RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld...

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld...

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld...

Page: << < prev 39 40 41 [42] 43 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 11:31:37 AM

sanchia

Posts: 16905
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

As you stated though early colour did not reflect the real world either being often too vivid so it could be a comparison. If they could obtain a 3D effect which did not appear so layered and more realistic then it would be less of a distraction. At the moment 3D works for little things (see Avatar and floating seeds) but the big things don't really work (crowd scenes etc).

I found the thing about Thor was that the 3D was very subtle and in fact there was very little actual 3D used and only for small things.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.

(in reply to Dpp1978)

Post #: 1231

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 12:41:39 PM

Dpp1978

Posts: 1040
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

As you stated though early colour did not reflect the real world either being often too vivid so it could be a comparison. If they could obtain a 3D effect which did not appear so layered and more realistic then it would be less of a distraction. At the moment 3D works for little things (see Avatar and floating seeds) but the big things don't really work (crowd scenes etc).

The statement I made was not about how real the colour reproduction was. It was about how at the time black and white was perceived as more realistic than colour in film despite the fact the vast majority of us see in colour. This was a prejudice which took a long time to disappear. There were separate cinematography categories at the Oscars for colour and black and white into the '60s.

Colour in cinema is very rarely "real". Even today with all the tools to allow film-makers to selectively manipulate colour to a point where it could be entirely true to life, they don't. Many films have a highly stylised colour palette, designed to create mood or dramatic effect rather than reproducing reality.

Early colour was often as much about showing off the technology as it was telling the story. Dorothy's ruby slippers were silver in the book, but bright red was far more striking on the screen: especially contrasted with the bright yellow of the road. Much like the more aggressive uses of 3D today.

Similarly the stereo effect obtained by 3D cinematography isn't a true reflection of how we see the world. Stereopsis, the neurological process which 3D cinema tricks to give the illusion of depth, only really works effectively at relatively close range (I forget the specifics), so anything longer than a medium shot would for all intents and purposes be pretty flat unless there was something placed in the foreground to give a sense of perspective.

3D film-makers will push the effect to its limits (occasionally breaking them, which is where eye-strain and nausea will most readily occur) for effect rather than try to attain realism. This was particularly prevalent in the early days as film-makers were trying to get to grips with the new tools at their disposal. There is a different discipline required for good 3D shooting regardless whether it is native capture or post process.

quote:

I found the thing about Thor was that the 3D was very subtle and in fact there was very little actual 3D used and only for small things.

I actually really liked the 3D in Thor precisely because it was subtle. Similarly I felt the 3D version of Star Wars was notable for its restraint as much as for its use. Again I enjoyed the experience. I found it actually one of the more natural looking uses of 3D I have yet seen: very similar to how Pixar uses it. I much prefer the added depth over the poking you in the eye approach.

That isn't to say there is no place for the eye stabbing, object flying, shouty type of 3D. It just gets quite boring quite quickly so is best used in moderation.

(in reply to sanchia)

Post #: 1232

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 12:59:53 PM

elab49

Posts: 52031
Joined: 1/10/2005

There are several reasons that I don't see the stereoscopy argument as analogous to colour but there is one quite basic one. Colour blindness didn't mean you couldn't see the film - and as that is normally blind to particular colours (I think? one of, or mixing, one of the primary colours so the norm is being blind to a specific colour?) , not seeing the world in B&W, you'd still understand the impact of eg the transitions in Oz. 3D gives me a dreadful headache. I find it quite difficult to watch apart from that and there are many that simply can't watch it at all. As a result I don't think any film has had a release without a 2d print available even if, as has happened, it's not been used in the UK (although I think they've moved from that as they realised they were losing business - Dredd is the first film in ages where I didn't have as much choice for 2D as 3D but, even then, there were 2D screenings). I think that's a material difference to the colour example?

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Dpp1978)

Post #: 1233

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 1:27:40 PM

Dpp1978

Posts: 1040
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

There are several reasons that I don't see the stereoscopy argument as analogous to colour but there is one quite basic one. Colour blindness didn't mean you couldn't see the film - and as that is normally blind to particular colours (I think? one of, or mixing, one of the primary colours so the norm is being blind to a specific colour?) , not seeing the world in B&W, you'd still understand the impact of eg the transitions in Oz. 3D gives me a dreadful headache. I find it quite difficult to watch apart from that and there are many that simply can't watch it at all. As a result I don't think any film has had a release without a 2d print available even if, as has happened, it's not been used in the UK (although I think they've moved from that as they realised they were losing business - Dredd is the first film in ages where I didn't have as much choice for 2D as 3D but, even then, there were 2D screenings).� I think that's a material difference to the colour example?

