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  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/12/2013 10:00:54 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2610
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

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...





So when you get a direct quote from a well respected director about how he negotiated with the studio to ensure the 3D conversion of his film was done correctly and with his supervision, you choose to ignore it completely and accuse him of lying? Why? So odd. Surely you have to take his comments as truthful and at face value? He changed his mind, he was happy to get involved and was happy to specifically create effects work designed with 3D in mind, ergo, the vision of the director was 3D. Now, like 3D or dont, that's fine. Ive never argued otherwise. All I am saying is, if a director intends 3D who are we to tell him 'no'. The only reasonable stand against it is not simply not pay to see it.

Where a film is presented in 2 formats (2D and 3D) how would you even things up? There arent unlimited screens and hours in a day to programme showings on an even split, especially where a studio/film maker says "this is a 3D movie". Seriously, you want both formats to exist - so do I, why would I?

As for a cash grab? Well if thats your objection, surely you object to IMAX to? I have an Unlimited Card and therefore seeing a film in 3D has no additional charge. The only additional charge is for IMAX - 2D and 3D. So fuck IMAX too right, thats a cash grab surely? When Nolan talks about how he loves the immersive qualities of an IMAX film, he's talking bollocks isnt he? Pushed the studio to do it for the extra box office dollars. What about IMAX films that dont even use IMAX cameras to shoot? Didnt Skyfall use some kindnof aspect ratio fakery to get the impression of IMAX? So yea, if you object to 3D on the grounds of the extra charge, surely you object to IMAX?

Its strange that can be labelled a 'zealot' (i assume it was aimed at me) despite confirming numerous times that I am simply an advocate of the right tools for the job, very happy for the two formats to continue side by side, and that I beleive that if a films is made a certain way, thats how it should be shown. How people cant understand that i dont know? As far as I can see, it's only those displeased with 3D's dominance of screens that are happy to ignore direct quotes from film makers and are happy to make assumptions about why a director takes a job - I seem to recall Alan Taylor being quite open about a number of things he was unhappy with on Thor 2, but I don't recall him being critical of 3D (am happy to be proved wrong of course - i love reading stuff like that).

Incidentally, I saw Harold and Kumars 3D Xmas Movie at the weekend. A great example of how the gimmicky 'throw things at the audience' aspect of 3D can work just as well as the 'depth and immersion' aspect too. It was clear the film makers had the right approach - not a great film by any means, but a good example of how the tool can be used as much as a gimmick as it can a serious film making tool.


_____________________________

"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 Mister Coe)
Post #: 1471
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 17/12/2013 12:36:10 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5059
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


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...





So when you get a direct quote from a well respected director about how he negotiated with the studio to ensure the 3D conversion of his film was done correctly and with his supervision, you choose to ignore it completely and accuse him of lying? Why? So odd. Surely you have to take his comments as truthful and at face value? He changed his mind, he was happy to get involved and was happy to specifically create effects work designed with 3D in mind, ergo, the vision of the director was 3D. Now, like 3D or dont, that's fine. Ive never argued otherwise. All I am saying is, if a director intends 3D who are we to tell him 'no'. The only reasonable stand against it is not simply not pay to see it.

Where a film is presented in 2 formats (2D and 3D) how would you even things up? There arent unlimited screens and hours in a day to programme showings on an even split, especially where a studio/film maker says "this is a 3D movie". Seriously, you want both formats to exist - so do I, why would I?

As for a cash grab? Well if thats your objection, surely you object to IMAX to? I have an Unlimited Card and therefore seeing a film in 3D has no additional charge. The only additional charge is for IMAX - 2D and 3D. So fuck IMAX too right, thats a cash grab surely? When Nolan talks about how he loves the immersive qualities of an IMAX film, he's talking bollocks isnt he? Pushed the studio to do it for the extra box office dollars. What about IMAX films that dont even use IMAX cameras to shoot? Didnt Skyfall use some kindnof aspect ratio fakery to get the impression of IMAX? So yea, if you object to 3D on the grounds of the extra charge, surely you object to IMAX?

Its strange that can be labelled a 'zealot' (i assume it was aimed at me) despite confirming numerous times that I am simply an advocate of the right tools for the job, very happy for the two formats to continue side by side, and that I beleive that if a films is made a certain way, thats how it should be shown. How people cant understand that i dont know? As far as I can see, it's only those displeased with 3D's dominance of screens that are happy to ignore direct quotes from film makers and are happy to make assumptions about why a director takes a job - I seem to recall Alan Taylor being quite open about a number of things he was unhappy with on Thor 2, but I don't recall him being critical of 3D (am happy to be proved wrong of course - i love reading stuff like that).

