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 & General 3-D Discussion

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 8:53:38 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

I've just been checking out times at my local Vue for The Hobbit and there are more 2D showings than 3D. Interesting that.


I think Cineworld Sheffield is the same.


It's not. 7 shows in 2D today (which isn't a disgrace taken by itself), but 15 in 3D including IMAX. Or, in other words, more than double.



Then I stand corrected. I checked last week and it seemed an even mix, maybe theyve updated the schedules. Either way, a choice is available and the majority goes to the intended presentation method. Whats the problem?


_____________________________

"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 superdan)
Post #: 1441
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 9:01:08 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18328
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

It appears that sales of 3D televisions and Blu Rays are dropping quite rapidly as well although from the look of it the sale figures were not particularly brilliant to begin with. It appears to be very much a specialist market. There are some predictions of growth in the market (Futuresource consulting appears to be the only ones predicting growth) but these appear to be swimming well against the tide


And?

If the majority of Joe Public dont wanna watch 3D, thats fine, but if James Cameron decides to make a 3D movie, I wanna see it as intended. I suspect there are markets for other types of cinema that are small - subtitled movies maybe? But if its there and i wanna see it, i wanna see it as intended. If 3D stops next year, never to return, I wont bat an eyelid, i'll keep watching what the industry puts in front of me, cos i love cinema. And yea , i'll return every now and then to watch Life of Pi in 3D. Why? Cos it is stunning. Regardless of other peoples opinion of the technology, to me, it works and as long as the industry wants it, and film makers use it. I'll be there as a paying consumer. You have a choice to do so, or not.

The issue is, does the industry support the choice of watching in either format and there is only so much they can do to appease both audiences - there arent unlimited screenings and there arent unlimited showings per day, so they have to make a decision what to show. And like i say, if the intended format is 3D, i want them to show it in 3D. If its 2D, thats what i want. If it's IMAX, thats what i want. If it's Black and White, thats what i want.


And in response to your question it shows that 3D is not in fact a growth market but in fact home 3D is in fact a shrinking market. The issue is that is it correct that the distributors are enforcing 3D showings over 2D showings and thus reducing choice when it appears that the public are not enjoying or accepting the medium. I want 2D IMAX showings I have not seen one of those advertised in months only 3D IMAX and from my experience (such as the empty Iron man 3 3D IMAX in comparison to packed 2D IMAX showings I have attended) others also want this. The thing is that for every film such as Life of Pi where it is an artistic choice (and there are maybe two or three such films in a year if that) there are dozens where it is not and where enforced 3D in fact detracts from the artistic view of the director.

It also appears that the Hobbit at my local cinema has more 2D than 3D showings both spread throughout the day which maybe shows that they have taken notice at last and given a decent choice at last just a shame I have no interest in watching that particular film.


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1442
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 9:01:52 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8305
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

I've just been checking out times at my local Vue for The Hobbit and there are more 2D showings than 3D. Interesting that.


I think Cineworld Sheffield is the same.


It's not. 7 shows in 2D today (which isn't a disgrace taken by itself), but 15 in 3D including IMAX. Or, in other words, more than double.



Then I stand corrected. I checked last week and it seemed an even mix, maybe theyve updated the schedules. Either way, a choice is available and the majority goes to the intended presentation method. Whats the problem?



Right now, on opening week? Aside from it likely to be more difficult to get a ticket for a 2D show than a 3D one, probably not a great deal. In two or three weeks time, when there'll only be a few 2D presentations a day? Rather more awkward to see the film without it being 3D I suspect.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1443
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 9:10:53 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5110
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
Do you really think Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon and David Yates had grand artistic visions to make films in which the screen is a bit darker and something jumps out of it once in a while?


No, I dont think they did, but they only made those movies because a studio put their money in to make it. When Joss Whedon wants to tell Marvel to shove 3D up their arse and leave it behind, he can. But no, he is continuing in that system and is back for Avengers 2..... In 3D. So maybe he is embracing it?

At the end of the day 3D movies are being made, and they're being made with the intent of talented film makers, and as long as that is the case, i will always support the film makers vision and watch it as intended. If you dont want to, fine. Dont watch it. But youre making the other side of the KOK argument (3D sucks!) in as much the same way as he made his, it's like you want it your way or no way with no middle ground. Accept that film makers are using the format and want to present their films in 3D, in the same way I accept that some dont. As a film lover I take what is given to me in the hope its always great - some times it is, some times it isnt. Some times 3D works, some times it doesn't. Choice is out there for the vast majority of people. I am not entitled to anything or everything, and if for some reason a film is out of my reach (either cos it isnt showing near me, or i dont want to watch in 3D or I cant watch in 3D) then so be it, my choice isnt more important than someone elses. The industry cannot cater for every persons taste or personal circumstances.