There are a number of different kinds of colour blindness. The most extreme is where a person cannot discern colour at all (monochromacy) so everything is in black and white. For them the move to colour would be all but meaningless. The type you are describing is either dichromacy or trichromacy. The former is where the eyes lack the receptors to see certain parts of the spectrum; the latter is where the receptors sensitive to one part of the spectrum can't distinguish it from another: usually confusing red and green. My Uncle has trichromacy and has great trouble watching certain teams play football (those in red shirts are especially troublesome) and has no chance with snooker.

He actually had to turn the colour off on his TV to watch Lord of the Rings as all the green meant he had a really hard time seeing what was going on. If he'd watched it at the cinema he'd have had to have left.

Like you, my brother has trouble with 3D. He cannot see it and this causes him eye-strain. I made him a pair of 2D glasses for when he can't avoid a 3D showing which entirely mitigate the issue. It is an imperfect solution but it works well enough.

So I'd argue for some people (albeit with quite shaky authority) colour is just as much a problem as 3D is for you or my brother. And for them there is no simple solution like my brother's glasses. There certainly isn't the option to go to a black and white screening.

< Message edited by Dpp1978 -- 23/9/2012 1:30:20 PM >

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 1234

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 1:53:44 PM

elab49

Posts: 52031
Joined: 1/10/2005

Aside, if I may - you mention the 2d for 3d showings. A bit upthread someone said that it's been said you can do that by swapping the lenses around on the 3D set. Leaving aside my preference not to encourage cinemas by paying them for 3D showings to make a pitifully poor point, can I ask if it's easy to retrofit the glasses that way?

On-topic - I wasn't aware there were such extremes of colour-blindness.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Dpp1978)

Post #: 1235

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 4:23:35 PM

Dpp1978

Posts: 1040
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Aside, if I may - you mention the 2d for 3d showings. A bit upthread someone said that it's been said you can do that by swapping the lenses around on the 3D set. Leaving aside my preference not to encourage cinemas by paying them for 3D showings to make a pitifully poor point, can I ask if it's easy to retrofit the glasses that way?�

I made my brother's set from two pairs of RealD glasses. I disassembled them by taking the arms off, separating the the two halves of the frames and removing the lenses.

I then took 2 sets of left eye lenses and put them in the frames. I can't remember if I had to trim them to fit, but I might have done. You have to be careful that you don't inadvertently flip or rotate the lenses as it will mess with the polarity and they won't work. I found the 2nd left lens fits quite well in the right hand side of the frames.

It was then a simple case of putting the frames back together with a bit of superglue and re-attaching the arms. I sanded off the 3D logo so it was easy to pick them out from the other pairs.

It took less than half an hour, and if I were less heavy handed I would have been able to make 2 pairs. The hardest part was disassembling the frames without breaking them.

quote:

On-topic - I wasn't aware there were such extremes of colour-blindness.

I wasn't either, and probably would still be unaware if it wasn't for my uncle. He once gave me a birthday card with, "Dad" in big red letters across the top as he couldn't see them. Another time he turned up in a violently pink jumper which he thought was brown. We laughed about it of course but it does go to illustrate how it can affect someone.

Apparently since 3D films have become more prevalent a large number of previously undiagnosed visual impairments have come to light. My brother, it turns out, has virtually no stereoscopic vision due to one of his eyes being massively dominant. It might in part explains why he was such a clumsy child.

It's fascinating stuff.

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 1236

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 4:33:16 PM

elab49

Posts: 52031
Joined: 1/10/2005

I think I could probably manage that with the glasses - it won't kill me if I get a couple wrong! Thank you

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Dpp1978)

Post #: 1237

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 4:43:42 PM

DancingClown

Posts: 3693
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

I just don't like 3D. It feels unnecessary, and that's got nothing to do with it being "too realistic" or "not realistic enough". I find a beautifully rendered high-definition 2d image far more impressive because it engages my imagination more and feels more cinematic.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 1238

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 4:48:08 PM

Dpp1978

Posts: 1040
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I think I could probably manage that with the glasses - it won't kill me if I get a couple wrong! Thank you�

You are welcome.