Incidentally, I saw Harold and Kumars 3D Xmas Movie at the weekend. A great example of how the gimmicky 'throw things at the audience' aspect of 3D can work just as well as the 'depth and immersion' aspect too. It was clear the film makers had the right approach - not a great film by any means, but a good example of how the tool can be used as much as a gimmick as it can a serious film making tool.



No, because I'm yet to go to a cinema where there are shitloads of Imax screenings and hardly any normal ones.
And I have no reason to doubt Del Toro - the 3D in Pacific Rim was fantastic so I'm not surprised he was heavily involved. Judging by how shoddy most 3D conversions look though - and how a lot of them barely look like they're in 3D at all - I suspect he's in the minority therefore I just don't buy this 'if a film's made a certain way that's how it should be shown' argument. And, as pointed out on the previous page, comparing 3D to black and white or subtitled films doesn't wash either.
On a more agreeable not, I can't help but like the sound of this new Harold and Kumar film.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1472
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 17/12/2013 12:38:55 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1158
Joined: 2/4/2006

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.


Sorry, but that reeks of confirmation bias. It says far more about your attitude towards the situation than del Toro's.

quote:

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..?


I'm not sure where this line of argument is going.

Anyone with even the smallest understanding of the film business and corporate culture knows there will be some degree of corporate interference in the vast majority of films. The money involved is too big for there not to be.

But some films are more interfered with than others. The Marvel films are some of the more heavily controlled out there as they don't only need to work as individual movies. As Thor 2 is a direct sequel it has to follow, stylistically, what came before and as part of a larger franchise it has to be consistent with the cohesive whole. Certain decisions, like the use of 3D, were made before the director is even chosen: it was made before the first film started shooting. The restrictions handed down are among the conditions for getting the job. In the case of Thor 2 much of the groundwork was already done by Kenneth Branagh and Alan Taylor's job was, to be blunt, to do what the last guy did for the most part. It isn't like this is the work of a great auteur: it isn't meant to be. If he got even a few personal touches in he did well. The powers that be were more interested in a steady hand on the tiller. It is the same situation with his Game of Thrones gig. He had to make a part of a greater whole and his opportunity for input was constrained by the need for the series to be stylistically cohesive.

That is not a slight on Alan Taylor. He is a very competent director who will hopefully get the opportunity to put his own stamp on future work. Being a jobbing director and working through restrictions is him paying his dues and will hopefully pave the way for him to get there. I doubt he was exactly crying himself to sleep because there were conditions attached when he got the chance to direct a major franchise movie.

You cannot compare the situation there to films like Pacific Rim which were far more director led. While there may have been pressure from the money men it was, ultimately, del Toro's decision. By his own words he made the conditions: conditions which were unusual and expensive. It is a very different situation from Thor 2. The level of creative control, and the expectation for it, here is far higher.

quote:

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...





In your earlier related post you speak of the zealotry of 3D fans. From what I can see both sides have more than their fair share of zeal, which is why the argument goes around in circles.

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 1473
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 17/12/2013 7:54:59 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1566
Joined: 20/10/2012
Some good comments here, taken in and appreciated... btw, the 'zealots' thing was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, might have come across in the wrong way, so sorry if so...

One thing I have to ask... why do some folks assume that all directors are mad on 3D? I still think that GDT's original post indicated that he really wanted to do PR in 2D, then got talked out of it. Not quite the same thing as being determined to do it in 3D...

ALL directors have grown up watching films in 2D and been perfectly happy with it and would, I therefore presume, be happy to work in that format...

But now there's the 3D thing and if they want enormous amounts of cash to visualise their dream, they gotta go with the 3D thing... because the moneymen have their eyes on the big 3D markup and won't allow anything else...

So doesn't that now mean that the studio cash-grabbers are now the dominant force in movies now, not the film-makers?

I see that Scorcese's new one is in 2D after all his bluster about how HUGO should be in 3D... could it be, I dunno, that a master film-maker recognises that 3D has it's time and place?

Nice to see some rational 3D arguments...



_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1474
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 17/12/2013 8:48:15 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

I see that Scorcese's new one is in 2D after all his bluster about how HUGO should be in 3D... could it be, I dunno, that a master film-maker recognises that 3D has it's time and place?