Erm, I think you're getting me mixed up with someone else - at no point have I said 3D sucks. And I'm not sure where you get this 'you don't want any middle ground' stuff from either - I'm more than happy for 3D to exist. As I've said a couple of times now, I've enjoyed several films in 3D. And at no point did I or anyone else say our choice is more important than anyone else's - what myself and others are objecting to is a lack of choice. Which does exist in some areas whether you care or not. If anything you and DK are putting your preferences above everyone else's by basically saying 'life's a shit-house, get over it' to people who don't /can't watch films in 3D.



Just one more thing. How many 3D films do you genuinely think are currently being made 'with the intent of talented film-makers' and not the intent of businessmen? Some, no doubt, but they're clearly in the minority.


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 1444
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 9:11:04 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
Do you really think Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon and David Yates had grand artistic visions to make films in which the screen is a bit darker and something jumps out of it once in a while?


No, I dont think they did, but they only made those movies because a studio put their money in to make it. When Joss Whedon wants to tell Marvel to shove 3D up their arse and leave it behind, he can. But no, he is continuing in that system and is back for Avengers 2..... In 3D. So maybe he is embracing it?

At the end of the day 3D movies are being made, and they're being made with the intent of talented film makers, and as long as that is the case, i will always support the film makers vision and watch it as intended. If you dont want to, fine. Dont watch it. But youre making the other side of the KOK argument (3D sucks!) in as much the same way as he made his, it's like you want it your way or no way with no middle ground. Accept that film makers are using the format and want to present their films in 3D, in the same way I accept that some dont. As a film lover I take what is given to me in the hope its always great - some times it is, some times it isnt. Some times 3D works, some times it doesn't. Choice is out there for the vast majority of people. I am not entitled to anything or everything, and if for some reason a film is out of my reach (either cos it isnt showing near me, or i dont want to watch in 3D or I cant watch in 3D) then so be it, my choice isnt more important than someone elses. The industry cannot cater for every persons taste or personal circumstances.


Erm, I think you're getting me mixed up with someone else - at no point have I said 3D sucks. And I'm not sure where you get this 'you don't want any middle ground' stuff from either - I'm more than happy for 3D to exist. As I've said a couple of times now, I've enjoyed several films in 3D. And at no point did I or anyone else say our choice is more important than anyone else's - what myself and others are objecting to is a lack of choice. Which does exist in some areas whether you care or not. If anything you and DK are putting your preferences above everyone else's by basically saying 'life's a shit-house, get over it' to people who don't /can't watch films in 3D.



I know you didn't say 3D sucked and the crux of your argument is 'choice', my point was that you were arguing it in the same fashion (in my opinion) as KOK, where it was your way or no way. You didnt outright say it, but you did say this.....

Plenty of people can't afford to go the extra mile and travel to a different cinema though, and the fact that people are having to do that due to a lack of 2D screenings (or miss out on seeing the film altogether) shouldn't sit right with any self-respecting movie fan. Expecting them to just 'settle' for less choice is simply insulting.

Seems to imply that the audience has more entitlement than the studio or film makers. Something that I, as a self respecting film fan, massively disagree with. What youre saying is that a persons desire to see a film outweighs the film makers desire to have it presented in the way they desire. It shouldn't. It's isnt really about settling for less choice is it? There are only a finite number of screens and hours in the day, so the cinemas and industries have to make a choice, and as I say, as a movie fan, i want them to make that choice not for the consumer, but for the film maker. And if that means it is shown in 3D to fewer people, so be it. It isnt about my preference of one format over the other, it's more a preference of being shown what was intended.

If Ang Lee's next movie is in Mandarin and Black and White and my local cinema can only show it once, i dont want them to show it how the general audience wants it, cos if its up to Joe Public they'd have it colorised and dubbed in no time. I'd rather the film be shown as intended. Simple as. That isnt me suggesting my view or needs and wants or more important than anyone else's. Thats me suggesting the views and wants of the film maker is more important than anyone else's.

Thats my point and the point so many people seem to miss when it comes to 3D.

And yea, life is sometimes a shit house and we cant always have what we want. We, as consumers of film, arent entitled to anything. We get what they put in front of us, for better or worse. If all we get given is 3D then so be it, if all we get is 2D, so be it. I do t mind what format if what we do get is quality. Thats all we should be asking for as fans of cinema.