I hope they work for you. My brother still objects to paying extra for a slightly dimmer picture, but at least he doesn't come out of the film with a headache.

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 1239

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 7:01:34 PM

DaveTheStampede

Posts: 242
Joined: 6/3/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

Some people are colour blind. Did those people see a significantly poorer version of 'The Wizard of Oz'? Once you get past the visuals is there anything it has to offer that couldn't have been gained from sticking to an all black and white version?

etc...

Hmm... Interesting.

I have to say, though, I've never been a fan of 'The Wizard of Oz', so you'll have to tell me whether it had anything to offer aside from that one moment of 'look! pretty colours!'

'Avatar', on the other hand, had nothing going for it except for the visuals.

However, my main question still remains (and I know this may come across as... a little snarky, but that is not my intention): what does 3D add? Or perhaps more to the point, what does 3D add that colour does not?

_____________________________

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.
If that is granted, all else follows

(in reply to Dpp1978)

Post #: 1240

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 23/9/2012 7:08:34 PM

sanchia

Posts: 16905
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

Also 3D is not a truly representative stereoscopic 3D being layered rather than truly having the subtle depth of a true 3D which I do not feel is a positive.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.

(in reply to DaveTheStampede)

Post #: 1241

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 24/9/2012 2:25:59 AM

Gimli The Dwarf

Posts: 73572
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

On-topic - I wasn't aware there were such extremes of colour-blindness.

I wasn't aware either and I am colour-blind. I've been told its because I am that 3D usually gives me a headache.

_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 1242

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 24/9/2012 7:23:21 AM

DancingClown

Posts: 3693
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveTheStampede

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

Some people are colour blind. Did those people see a significantly poorer version of 'The Wizard of Oz'? Once you get past the visuals is there anything it has to offer that couldn't have been gained from sticking to an all black and white version?

etc...

However, my main question still remains (and I know this may come across as... a little snarky, but that is not my intention): what does 3D add? Or perhaps more to the point, what does 3D add that colour does not?

Excellent question. Some people argue that only 3D offers a properly "immersive" experience. But I tend to think that if a film-maker or cinematographer are doing their job then surely you don't need 3D for that. And it's ironic that a so-called "immersive" experience actualy ends up taking many people "out" of the movie.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to DaveTheStampede)

Post #: 1243

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 24/9/2012 10:10:24 AM

porntrooper

Posts: 2516
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Aside, if I may - you mention the 2d for 3d showings. A bit upthread someone said that it's been said you can do that by swapping the lenses around on the 3D set. Leaving aside my preference not to encourage cinemas by paying them for 3D showings to make a pitifully poor point, can I ask if it's easy to retrofit the glasses that way?�

I made my brother's set from two pairs of RealD glasses. I disassembled them by taking the arms off, separating the the two halves of the frames and removing the lenses.

I then took 2 sets of left eye lenses and put them in the frames. I can't remember if I had to trim them to fit, but I might have done. You have to be careful that you don't inadvertently flip or rotate the lenses as it will mess with the polarity and they won't work. I found the 2nd left lens fits quite well in the right hand side of the frames.

It was then a simple case of putting the frames back together with a bit of superglue and re-attaching the arms. I sanded off the 3D logo so it was easy to pick them out from the other pairs.

It took less than half an hour, and if I were less heavy handed I would have been able to make 2 pairs. The hardest part was disassembling the frames without breaking them.

quote:

On-topic - I wasn't aware there were such extremes of colour-blindness.

I wasn't either, and probably would still be unaware if it wasn't for my uncle. He once gave me a birthday card with, "Dad" in big red letters across the top as he couldn't see them. Another time he turned up in a violently pink jumper which he thought was brown. We laughed about it of course but it does go to illustrate how it can affect someone.

Apparently since 3D films have become more prevalent a large number of previously undiagnosed visual impairments have come to light. My brother, it turns out, has virtually no stereoscopic vision due to one of his eyes being massively dominant. It might in part explains why he was such a clumsy child.

It's fascinating stuff.