In his Hugo interview with Kermode & Mayo he actually said he was going to make all his films from then on in 3D. I guess he didn't really think that through at the time.


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

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

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 1475
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 17/12/2013 9:10:11 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
Regarding the view that '' If a film is shot in 3D then that is the format intended for the viewer to see '' argument, when Ridley Scott was interviewed by Kermode and Mayo during the promotion for Prometheus, Scott said that '' the 2D version of the film is beautiful ''.That means that he was perfectly happy for viewers to see it in that format.Also when asked by Kermode whether he would shoot all his films in 3D now Scott replied '' Nnnnnnnn.........maybe ''.

My impression is that Prometheus being a risky project, that going 3D was a concession on his part to get the film greenlit.

I also remember some report here on this site that when Star Trek: Into Darkness was gearing up for shooting, that paramount wanted the film shot in 3D, it was then reported that it would be converted in post.This sounds like a compromise reached between JJ Abrams and the studio.

Bottom line i agree with the likes of Scott and horribleives that the studios are '' encouraging '' the filmakers to go 3D on their projects and like i said, it is only the likes of Nolan that have the clout 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 DancingClown)
Post #: 1476
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 17/12/2013 9:33:03 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1158
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Some good comments here, taken in and appreciated... btw, the 'zealots' thing was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, might have come across in the wrong way, so sorry if so...

One thing I have to ask... why do some folks assume that all directors are mad on 3D? I still think that GDT's original post indicated that he really wanted to do PR in 2D, then got talked out of it. Not quite the same thing as being determined to do it in 3D...

ALL directors have grown up watching films in 2D and been perfectly happy with it and would, I therefore presume, be happy to work in that format...

But now there's the 3D thing and if they want enormous amounts of cash to visualise their dream, they gotta go with the 3D thing... because the moneymen have their eyes on the big 3D markup and won't allow anything else...

So doesn't that now mean that the studio cash-grabbers are now the dominant force in movies now, not the film-makers?

I see that Scorcese's new one is in 2D after all his bluster about how HUGO should be in 3D... could it be, I dunno, that a master film-maker recognises that 3D has it's time and place?

Nice to see some rational 3D arguments...




It happens every time new technology comes along which is used in a film which makes a lot of money. Even if it is a poor film people will go to see it to find out what all the fuss is about. Then the money men look at it and every studio has to join the band-wagon. Films in development have it shoe-horned in whether it is suitable to do so or not.

It happened with sound. It happened with Technicolor. It happened with the shift to widescreen. It happened with special effects movies post Star Wars and again later with CGI. And it has happened with 3D. After a while it gets to the point where it stops being used for its own sake and it begins to be used for artistic reasons.

3D is unusual because it has had false starts in the past. People use the fact it died out in the '50s and again in the '80s as precedent to "prove" it will die out again: but this misunderstands the reasons it died out in the past.

It wasn't for lack of interest from the public. 3D films, especially in the 1950s, did very well. However the technology to project them was very expensive to install and very costly to maintain. The films were also very expensive to make and very expensive to distribute. This led to a vicious cycle whereby theatres were reticent to install the equipment unless they were guaranteed a steady stream of product and the studios were unwilling to commit to making a lot of 3D films unless there was a mature distribution network. This impasse, not audience apathy, ultimately led to 3D's demise.

It took the introduction of digital production, distribution and projection to mitigate these problems. Now pretty much any digital projector can do 3D with minimal additional investment. And they are reliable.

This means it has become a tool for the film-maker to use (or not to) to tell their story. The early mad rush appears to be dying out and there seems to be some signs of it reaching the early stages of maturity.

The choice whether to use 3D is now something to consider along side what aspect ratio it will be in. Directors, at least those who are not in the situation we discussed earlier, can choose to use it based what works best for their story. The fact that they might use it for one film but not another should not be automatically used to infer some sort of dissatisfaction with the process, any more than when a director decides to shoot flat rather than scope. It might just mean that it was suitable for one but not the other.

Only the lunatic fringe (and those trying to sell 3D production systems like James Cameron) say that 2D is going anywhere. It isn't. I expect the ratio of 2D to 3D productions to remain about where it is until the cost of 3D becomes entirely negligible: mirroring how colour eventually eclipsed black and white. That isn't going to happen any time soon: if ever. And even if it does there will always be the option to view in 2D. You can watch any 3D showing in 2D now if you make a pair of 2D glasses.