_____________________________

"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 horribleives)
Post #: 1445
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 9:29:08 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5110
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
Do you really think Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon and David Yates had grand artistic visions to make films in which the screen is a bit darker and something jumps out of it once in a while?


No, I dont think they did, but they only made those movies because a studio put their money in to make it. When Joss Whedon wants to tell Marvel to shove 3D up their arse and leave it behind, he can. But no, he is continuing in that system and is back for Avengers 2..... In 3D. So maybe he is embracing it?

At the end of the day 3D movies are being made, and they're being made with the intent of talented film makers, and as long as that is the case, i will always support the film makers vision and watch it as intended. If you dont want to, fine. Dont watch it. But youre making the other side of the KOK argument (3D sucks!) in as much the same way as he made his, it's like you want it your way or no way with no middle ground. Accept that film makers are using the format and want to present their films in 3D, in the same way I accept that some dont. As a film lover I take what is given to me in the hope its always great - some times it is, some times it isnt. Some times 3D works, some times it doesn't. Choice is out there for the vast majority of people. I am not entitled to anything or everything, and if for some reason a film is out of my reach (either cos it isnt showing near me, or i dont want to watch in 3D or I cant watch in 3D) then so be it, my choice isnt more important than someone elses. The industry cannot cater for every persons taste or personal circumstances.


Erm, I think you're getting me mixed up with someone else - at no point have I said 3D sucks. And I'm not sure where you get this 'you don't want any middle ground' stuff from either - I'm more than happy for 3D to exist. As I've said a couple of times now, I've enjoyed several films in 3D. And at no point did I or anyone else say our choice is more important than anyone else's - what myself and others are objecting to is a lack of choice. Which does exist in some areas whether you care or not. If anything you and DK are putting your preferences above everyone else's by basically saying 'life's a shit-house, get over it' to people who don't /can't watch films in 3D.



I know you didn't say 3D sucked and the crux of your argument is 'choice', my point was that you were arguing it in the same fashion (in my opinion) as KOK, where it was your way or no way. You didnt outright say it, but you did say this.....

Plenty of people can't afford to go the extra mile and travel to a different cinema though, and the fact that people are having to do that due to a lack of 2D screenings (or miss out on seeing the film altogether) shouldn't sit right with any self-respecting movie fan. Expecting them to just 'settle' for less choice is simply insulting.

Seems to imply that the audience has more entitlement than the studio or film makers. Something that I, as a self respecting film fan, massively disagree with. What youre saying is that a persons desire to see a film outweighs the film makers desire to have it presented in the way they desire. It shouldn't. It's isnt really about settling for less choice is it? There are only a finite number of screens and hours in the day, so the cinemas and industries have to make a choice, and as I say, as a movie fan, i want them to make that choice not for the consumer, but for the film maker. And if that means it is shown in 3D to fewer people, so be it. It isnt about my preference of one format over the other, it's more a preference of being shown what was intended.

If Ang Lee's next movie is in Mandarin and Black and White and my local cinema can only show it once, i dont want them to show it how the general audience wants it, cos if its up to Joe Public they'd have it colorised and dubbed in no time. I'd rather the film be shown as intended. Simple as. That isnt me suggesting my view or needs and wants or more important than anyone else's. Thats me suggesting the views and wants of the film maker is more important than anyone else's.

Thats my point and the point so many people seem to miss when it comes to 3D.

And yea, life is sometimes a shit house and we cant always have what we want. We, as consumers of film, arent entitled to anything. We get what they put in front of us, for better or worse. If all we get given is 3D then so be it, if all we get is 2D, so be it. I do t mind what format if what we do get is quality. Thats all we should be asking for as fans of cinema.


I haven't got the slightest clue how you pulled those implications from that quote or where on earth I said anything along the lines of 'my way or the highway'. I don't have a 'my way' - for the millionth time: I quite like 3D (when done well). Lots of people don't. Lots of people struggle or have physical issues with watching 3D. Many of those people miss out on seeing films because of a lack of 2D screenings. Many of these films were not made with 3D in mind for any artistic purpose, but purely to make money (this 'film-makers' vision argument only applies to a minority of movies). These people are being denied a choice.
I can't say it any clearer than that and if you can't see why this is just a bit annoying for scores of film-fans then I really don't know what else to say.


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1446
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 9:40:36 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

It appears that sales of 3D televisions and Blu Rays are dropping quite rapidly as well although from the look of it the sale figures were not particularly brilliant to begin with. It appears to be very much a specialist market. There are some predictions of growth in the market (Futuresource consulting appears to be the only ones predicting growth) but these appear to be swimming well against the tide


And?