Round at the missus's sisters at the weekend watching the footie in 3D and it turns out her fella has done something similar with a couple of pais of his glasses, basically putting two left lenses in one pair and two right lenses in another. He then changed a setting on the TV, I think it was a vertical split setting, and we played some PS3 games in split screen whislt wearing the glasses. This meant that we were each seeing just our side of the screen in full screen image. So, on COD I would only see my side of the split screen and couldnt see his, likewise he could only see his side of the game and not mine. It was great, but again another nifty little side effect of 3D technology... improved split screen gaming. Not sure wat the settings were or exactly how it works, but it did. Am sure DPP could probably explain why, and I'm guessing its a similar theory to having the same lense in the glasses to remove the 3D effect.

Bit gutted too that over the weekend me and the missus missed a deadline on a 20% voucher we had that would've got us a 47" LG SMART 3D TV for just �540.00 from Richer Sounds. Gutted.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Dpp1978)

Post #: 1244

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 24/9/2012 10:53:55 AM

DaveTheStampede

Posts: 242
Joined: 6/3/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
...
This meant that we were each seeing just our side of the screen in full screen image. So, on COD I would only see my side of the split screen and couldnt see his, likewise he could only see his side of the game and not mine. It was great, but again another nifty little side effect of 3D technology... improved split screen gaming. Not sure what the settings were or exactly how it works, but it did.

See now, THAT is a pretty cool application (or at the very least modification) of the technology, and a genuine plus point.

_____________________________

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.
If that is granted, all else follows

(in reply to porntrooper)

Post #: 1245

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 24/9/2012 4:37:06 PM

Dpp1978

Posts: 1040
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveTheStampede

However, my main question still remains (and I know this may come across as... a little snarky, but that is not my intention): what does 3D add? Or perhaps more to the point, what does 3D add that colour does not?

Excellent question. Some people argue that only 3D offers a properly "immersive" experience. But I tend to think that if a film-maker or cinematographer are doing their job then surely you don't need 3D for that. And it's ironic that a so-called "immersive" experience actualy ends up taking many people "out" of the movie.

Trying to find a definitive answer to a question like that is ultimately pointless. It all comes down to individual taste.

Someone like James Cameron who is completely invested in 3D moviemaking will have a different view to Christopher Nolan who is a sceptic.

Similarly those of use who enjoy 3D will in all likelihood have a fruitless struggle on our hands if we decide that we want to convert those who vehemently don't.

Personally I think 3D is a bit of fun, and I find it entertaining. That is generally all I ask of cinema. If along the way something strikes me as profound, great, but for me film is something to be enjoyed not analysed to death: something I find tedious. Others take it more seriously. That is their prerogative and I wish them well. This board has about as broad a range of tastes as you are likely to find, which is why I like it. Some like 3D, some hate it, some fall somewhere between the two extremes; it's little different to how some will like a certain genre or a certain director's work and others will hate them with a passion. It is where the debate that fuels this place comes from.

The point is everyone gets something different from film, and 3D is no different. So the question, "What does 3D add?" is too general to ever be adequately answered. Ask 100 people you are likely to get many different answers. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask the question, "What does 3D add for you?"

If the answer is nothing that's fine. Don't watch it (I realise that is not always easy but I think that was can all find common ground that ideally both 2D and 3D screenings should be readily accessible). You don't have to justify why you don't like it. If you want to that is fine, but it doesn't make your dislike of 3D any more valid, or my liking 3D invalid, just because you can write a long well constructed post on all the reasons 3D sucks. By this point we all know what the negatives are. Some of us like it despite them.

And even the most robust defence of an opinion can be entirely defeated, at least on a personal level, by two little words: "I disagree".

(in reply to DancingClown)

Post #: 1246

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 24/9/2012 7:41:14 PM

DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Posts: 7728
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

DPP I'd be interested to hear what your favourite 3D blu rays are, in terms of the 3D first, rather than the movie itself. Have you seen A Turtles Tale: Sammys Adventures? The 3D is seriously stunning and probably the most extreme use i've seen on blu ray yet. Even if the movie is not your cup of tea, i highly recommend checking it out just to see how far they push the effect,

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Dpp1978)

Post #: 1247

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 25/9/2012 9:08:16 PM

DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Posts: 7728
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

Guillermo Del Toro admits he changed his mind regarding the 3D conversion of Pacific Rim:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/58594

Funny reading back on the last page about this now

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)

Post #: 1248

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 26/9/2012 2:04:15 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26923
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

If the answer is nothing that's fine. Don't watch it (I realise that is not always easy but I think that was can all find common ground that ideally both 2D and 3D screenings should be readily accessible). You don't have to justify why you don't like it. If you want to that is fine, but it doesn't make your dislike of 3D any more valid, or my liking 3D invalid, just because you can write a long well constructed post on all the reasons 3D sucks. By this point we all know what the negatives are. Some of us like it despite them.