As to your question about the money-men being in control: has there ever been a point in history when they weren't?

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 1477
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/12/2013 7:30:04 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1566
Joined: 20/10/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Some good comments here, taken in and appreciated... btw, the 'zealots' thing was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, might have come across in the wrong way, so sorry if so...

One thing I have to ask... why do some folks assume that all directors are mad on 3D? I still think that GDT's original post indicated that he really wanted to do PR in 2D, then got talked out of it. Not quite the same thing as being determined to do it in 3D...

ALL directors have grown up watching films in 2D and been perfectly happy with it and would, I therefore presume, be happy to work in that format...

But now there's the 3D thing and if they want enormous amounts of cash to visualise their dream, they gotta go with the 3D thing... because the moneymen have their eyes on the big 3D markup and won't allow anything else...

So doesn't that now mean that the studio cash-grabbers are now the dominant force in movies now, not the film-makers?

I see that Scorcese's new one is in 2D after all his bluster about how HUGO should be in 3D... could it be, I dunno, that a master film-maker recognises that 3D has it's time and place?

Nice to see some rational 3D arguments...




It happens every time new technology comes along which is used in a film which makes a lot of money. Even if it is a poor film people will go to see it to find out what all the fuss is about. Then the money men look at it and every studio has to join the band-wagon. Films in development have it shoe-horned in whether it is suitable to do so or not.

It happened with sound. It happened with Technicolor. It happened with the shift to widescreen. It happened with special effects movies post Star Wars and again later with CGI. And it has happened with 3D. After a while it gets to the point where it stops being used for its own sake and it begins to be used for artistic reasons.

3D is unusual because it has had false starts in the past. People use the fact it died out in the '50s and again in the '80s as precedent to "prove" it will die out again: but this misunderstands the reasons it died out in the past.

It wasn't for lack of interest from the public. 3D films, especially in the 1950s, did very well. However the technology to project them was very expensive to install and very costly to maintain. The films were also very expensive to make and very expensive to distribute. This led to a vicious cycle whereby theatres were reticent to install the equipment unless they were guaranteed a steady stream of product and the studios were unwilling to commit to making a lot of 3D films unless there was a mature distribution network. This impasse, not audience apathy, ultimately led to 3D's demise.

It took the introduction of digital production, distribution and projection to mitigate these problems. Now pretty much any digital projector can do 3D with minimal additional investment. And they are reliable.

This means it has become a tool for the film-maker to use (or not to) to tell their story. The early mad rush appears to be dying out and there seems to be some signs of it reaching the early stages of maturity.

The choice whether to use 3D is now something to consider along side what aspect ratio it will be in. Directors, at least those who are not in the situation we discussed earlier, can choose to use it based what works best for their story. The fact that they might use it for one film but not another should not be automatically used to infer some sort of dissatisfaction with the process, any more than when a director decides to shoot flat rather than scope. It might just mean that it was suitable for one but not the other.

Only the lunatic fringe (and those trying to sell 3D production systems like James Cameron) say that 2D is going anywhere. It isn't. I expect the ratio of 2D to 3D productions to remain about where it is until the cost of 3D becomes entirely negligible: mirroring how colour eventually eclipsed black and white. That isn't going to happen any time soon: if ever. And even if it does there will always be the option to view in 2D. You can watch any 3D showing in 2D now if you make a pair of 2D glasses.

As to your question about the money-men being in control: has there ever been a point in history when they weren't?

quote:

As to your question about the money-men being in control: has there ever been a point in history when they weren't?


Um, yeah... didn't think that one through.

I agree with most of your post...My God, has a middle-ground been found between the 2D and 3D folks?



_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1478
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 2/1/2014 9:12:53 AM   
rich


Posts: 4929
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
http://www.vulture.com/2013/12/2013-box-office-trends-and-quirks.html

Number four

*runs*

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 1479
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 3/1/2014 11:08:59 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6895
Joined: 18/11/2006
i haven't listened to a kermode/mayo broadcast for a month.
not even on i player.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1480
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 8/1/2014 10:57:12 AM   
Charles B. Potatoes


Posts: 116
Joined: 6/8/2006
From: Surrey
Don't know how this will affect this country but I agree with the sentiment. I bought a 3-d TV merely because it was a high end telly that came with it. I don't use it the 3D option at all.