If the majority of Joe Public dont wanna watch 3D, thats fine, but if James Cameron decides to make a 3D movie, I wanna see it as intended. I suspect there are markets for other types of cinema that are small - subtitled movies maybe? But if its there and i wanna see it, i wanna see it as intended. If 3D stops next year, never to return, I wont bat an eyelid, i'll keep watching what the industry puts in front of me, cos i love cinema. And yea , i'll return every now and then to watch Life of Pi in 3D. Why? Cos it is stunning. Regardless of other peoples opinion of the technology, to me, it works and as long as the industry wants it, and film makers use it. I'll be there as a paying consumer. You have a choice to do so, or not.

The issue is, does the industry support the choice of watching in either format and there is only so much they can do to appease both audiences - there arent unlimited screenings and there arent unlimited showings per day, so they have to make a decision what to show. And like i say, if the intended format is 3D, i want them to show it in 3D. If its 2D, thats what i want. If it's IMAX, thats what i want. If it's Black and White, thats what i want.


And in response to your question it shows that 3D is not in fact a growth market but in fact home 3D is in fact a shrinking market. The issue is that is it correct that the distributors are enforcing 3D showings over 2D showings and thus reducing choice when it appears that the public are not enjoying or accepting the medium. I want 2D IMAX showings I have not seen one of those advertised in months only 3D IMAX and from my experience (such as the empty Iron man 3 3D IMAX in comparison to packed 2D IMAX showings I have attended) others also want this. The thing is that for every film such as Life of Pi where it is an artistic choice (and there are maybe two or three such films in a year if that) there are dozens where it is not and where enforced 3D in fact detracts from the artistic view of the director.

It also appears that the Hobbit at my local cinema has more 2D than 3D showings both spread throughout the day which maybe shows that they have taken notice at last and given a decent choice at last just a shame I have no interest in watching that particular film.



So you saw Iron Man 3D in an empt y IMAX 3D showing and a busy 2D showing, and? I saw it in a very busy showing. I recall Man of Steel in a sold out IMAX 3D showing, so it must be popular right? Course not, thats a pointless argument. You want IMAX 2D showings? Good for you. I want IMAX 3D. Who's right. Neither of us. The only person that should choose in that scenario is the film maker. If that film maker hasn't the clout with studios to control what the preferred presentation method is, then I guess i have to go with what the studio themselves choose, dont I? I understand your point of 3D sales showing a shrinking market, my point was, why does that matter if a film maker chooses 3D? I personally dont give a fuck what they choose, i'll see whatever they put in front of me... I love film. End of story.

Tell me, which films/directors had 3D enforced on them that subsequently had their vision altered or impaired? I know there are films where 3D is basically chosen as the way forward, bit I cant think of a single example where 3D has been enforced and has been detrimental to what was being intended by the director? I'd love to read that, because I suspect it would be a great read. On the other hand, there are several directors actively embracing and praising the format, and likewise weve been treated to several films in recent years that use the format in incredible ways to enhance the directors vision. The only open criticism of the studios choice of the 3D format I can think of is Louis LeTerrier and Clash of the Titans.




_____________________________

"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 sanchia)
Post #: 1447
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 9:44:47 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
Do you really think Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon and David Yates had grand artistic visions to make films in which the screen is a bit darker and something jumps out of it once in a while?


No, I dont think they did, but they only made those movies because a studio put their money in to make it. When Joss Whedon wants to tell Marvel to shove 3D up their arse and leave it behind, he can. But no, he is continuing in that system and is back for Avengers 2..... In 3D. So maybe he is embracing it?

At the end of the day 3D movies are being made, and they're being made with the intent of talented film makers, and as long as that is the case, i will always support the film makers vision and watch it as intended. If you dont want to, fine. Dont watch it. But youre making the other side of the KOK argument (3D sucks!) in as much the same way as he made his, it's like you want it your way or no way with no middle ground. Accept that film makers are using the format and want to present their films in 3D, in the same way I accept that some dont. As a film lover I take what is given to me in the hope its always great - some times it is, some times it isnt. Some times 3D works, some times it doesn't. Choice is out there for the vast majority of people. I am not entitled to anything or everything, and if for some reason a film is out of my reach (either cos it isnt showing near me, or i dont want to watch in 3D or I cant watch in 3D) then so be it, my choice isnt more important than someone elses. The industry cannot cater for every persons taste or personal circumstances.