Actually this is one of the major reasons I hate 3D, With Dredd, I had no option to see it on 2D The only way I could see Dredd was to pay 9 Euros and watch it on 3D since there was nowhere on this island where it showed at 2D in a glorious 5.50 Euros tag. So I saw the 3D version, which looked quite fuzzy and blurry and far worse than it did on the trailer. It's a shocking moment that you realized that you could have done some very illegal downloading and seen the film for free in better quality. If this is the slight fun that the cinema should be bringing me then it has failed miserably.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Dpp1978)

Post #: 1249

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 26/9/2012 3:57:53 PM

spark1

Posts: 5860
Joined: 18/11/2006

just seen 'dredd'.

the 3d was not up to much save for a few slo mo moments.

(in reply to sanchia)

Post #: 1250

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 26/9/2012 4:58:00 PM

shatnerhamster

Posts: 178
Joined: 19/3/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Actually this is one of the major reasons I hate 3D, With Dredd, I had no option to see it on 2D The only way I could see Dredd was to pay 9 Euros and watch it on 3D since there was nowhere on this island where it showed at 2D in a glorious 5.50 Euros tag. So I saw the 3D version, which looked quite fuzzy and blurry and far worse than it did on the trailer. It's a shocking moment that you realized that you could have done some very illegal downloading and seen the film for free in better quality. If this is the slight fun that the cinema should be bringing me then it has failed miserably.

I wanted to see Dredd, but there were no 2D screenings at all in my area, so I'll wait for the dvd/blu-ray. I refuse to pay extra money to watch a film at a cinema in a visually inferior format. In fact, even if there was no price difference I'd still go with 2D or nothing. 3D was mildly diverting for the space of two or three films, then it got boring, and now it's just irritating.

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 1251

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 27/9/2012 11:13:17 AM

Wild about Wilder

Posts: 1508
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire

Just saw that in a few months Cineworld are sending out new "BLACK!" cards to anyone that's been an Unlimited member for over 12 months which also allows people free access to 3D movies (though no Free 3D glasses)
Makes me think 2 things (1) There's gonna be a price hike soon & (2) 3D's not doing so well anymore?

(in reply to shatnerhamster)

Post #: 1252

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 28/9/2012 10:22:47 AM

spark1

Posts: 5860
Joined: 18/11/2006

interesting interview with joe dante on filming in 3 d-

http://www.mania.com/mania-interview-joe-dante_article_134254.html

(in reply to sanchia)

Post #: 1253

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 28/9/2012 12:35:16 PM

sharkboy

Posts: 6053
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: Belfast

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

And even the most robust defence of an opinion can be entirely defeated, at least on a personal level, by two little words: "I disagree".

If ever there was a need for a forum motto...

quote:

Some people argue that only 3D offers a properly "immersive" experience. But I tend to think that if a film-maker or cinematographer are doing their job then surely you don't need 3D for that.

True, but then if you get a director who is willing to use 3D for more than the gimmicky "jump out of the screen" moments, then it can be a very powerful tool indeed. By far the best use of 3D that I have come across so far was by Marty Scorsese in Hugo, where it was mainly used to give an incredible depth of field to the shots, or to emphasise perspective in certain shots. Yes, it had the occasional gimmick too, but in general it was simply another brush in the artist's paintbox that allowed him to achieve something that even the best cinematographer couldn't do to the same extent with two dimensions.

_____________________________

WWLD?

Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless

I left in love, in laughter, and in truth and wherever truth, love and laughter abide, I am there in spirit.