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/01/3d-tv-dead/356721/

< Message edited by Charles B. Potatoes -- 8/1/2014 8:01:36 PM >


_____________________________

If you ask me Skywalker was bloody lucky to turn off his guidance system.

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1481
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 11/1/2014 1:30:07 PM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6895
Joined: 18/11/2006
maybe kermode's liking of 'gravity' will lessen the anti 3d rants this year and I may listen again.

(in reply to Charles B. Potatoes)
Post #: 1482
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 11/1/2014 1:34:55 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

maybe kermode's liking of 'gravity' will lessen the anti 3d rants this year and I may listen again.


To be fair to him, the only reason he reacted positively to the 3D of Gravity is because it was employed intelligently. I don't always agree with him, but I can actually understand his grievances with the format, because it has been used cynically and poorly in the past.


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1483
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 11/1/2014 1:44:38 PM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6895
Joined: 18/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

maybe kermode's liking of 'gravity' will lessen the anti 3d rants this year and I may listen again.


To be fair to him, the only reason he reacted positively to the 3D of Gravity is because it was employed intelligently. I don't always agree with him, but I can actually understand his grievances with the format, because it has been used cynically and poorly in the past.




I seconded that about bad conversions.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 1484
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 11/1/2014 3:38:29 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

i haven't listened to a kermode/mayo broadcast for a month.
not even on i player.


What, just because he's not a fan of 3D? No offence, but that is really fucking sad.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

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

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1485
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 11/1/2014 4:01:06 PM   
musht


Posts: 1860
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland
quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

i haven't listened to a kermode/mayo broadcast for a month.
not even on i player.


What, just because he's not a fan of 3D? No offence, but that is really fucking sad.


My mate hasn't eaten a croissant since Thierry Henry hand balled Ireland out of the world cup

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 1486
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 12/1/2014 11:53:56 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6895
Joined: 18/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

i haven't listened to a kermode/mayo broadcast for a month.
not even on i player.


What, just because he's not a fan of 3D? No offence, but that is really fucking sad.



also because his style had become abrasive recently.

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 1487
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 12/1/2014 1:51:15 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

i haven't listened to a kermode/mayo broadcast for a month.
not even on i player.


Because they were on holiday over Christmas?

He hasn't really ranted about bad 3D for a while, even before Gravity, he was calming down a bit. He pretty much just limited it to 'it's better in 2D' each review of a 3D film. I think he's mellowed recently, people have actually started to complain that he doesn't rant as much as he used to.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1488
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 12/1/2014 2:06:36 PM   
musht


Posts: 1860
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

i haven't listened to a kermode/mayo broadcast for a month.
not even on i player.


Because they were on holiday over Christmas?

He hasn't really ranted about bad 3D for a while, even before Gravity, he was calming down a bit. He pretty much just limited it to 'it's better in 2D' each review of a 3D film. I think he's mellowed recently, people have actually started to complain that he doesn't rant as much as he used to.


It must be frustrating when people just want to hear you bash something, especially when it's something like Transformers which he feels really strongly is degrading cinema and sending out wrong messages.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 1489
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/1/2014 10:32:39 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6895
Joined: 18/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

i haven't listened to a kermode/mayo broadcast for a month.
not even on i player.


Because they were on holiday over Christmas?

He hasn't really ranted about bad 3D for a while, even before Gravity, he was calming down a bit. He pretty much just limited it to 'it's better in 2D' each review of a 3D film. I think he's mellowed recently, people have actually started to complain that he doesn't rant as much as he used to.


It must be frustrating when people just want to hear you bash something, especially when it's something like Transformers which he feels really strongly is degrading cinema and sending out wrong messages.



the rants have become his shtick and predictable.

I think going to a 2hr running time has been a mistake for him as a reviewer.

(in reply to musht)
Post #: 1490
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/1/2014 10:41:30 AM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
The longer the better as far as I'm concerned. He's incisive, smart, passionate and not afraid to make himself look a bit daft. And the man really stood up for projectionists who were losing their jobs to automated digital projection. I give him my full respect and mad props for that.

To be honest I think it's fucking weird that you'd stop listening because he hates the way 3D has been used over the past seven years, but that's up to you I suppose.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 13/1/2014 10:58:41 AM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1491
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/1/2014 10:46:54 AM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4376
Joined: 5/2/2012
I haven't listened to Kermode's film reviews for a while.That's nothing against Kermode but more against Mayo who I find somewhat irritating on occasions.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 1492
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/1/2014 12:58:17 PM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6895
Joined: 18/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

The longer the better as far as I'm concerned. He's incisive, smart, passionate and not afraid to make himself look a bit daft. And the man really stood up for projectionists who were losing their jobs to automated digital projection. I give him my full respect and mad props for that.