Erm, I think you're getting me mixed up with someone else - at no point have I said 3D sucks. And I'm not sure where you get this 'you don't want any middle ground' stuff from either - I'm more than happy for 3D to exist. As I've said a couple of times now, I've enjoyed several films in 3D. And at no point did I or anyone else say our choice is more important than anyone else's - what myself and others are objecting to is a lack of choice. Which does exist in some areas whether you care or not. If anything you and DK are putting your preferences above everyone else's by basically saying 'life's a shit-house, get over it' to people who don't /can't watch films in 3D.



Just one more thing. How many 3D films do you genuinely think are currently being made 'with the intent of talented film-makers' and not the intent of businessmen? Some, no doubt, but they're clearly in the minority.



Ive no idea, but as per my earlier post, i cant think of amy film makers being openly critical of the trend. So I have to take their comments on it at face value and as truthful, in which case most film makers using it seem to be happy to use it.

Those films being forced to use 3D by the evil suits wouldnt exist without those same evil suits, so y'know, swings and roundabouts.

_____________________________

"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 horribleives)
Post #: 1448
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 10:00:13 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield
These people are being denied a choice.
I can't say it any clearer than that and if you can't see why this is just a bit annoying for scores of film-fans then I really don't know what else to say.

Being denied a choice implies theyre entitled to something. I dont believe we are entitled to something. The industry puts out a product and we chose to consume what they provide or we dont. I agree that choice is pretty key, but i also believe that if the choice that the studios, distributors and film makers make is the one that we as the paying public should choose to see, or not to see. I dont think the choice of presentation method is line to make, i simply choose to pay for what i am given or not. If enough people hate it as implied, they wont pay and it'll soon disappear. Point beingI dont have an entitlement to get exactly what i want all the time.

If a cinema has one screen and has availability to show one film a day, and that film today is Pirates of The Caribbean 4. Theyre given it in 2D and 3D and have to make a choice as to which to show, i'd fully expect and accept that they show whichever the film maker or studio choose as the preferred presentation. I'll watch it either way. What do you suggest would happen in that scenario? See what the public prefer? Not a bad idea. The public would probably, given the evidence of dwindling tv sales and empty Iron. Man 3 showings, choose 2D. I'm fine with that. But what if that same scenario isnt POTC 4 and 2D vs 3D, but rather The Raid in its original language and subtitles vs a dubbed version. I'd expect the public to choose a dubbed english version., it isnt necessarily the right decision is it? Which is why I dont think what the public 'wants' should be what we 'get'. In the 3D vs 2D scenario, you'd likely choose 2D going by your posts. Your choice is met, mine is ignored. How is that fair to me? Thats the other side of the argument you make - so thats why i dont think its a decision for 'us' to make.

< Message edited by porntrooper -- 13/12/2013 10:05:20 PM >


_____________________________

"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 porntrooper)
Post #: 1449
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/12/2013 10:37:49 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12192
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

so how's the 3d hfp for 'hobbit 2' looking?

Pretty good. The HFR in particular has been improved, the problem resulting from lack of motion blur in close-up shots from the first movie, has been almost eliminated. Last time it was a distraction, this time I sometimes forgot all about it.

As for the 3D, well... it was 3D. Everything looked 3D. No complaints.

The only thing I found distracting though was the 3D ghosting on the subtitles (and occasionally on very far or very close visual planes). That's still an all too common annoyance IMHO.

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1450
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 14/12/2013 9:10:15 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18328
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

. I want IMAX 3D. Who's right. Neither of us.



However you get your choice from the last year as a 2D preferrer (if only for comfort and lack of headaches and nausea) I have never had my choice as I don't think there was a single film in the IMAX locally which was not 3D, which is precisely the point. There is a lack of choice being enforced upon the 2D viewer. As I stated I do not oppose well made 3D (which is a very rare occurrence as I stated maybe 2 films a year) but I would like the option of seeing a film on a superior screen with the superior sound of the IMAX in 2D where it can be enjoyed rather than in the cupboard under screen 1 where they presently have relegated 2D films however that is no longer an option. All I seek is a fair balance with a decent spread of both forms of films at decent times. It is not an issue of 3D or 2D preferrers fighting or rather it should not be as it would be arrogance on behalf of either side to state that their personal preference is superior or is a more artistic vision but rather that both sides of the coin should be supporting a decent spread of viewings for both formats.


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1451
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 14/12/2013 1:27:54 PM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7078
Joined: 18/11/2006
if it is made in 3d then it should be shown in 3d only.
no hedging bets by studios.

