jobloffski
Posts: 1846
Joined: 30/9/2005 From: elsewhere
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nicky C Smile, you grumpy assholes! It's the movie business, it's all unnecessary. Honestly, some people are about as much fun as a kick in the balls. 3D is just an OPTION! You may as well cry about people having ketchup on their bacon instead of brown sauce. Why moan about something that you're NOT watching? Your complaints are immature and laughable. No, your comments are unintelligent. Even if you choose not to watch 3D films, and go for 2D YOU ARE STILL WATCHING FILMS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MADE WITH 3D IN MIND EVEN IF THIS INVOLVES POST CONVERSION AND THEREFORE WILL HAVE BEEN FILMED DIFFERENTLY TO A FILM INTENDED FOR 2D FROM THE OUTSET. Making it a different use of the medium of film, with annoying camera set ups and movements intended to be seen in 3D but if seen in 2D are happening for no reason at all. The Avengers contains certain shots that are held longer than necessary for 2D, but give 3D viewers the time to go 'ooohhh!!' at the 3D if they are so inclined. Avatar moves at the pace of an arthritic snail at times, holding the shot on set ups where there is nothing really happening, but stuff IS floating past the camera, in close up and at various distances, to give the viewer time to look around the shot in 3D. In 2D, when there is bog-all happening narratively it grinds to a halt, and without the distraction of 3D from the lack of stuff going on, the thin nature of the narrative is what gets a good perusal from the 2D viewer. In this case, the lack of complexity of narrative is PURELY to allow the 3D viewer to keep up with what is going on while not really paying attention to it. Properly on topic, milking technology that adds jack shit to storytelling possibilities by retrofitting older films for 3D is trying to get money from suckers for old rope. Not many people want it. Nobody needs it. The retrofitting of old films is almost an admission of this, because it's cheaper to retro fit stuff you already own the rights to than it is to make a whole new film in 3D, so the smaller number of 3D fans are enough to turn in a profit. Even the bean counters know the technology is too unpopular to become 'the future of film' so they're milking what they they can before the cash cow dies, like it has several times before, because deep down, 3D is not worth shit and the Avatar effect can only happen once, particularly if most other 3D films are post conversions. You can choose not to watch the 3D of the latest film out, but the experience is unsatisfactory in some ways because the potential wow factor of cinema is NOT dependent on an illusory 3D effect but on what the imagery on screen happens to be, and how it affects your mind/imagination. The use of the 3D effect is less immersive than 2D because in your mind you suspend disbelief and get caught up in what is happening and go along with the 'reality' of the film if it's your bag in 2D. It's about the creation of the illusion if reality (or an alternative reality) for the duration of the film that makes people love films , and lets them forget actual reality for the moment. 3D showcasing sequences are a reminder that you are just watching a 3D film, so it achieves the exact opposite of what it's champions claim. That's what pisses people off about 3D, and so when old films are retrofitted, they're being retrofitted for mugs. Moaning about it is the only way to create the possibility that enough people will feel treated like mugs and not see old films revamped for 3D for the process to be not worth it the cost of doing it. And basically, if someone offers me the chance to buy a turd, I tend to say, no thanks, stop trying to sell me a turd.
< Message edited by jobloffski -- 2/6/2012 12:15:25 PM >
_____________________________
Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.
|