To be honest I think it's fucking weird that you'd stop listening because he hates the way 3D has been used over the past seven years, but that's up to you I suppose.



no, just recently and not because of his 3d views.
just not seemed essential and i can catch his reviews in print and in his news 24 slot.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 1493
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/1/2014 12:59:10 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3075
Joined: 22/11/2006
I'm pretty much addicted to the podcast.

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1494
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/1/2014 1:13:38 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

the rants have become his shtick and predictable.


The rants are actually very few and far between. But how can you judge objectively when you haven't even listened to it in so long? The last one was Pain & Gain and I can't even remember what it was before that.

quote:

I think going to a 2hr running time has been a mistake for him as a reviewer.


He has a co-presenter who also speaks. There are news, sports and travel reports. There are interviews. Some would say that two hours isn't quite enough and they have to cover on average about 4/5 films a week, plus talk about films in the top ten and other issues. I would rarther listen to someone who's passionate and sometimes gets carried away, someone who I don't always agree with, as opposed to someone who's bland and compromised and just wants to appease everyone.


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

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

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1495
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 13/1/2014 1:31:53 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 8935
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
Here is a list of all the 3D releases currently scheduled for 2014:

2014 Live action filmed in 3D

X-Men Days of Futures past
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
The Hobbit There and Back Again - In HFR 3D
Pompeii
Sin City: A Dame to Die For
Maleficent
Hercules: The Legend Begins
Step Up 5
Dolphin Tale 2
Nurse 3D
Every Thing Will Be Fine
DeepSea Challenge - documentary by James Cameron
Overlord: Normandy 1944 - IMAX
Island of Lemurs: Madagascar - IMAX
exodus

2014 Stop Motion filmed in 3D

The Boxtrolls

2014 Computer animated rendered in 3D

How to Train Your Dragon 2
Big Hero 6
Rio 2
Mr. Peabody & Sherman
The LEGO Movie
ASTERIX: The Land of the Gods
Home
Planes: Fire And Rescue
Book of Life
The Nut Job
Postman Pat: The Movie
Winx Club 3D: Into the Praxus
Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return

2014 Filmed in 3D and converted Hybrid

Transformers 4

2014 Conversions

Jupiter Ascending
300: Rise of an Empire
Mad Max: Fury Road
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Godzilla
Ninja Turtles
Guardians of the Galaxy
Edge of Tomorrow
I, Frankenstein

2014 International

Saint Seiya: Legend of Sanctuary - Native 3D computer animation from Japan
Run Out - Native live action from Bollywood
Muppathu Vellikkasu - Live action Jesus movie from Bollywood
Most Welcome 2 - Native live action from Bollywood
The Monkey King - Native live action from China/Hong Kong
Kochadaiiyaan - 3D Motion Capture animation from Bollywood
Iceman - Native 3D martial arts action film Hong Kong
Iceman: part 2 - Native 3D martial arts action film Hong Kong
Run - Native 3D from Canada
Miniscule: Valley of the Lost Ants - Native 3D from France

2014 New to 3D Blu-Ray

MAN IN THE DARK (1953) - Native 3D
Dragonfly Squadron (1954) - Native 3D


_____________________________

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

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 1496
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 29/1/2014 11:37:15 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6895
Joined: 18/11/2006
'frozen', 'gravity' win 3d movie awards-

http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/gravity-frozen-win-big-at-intl-3d-society-awards-1201074818/#


(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1497
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 14/3/2014 12:45:04 PM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6895
Joined: 18/11/2006
cameron says be bolder with 3d-

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/james-cameron-calls-on-bolder-use-of-3d-by-all-filmmakers-1201132122/#

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 1498
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 14/3/2014 2:07:15 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 8935
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

cameron says be bolder with 3d-

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/james-cameron-calls-on-bolder-use-of-3d-by-all-filmmakers-1201132122/#



hear hear!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 1499
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 14/3/2014 8:08:02 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!

< Message edited by Cool Breeze -- 14/3/2014 8:09:53 PM >


_____________________________

'' 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 #: 1500
Page:   <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion Page: <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   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

0.125