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 1452
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 14/12/2013 9:00:27 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012
quote:

Seems to imply that the audience has more entitlement than the studio or film makers. Something that I, as a self respecting film fan, massively disagree with. What youre saying is that a persons desire to see a film outweighs the film makers desire to have it presented in the way they desire


Wow...

God help the silly buggers who actually BUY the tickets...

Newsflash, mate. People can get their entertainment anyway they want. If they don't want 3D, they have the right to do that...

I don't want 3D, although I recognise it as a valid form of entertainment and wish all of you 3Ders all the best...

But the fact that millionaire film directors DEMAND that people watch it in a format that many people can't afford... well, they've lost touch with reality.

Here's the deal, explained simply and slowly( take a deep breath...) Give us what we want or we won't have it. That's it.

And... breathe out.

Wasn't so difficult, was it?



_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1453
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 14/12/2013 9:35:42 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2361
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

if it is made in 3d then it should be shown in 3d only.
no hedging bets by studios.


What a truly ridiculous and naive statement.

So cinemagoers should be denied the choice the view the film in the format they wish? And if studios really did what your asking they would lose a lot of money from those who will not pay to see the film because they do not like 3D.

I saw Gravity in regular 2D recently and i loved it.If there was no option to see it in 2D at my local cinema i would not have gone to see it.



_____________________________

'' 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 spark1)
Post #: 1454
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 14/12/2013 11:16:36 PM   
rich


Posts: 5148
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

if it is made in 3d then it should be shown in 3d only.
no hedging bets by studios.


I don't think discrimination against those that can't enjoy it will do them any good.

_____________________________

Meanwhile...

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1455
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/12/2013 11:17:47 AM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

quote:

Seems to imply that the audience has more entitlement than the studio or film makers. Something that I, as a self respecting film fan, massively disagree with. What youre saying is that a persons desire to see a film outweighs the film makers desire to have it presented in the way they desire


Wow...

God help the silly buggers who actually BUY the tickets...

Newsflash, mate. People can get their entertainment anyway they want. If they don't want 3D, they have the right to do that...

I don't want 3D, although I recognise it as a valid form of entertainment and wish all of you 3Ders all the best...

But the fact that millionaire film directors DEMAND that people watch it in a format that many people can't afford... well, they've lost touch with reality.

Here's the deal, explained simply and slowly( take a deep breath...) Give us what we want or we won't have it. That's it.

And... breathe out.

Wasn't so difficult, was it?




But this is the point, why are you (i.e. You, Me, The general public) entitles to something in the way 'we' want it, rather than the way the 'makers' want to make it?

You say "give us what we want or we wont have it", a perfectly sensible argument. If you dont like the product put out, dont invest as a consumer. Very simple. But youre not really doing that are you, youre saying your needs and wants outweigh those of the people that invest their time, talent and cash. My point is, i dont think thats right. If 3D is as hated as people make out and if all those that dislike/cant view 3D didnt invest, i am sure the industry will react accordingly. Indeed, certain signs suggest it may already be happening. But, as things currently stand, 3D is a primary presentation format for a number of productions, and the distributors and cinema chains have to reflect that surely? If theyre given 1 print of 2D and 2 of 3D, then of course 3D screenings outweigh 2D. If there is a choice to be made to show either 2D or 3D of a film that is intended to be presented in 3D, then surely it has to be shown in 3D? I cant think of any other film making technique that film fans are so happy to consider as being happily dispensible when its an intended part of production? Very odd.

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 1456
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/12/2013 11:38:04 AM   
BudBaxter

 

Posts: 684
Joined: 31/1/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

if it is made in 3d then it should be shown in 3d only.
no hedging bets by studios.



Yep, because that worked out really well for Dredd, didn't it?

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1457
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/12/2013 12:06:06 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5110
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

quote:

Seems to imply that the audience has more entitlement than the studio or film makers. Something that I, as a self respecting film fan, massively disagree with. What youre saying is that a persons desire to see a film outweighs the film makers desire to have it presented in the way they desire


Wow...

God help the silly buggers who actually BUY the tickets...

Newsflash, mate. People can get their entertainment anyway they want. If they don't want 3D, they have the right to do that...

I don't want 3D, although I recognise it as a valid form of entertainment and wish all of you 3Ders all the best...

But the fact that millionaire film directors DEMAND that people watch it in a format that many people can't afford... well, they've lost touch with reality.

Here's the deal, explained simply and slowly( take a deep breath...) Give us what we want or we won't have it. That's it.

And... breathe out.

Wasn't so difficult, was it?