(in reply to Dpp1978)

Post #: 1254

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 28/9/2012 1:50:01 PM

Cool Breeze

Posts: 1722
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

Mark Kermode on the status of 3D and it being forced on Guillermo Del Toros Pacific Rim...http://youtu.be/Rod-3IeVYfw

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to sharkboy)

Post #: 1255

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 28/9/2012 1:54:46 PM

DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Posts: 7728
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

Mark Kermode on the status of 3D and it being forced on Guillermo Del Toros Pacific Rim...http://youtu.be/Rod-3IeVYfw

Cool Breeze Guillermo Del Toro admits to changing his mind about Pacific Rim being in 3D:

"What happened was, in the weeks and months following Comic-Con, what I asked from the studio was to agree to four points that I wanted to do," he says. "The more the ILM shots arrived, the more I realized that there were only a few shots that would miniaturize. I asked the studio, number one, that we would not hyper-stereo-lize the thing. That we would not force 3D on the beauty shots. That we would keep the giant dimensions. They agreed. Number two, they agreed to something very unusual. Normally a conversion takes a few weeks. I asked to start it immediately so we could take the full 40 weeks to do the conversion. As an example, TITANIC took about 50 weeks to convert. The final thing that I asked that they agreed to, which was amazing, was that I asked them to give me an extra budget, which is considerable, to actually have ILM composite the shots that are CG native 3D. We're not giving elements. ILM is giving the composite in 3D from the get-go. That's a huge, huge element. Now I'm going to be involved in supervising it. What can I tell you? I changed my mind. I'm not running for office. I can do a Romney."

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/58594

If it means that he gets some extra money for certain shots in the movie, then that's a good thing. Give n take etc. I hope of course that audiences get a decent choice as to whether they watch it in 3D though.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Cool Breeze)

Post #: 1256

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 28/9/2012 1:59:29 PM

Cool Breeze

Posts: 1722
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

Mark Kermode on the status of 3D and it being forced on Guillermo Del Toros Pacific Rim...http://youtu.be/Rod-3IeVYfw

Cool Breeze Guillermo Del Toro admits to changing his mind about Pacific Rim being in 3D:

"What happened was, in the weeks and months following Comic-Con, what I asked from the studio was to agree to four points that I wanted to do," he says. "The more the ILM shots arrived, the more I realized that there were only a few shots that would miniaturize. I asked the studio, number one, that we would not hyper-stereo-lize the thing. That we would not force 3D on the beauty shots. That we would keep the giant dimensions. They agreed. Number two, they agreed to something very unusual. Normally a conversion takes a few weeks. I asked to start it immediately so we could take the full 40 weeks to do the conversion. As an example, TITANIC took about 50 weeks to convert. The final thing that I asked that they agreed to, which was amazing, was that I asked them to give me an extra budget, which is considerable, to actually have ILM composite the shots that are CG native 3D. We're not giving elements. ILM is giving the composite in 3D from the get-go. That's a huge, huge element. Now I'm going to be involved in supervising it. What can I tell you? I changed my mind. I'm not running for office. I can do a Romney."

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/58594

If it means that he gets some extra money for certain shots in the movie, then that's a good thing. Give n take etc. I hope of course that audiences get a decent choice as to whether they watch it in 3D though.

In other words DK , he has likely been ''encouraged '' by the studios to say that 3D is wonderful in order to avoid bad publicity and play ball with the studio execs.

He obviously doesnt have the clout that Chris Nolan has to tell them to fuck off with their 3D.If he wanted it in 3D he would have shot in 3D.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)

Post #: 1257

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 2/10/2012 10:52:28 AM

elab49

Posts: 52031
Joined: 1/10/2005

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/news/a409458/sony-consumers-not-interested-in-3d.html

Pity he doesn't work for Sony. They've apparently fessed up that none of their customers give a toss about 3D.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Cool Breeze)

Post #: 1258

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 4/10/2012 10:01:35 PM

Cool Breeze

Posts: 1722
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

Kermode on fan feedback of his 3D rants,the lack of 2D Dredd screenings,and IMAX being the true future of cinema...

http://youtu.be/AhIdvwXXCn4

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 1259

RE: An Interesting Rumour About Cineworld... - 22/11/2012 10:27:15 AM

spark1

Posts: 5860
Joined: 18/11/2006

3 d done right? ew lists the best 3d movies to date-

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20483133_20649765,00.html

surprised 'hugo' is not listed.

< Message edited by spark1 -- 26/11/2012 10:11:36 AM >

(in reply to sanchia)

Post #: 1260