, it has a 14 stop theoretical exposure latitude (that is 16,384 tones per channel). I say theoretical as what is possible under lab conditions and what is possible in the real world are very different.

A high quality film negative can theoretically have up to 20 stops of information. That is a mind boggling 1,048,576 tones between minimum and maximum which incidentally is far more than the best human eye could ever discern and far more than a release print or digital print.

What has this to do with your question?

Well the footage as captured will have more dynamic range than will ever be used. The Joseph Cotten example is an example of where more was captured at the brighter end of the scale, and a properly prepared print or master would be timed or graded to be much darker than the negative. That means some information will be lost, but that is unavoidable, and in fact beneficial: if you were to project a print with the same levels as a negative it would look very washed out.

However if you print it too dark you lose detail in the darker end of the spectrum, leading to impenetrable shadows where detail is supposed to be seen. The Star Wars DVDs from 2004 were widely criticised for being too dark (which may or may not be the case) as was the Blu-ray of Coppola's Dracula.

It is akin to setting up your TV. The two most important controls are contrast and brightness which control the point at which your TV sets white and black clipping points. If your set is poorly set up you can lose information in the shadows and/or in the whites, or reveal elements which were never intended to be seen.

Similarly an under illuminated cinema screen will lose details which are meant to be present in the shadows, as well as limiting the peak brightness of the screen- it dramatically reduces the dynamic range of the image. This leads to a poor viewing experience as the most important things in picture quality are: dynamic range, black level and peak white level. Resolution comes a distant fifth after colour saturation.

So to answer your question, yes black is black, but what is important is the information just above the black level. If you lose too much of that the image will look dark and murky, much like your experience of the 3D version of Thor.

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 1131
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 31/3/2012 12:14:45 PM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7022
Joined: 18/11/2006
official- the good dr chose 'streetdance' over 'wrath' this week.
how many other 3 d movies has he skipped?

< Message edited by spark1 -- 31/3/2012 12:15:35 PM >

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 1132
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 31/3/2012 3:25:19 PM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1662
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if there were more IMAX screens & at a reduced ticket price.

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1133
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 31/3/2012 3:37:56 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

official- the good dr chose 'streetdance' over 'wrath' this week.
how many other 3 d movies has he skipped?


Street Dance 2 is in 3D tho.

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1134
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 1/4/2012 11:58:17 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7022
Joined: 18/11/2006
another bit on imax and 3d in the US-

http://www.movieline.com/2012/03/30/the-imax-old-wave-how-audiences-and-filmmakers-are-embracing-the-2-d-mega-screen/

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1135
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 1/4/2012 12:19:31 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

official- the good dr chose 'streetdance' over 'wrath' this week.
how many other 3 d movies has he skipped?


Street Dance 2 is in 3D tho.


Yeah, but he watched Street Dance 2 in 3D but not Wrath of the Titans. That's probably a scheduling thing though

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 1136
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 1/4/2012 4:03:26 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

official- the good dr chose 'streetdance' over 'wrath' this week.
how many other 3 d movies has he skipped?


Street Dance 2 is in 3D tho.


Yeah, but he watched Street Dance 2 in 3D but not Wrath of the Titans. That's probably a scheduling thing though


Was that a press screening? I wouldn't put it past Warner deliberately not showing the film to press in 3D given how poorly that aspect of the first film was received. Even with that in mind, and if it was a regular screening he went to, it's a bit of a minefield for 3D films out there at the moment (Pirates! Street Dance, and Wrath were all released this week in 3D), I wouldn't be surprised if he struggled to find a 3D screening of Wrath.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 1137
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 1/4/2012 9:48:17 PM   
Sutty


Posts: 3552
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: the front row
I can only imagine it was a press screening to be honest. Doubt The Doctor would part with his hard earned to watch Street Dance. Wrath got a bit of a slating. I have Clash... on blu ray from xmas before last and have yet to watch it. 3D or otherwise.



_____________________________

"Lord, make me your instrument of peace. Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is darkness, light."

"When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathin'"

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 1138
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 1/4/2012 10:50:54 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

Was that a press screening? I wouldn't put it past Warner deliberately not showing the film to press in 3D given how poorly that aspect of the first film was received. Even with that in mind, and if it was a regular screening he went to, it's a bit of a minefield for 3D films out there at the moment (Pirates! Street Dance, and Wrath were all released this week in 3D), I wouldn't be surprised if he struggled to find a 3D screening of Wrath.



That's probably it, yeah. I wouldn't put it past Warners to do that either.

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 1139
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott - 2/4/2012 1:41:36 AM   
Ghidorah

 

Posts: 2930
Joined: 6/10/2005
I saw Wrath of The Titans in 3d and only a handful of scenes were truly in 3d. Most of the 3d were bland or looked horrible. There nothing much to say, except I wanted to take the glasses off only to be greeted by a worst picture.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 1140
Page:   <<   < prev  36 37 [38] 39 40   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott Page: <<   < prev  36 37 [38] 39 40   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.095