But this is the point, why are you (i.e. You, Me, The general public) entitles to something in the way 'we' want it, rather than the way the 'makers' want to make it?
You say "give us what we want or we wont have it", a perfectly sensible argument. If you dont like the product put out, dont invest as a consumer. Very simple. But youre not really doing that are you, youre saying your needs and wants outweigh those of the people that invest their time, talent and cash. My point is, i dont think thats right. If 3D is as hated as people make out and if all those that dislike/cant view 3D didnt invest, i am sure the industry will react accordingly. Indeed, certain signs suggest it may already be happening. But, as things currently stand, 3D is a primary presentation format for a number of productions, and the distributors and cinema chains have to reflect that surely? If theyre given 1 print of 2D and 2 of 3D, then of course 3D screenings outweigh 2D. If there is a choice to be made to show either 2D or 3D of a film that is intended to be presented in 3D, then surely it has to be shown in 3D? I cant think of any other film making technique that film fans are so happy to consider as being happily dispensible when its an intended part of production? Very odd.



As has been pointed out, I don't think there's argument for this when the majority of the films you're talking about are converted and less to do with 'the people who invest their time talent and cash' than the people who want to squeeze as much money as possible out of the filmgoing public. And I don't know where you keep getting this 'my way or the highway', 'our needs outweighing everyone else's' stuff from - no-one wants to see the back of 3D, we're quite happy for the two formats to exist, we just want an even split of opportunity, especially for films that have been cheaply and cynically done and look virtually no different from the 2D versions (Thor, The Avengers, most Pixar stuff, etc). If you truly believe this is mainly film-maker and not studio driven, can you explain why so many 3D films are done in such a half-hearted manner pretty much as an afterthought (quite literally in the case of post-conversions)? This says to me that, contrary to what you claim, 2D was the intended format, the 3D came purely as a money-making add-on. But guess what, I still don't think this means 2D should outweigh 3D - an even split is all we ask. And I agree there probably isn't a lot cinema chains can do about it - it's all down to the studios and distributers but from the sound of things you're more than happy to not only accept and condone their greed but also believe that there's some kind of artistic vision at play here. For the likes of Cuaron, Scorses and Lee - without doubt. For the majority of the rest? Do me a favour.

< Message edited by horribleives -- 15/12/2013 12:08:59 PM >


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1458
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/12/2013 12:25:40 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8305
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
I cant think of any other film making technique that film fans are so happy to consider as being happily dispensible when its an intended part of production? Very odd.



There isn't one, which tells its own story. Perhaps if other techniques caused headaches and were charged to the consumer the way 3D is then they would be considered dispensable too.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1459
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/12/2013 12:28:49 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5110
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
I cant think of any other film making technique that film fans are so happy to consider as being happily dispensible when its an intended part of production? Very odd.



There isn't one, which tells its own story. Perhaps if other techniques caused headaches and were charged to the consumer the way 3D is then they would be considered dispensable too.



Which is exactly why comparing 3D to subtitled or black and white films holds no water - audiences don't get charged more to watch those.

< Message edited by horribleives -- 15/12/2013 12:32:39 PM >


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 1460
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/12/2013 1:53:46 PM   
rich


Posts: 5148
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
The correct comparison would be NO subtitles. Imagine the director telling everyone that this is the vision he intended, and everyone should just learn a second language. Or that they can pay a premium for a book on how to read it before the screening? And then you'd get people saying "oh but it's the way it's supposed to be so you should just pay up for the language books, it's made in French it should be shown in French; it's the best thing since Jesus so all these people with dyslexia can fuck off".

_____________________________

Meanwhile...

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 1461
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/12/2013 9:44:48 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012
OK, I'll throw another log on the fire, just for the hell of it...

How many directors would be perfectly happy for their movie to be in 2D, but the studio (with their eyes on the extra cash) insist upon it, otherwise the director doesn't get the gig and therefore doesn't work?

And, once again, banging my head against a wall until the blood runs into my eyes, most of us are completely fucking happy to have the two formats exist alongside each other, it's the 3D zealots who are hellbent on their chosen format..?



_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 1462
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/12/2013 10:00:23 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5110
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

OK, I'll throw another log on the fire, just for the hell of it...

How many directors would be perfectly happy for their movie to be in 2D, but the studio (with their eyes on the extra cash) insist upon it, otherwise the director doesn't get the gig and therefore doesn't work?

And, once again, banging my head against a wall until the blood runs into my eyes, most of us are completely fucking happy to have the two formats exist alongside each other, it's the 3D zealots who are hellbent on their chosen format..?




Good luck with that - I believe you'll traces of my blood and hair on that very same wall.


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 1463
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/12/2013 10:27:05 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7078
Joined: 18/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: BudBaxter


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

if it is made in 3d then it should be shown in 3d only.
no hedging bets by studios.



Yep, because that worked out really well for Dredd, didn't it?



the studio dropped the ball promoting that film, not 3d screenings only.

(in reply to BudBaxter)
Post #: 1464
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/12/2013 12:32:25 PM   
shatnerhamster

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 19/3/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper



You have no idea why Del Toro changed his mind on Pacific Rim. You're making an assumption that just cos you dont like it, no one else can. Youre talking out of your arse. Maybe the studio did push it, maybe Del Toro saw some demo's of it and was won over. Given that Pacific Rim in 3D looked pretty fucking great and some scenes and shots seemed absolutely designed with 3D in kind, I'd be inclined to beleive that Del Toro embraced it and went with it. Who knows? You certainly dont.



Del Toro stated publicly that Pacific Rim would not be shown in 3D because doing so would ruin the perspective in all of his carefully designed special effects shots. A few days later, he issued a statement saying that he had changed his mind.
I think we can state - with near 100% certainty - that between those two statements he had a meeting with the studio executives which included the phrase 'Squeal like a pig, Del Toro'.
Everyone who saw that film in 3D was directly betraying the director's vision.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1465
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/12/2013 1:06:29 PM   
Scott_

 

Posts: 4211
Joined: 26/6/2008
From: Leeds
Didn't the studio give Del Toro more money to render the effects shots in 3D rather than just convert them into 3D after the film was finished? Could be wrong but I'm sure I read that somewhere. Let me google...

Found this...

quote:

“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. 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.”


< Message edited by Scott_ -- 16/12/2013 1:08:27 PM >


_____________________________

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

Check out my top 21 films - http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=3188740

360 Gamertag - SmokinFuzz

(in reply to shatnerhamster)
Post #: 1466
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/12/2013 7:00:11 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_

Didn't the studio give Del Toro more money to render the effects shots in 3D rather than just convert them into 3D after the film was finished? Could be wrong but I'm sure I read that somewhere. Let me google...

Found this...

quote:

“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. 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.”



Sorry, not having that. Sounds like he got a bitch-slap from the studio. His first statement sounds a lot more convincing than the second.

I'll get back to my previous point... do any of you think that Alan whatshisname (Game Of Thrones director) had any choice in going 3D for Thor 2? Or is he going to throw away his chance at getting into blockbuster movies?

I don't recall him demanding that GOT should be in 3D..?

IMO, it's still about the cash-grab... but we've been here before, haven't we? And, so the argument goes round in circles again...




_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Scott_)
Post #: 1467
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/12/2013 8:28:24 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2361
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_

Didn't the studio give Del Toro more money to render the effects shots in 3D rather than just convert them into 3D after the film was finished? Could be wrong but I'm sure I read that somewhere. Let me google...

Found this...

quote:

“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. 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.”



Sorry, not having that. Sounds like he got a bitch-slap from the studio. His first statement sounds a lot more convincing than the second.

I'll get back to my previous point... do any of you think that Alan whatshisname (Game Of Thrones director) had any choice in going 3D for Thor 2? Or is he going to throw away his chance at getting into blockbuster movies?

I don't recall him demanding that GOT should be in 3D..?

IMO, it's still about the cash-grab... but we've been here before, haven't we? And, so the argument goes round in circles again...





Agree with pretty much everything Mister Coe says here.Its the studios that are '' encouraging '' the filmakers to go 3D.Only those with the necessary clout ( Christopher Nolan ) are able to say no.

_____________________________

'' 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 Mister Coe)
Post #: 1468
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/12/2013 8:46:03 PM   
Scott_

 

Posts: 4211
Joined: 26/6/2008
From: Leeds
He changed his mind, it's not hard to believe 3D won GDT over at some point during the conversion process. Are directors not allowed to have a change of mind? It's just the movies, a bit of fun and It's not some evil plot to rob you of money. I'm not a fan of 3D myself but it's not going to destroy my world if a film isn't 2D.

_____________________________

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

Check out my top 21 films - http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=3188740

360 Gamertag - SmokinFuzz

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1469
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/12/2013 8:59:19 PM   
Darth Marenghi

 

Posts: 3239
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester
IIRC GDT was going to shoot his version of The Hobbit in 3D as well as At The Mountains of Madness. His initial objections to Pacific Rim going 3D were do with issues of scale - as in there was a danger it would look like a human sized robot was fighting in a miniature city.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Scott_)
Post #: 1470
Page:   <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   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

0.140