3D Creature from the Black Lagoon 3D (1954) (1 Viewer)

[Moe Dickstein]

SIGH.
It could have been perfect...

I'm trying to focus on how glad I am that you have been able to repair the problems of several other titles. Look forward to the news about when those will be available for us to spend our money on.

 

[David Weicker]

SIGH.
It could have been perfect...

So, does this mean you've viewed it?
I think we all would like to hear your personal observations, as well as your thoughts on what might have caused it to look non-perfect. What did they do or not do? And were there parts that they got right?
David

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I have not personally viewed it, but James knows what he's talking about. The fact that vertically mis-aligned shots have remained in the master is VERY disappointing.

 

[Tabletop joke]

I've watched a good bit more of it now. Literally dozens of vertically misaligned shots. Many of them are only slightly off, but a couple are egregious. Another really badly aligned shot is the one where David and Dr. Maia are pouring the Rotenone into the oxygen tanks.
Some shots will start out in perfect registration and then slowly drift out of alignment.
Something else I noticed: one side of the opening titles (the right eye I believe) is stretched horizontally in relation to the other side (one side is wider).
The casual viewer might not notice these issues directly, but at least subliminally they are going to manifest in the form of (as you said) eyestrain or at the very least a vague perception that something is "not quite right".

So how is the 3D presentation overall, factoring in all these issues? I recieved my boxset today, but I'm saving Creature for this weekend. I've waited a long time to see this in it's proper format. As someone who's never seen the polorized 3D version (I've only seen a substandard anaglyph presentation at a local revival theater) is this still an impressive 3D presentation overall?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

If you've only seen it in anaglyph, I'm sure you will be very impressed.
It just could have been better if the alignment corrections had been made.
For the material we are restoring in the Archive, we are fixing every film shot by shot for perfect 3-D and zero eyestrain.
www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

[Persianimmortal]

First the missed opportunity with getting Hondo in 3D, and now what appears to be another missed opportunity in getting Creature to look as good as it could. It seems unusual that studios are putting out 3D movies, especially 3D classics like Creature, but not investing the extra effort into getting them spot-on. My copy of Creature (standalone) is already heading to me from Amazon UK, so I suppose I'm inadvertently sending the message to Universal that near enough is good enough

 

[JamesNelson]

So how is the 3D presentation overall, factoring in all these issues? I recieved my boxset today, but I'm saving Creature for this weekend. I've waited a long time to see this in it's proper format. As someone who's never seen the polorized 3D version (I've only seen a substandard anaglyph presentation at a local revival theater) is this still an impressive 3D presentation overall?

I'm pretty fussy about 3-D and I was looking yesterday with a very critical eye. The brain is incredibly forgiving in terms of 3-D perception. I'm guessing that most viewers will be unaware of the all but the worst of the misalignment issues unless they are actively looking for them.
To put things in perspective, I'm talking about a dozen or so individual shots (not scenes) out of the entire film. Much of it looks spectacular. I certainly don't want to dissuade anyone from purchasing or enjoying this title in 3-D. I would definitely purchase over again. That doesn't mean I'm not disappointed at what might have been. As Bob and Greg stated, it could have been perfect.
I too am anxiously awaiting the 3-D Archive's review.

 

[Todd J Moore]

My copy shipped the other day from the UK, too. It's a shame it isn't perfect, but it also doesn't sound too bad. I guess I'll see when it shows up. I have seen the movie in Polarized dual strip 3D and if it looks like it did then (or at least my memories of it), then I'll be pretty happy. I got by for years on the 1980 anaglyphich VHS that Universal released. Looking back, I realize that was silly as the effect didn't really work, but I was a teenager then. Now that I've seen 3D TVs and field sequential systems, I'll never watch another anaglyphic TV presentation.

 

[Richard--W]

That's progress!
Once everyone gets acclimated to the 1950s classics on 3-D blu-ray their expectations and standards will change, for the better.
If it's not too much of a bother perhaps Bob will indicate with a timecode where the anomalies start and stop in his review.

 

[Todd J Moore]

That's progress!
Once everyone gets acclimated to the 1950s classics on 3-D blu-ray their expectations and standards will change, for the better.
If it's not too much of a bother perhaps Bob will indicate with a timecode where the anomalies start and stop in his review.

What are you considering progress? The fact that I won't watch anaglyph TV presentations? That's because they barely work and I prefer the newer system (and in CRT days, field sequential). Or is it the fact that I say it's a shame it isn't perfect? Of course I'd like it to be perfect. That's not the same as saying I'll be filled with malignant hatred if it's somewhat less than perfect.
Let me be clear about something: I've watched 3D movies for 30 years now and actively in projected presentations for roughly 23 of them. I've seen 80 3D movies in the theater--37 of them from the 50s--plus another 40 or so shorts. I've seen horribly misprojected 3D with retinal rilvalry that makes you want to rip your eyeballs out. I've also seen Creature in 3D a fair number of times.. So long as the Blu Ray duplicates the showing in Suffern that I saw (or comes close), I'll be plenty happy. All I ask is that the transfer is not so out of whack as to be unwatchable. If that happens, I'll complain. Loudly. But I'm still not going to storm the studio gates with pitchforks and torches. Just nit that deep.
Anyhow, I always thought the shot of the crocodile looked like it did because it was stock footage (and is marked as such in the script).

 

[JamesNelson]

...Anyhow, I always thought the shot of the crocodile looked like it did because it was stock footage (and is marked as such in the script).

There are a couple shots of crocs. There is an earlier one where Lucas blows the boat horn and startles one. That's not the one that's flipped. The flipped shot occurs at about 13:11. You can spin your glasses 180 degrees (reverse eyes) and see it in correct 3-D.

 

[Richard--W]

Todd J Moore, how should I word this. A lot of people still think the 1950s classics were anaglyph. There is so much confusion. I'm saying that people will become less tolerant of anaglyph once they become acclimated to authentic 3-D which is now becoming accessible for home viewing. Once people adjust to Dial M For Murder and Creature From the Black Lagoon they will understand what's what. You gotta show it to them.
Your experience with 3-D is like my own. I saw my first 3-D feature at the Setauket Theater on Long Island in 1971. It was the re-release of House of Wax converted to one-strip by StereoVision International (a company I would get to know thirty years later). I spent all day Saturdays and Sundays watching the film over and over again three weekends in a row.
Do you shoot in stereo?
By the way, it appears that Imax has taken its 3-D documentaries out of theatrical circulation and stopped producing new ones. Or so the manager of our local Imax theater told me the other day. A number of them are available on Blu-ray now. I will miss Imax 3-D documentaries new and old on the screen.

 

[Todd J Moore]

Richard W, I fully agree with what you are saying then. It is a sad fact that many people believe the nonsense that the 50s films were anaglyph. It doesn't help that 7 of the 50 were converted to anaglyph for 16mm in the 70s and 80s. It was further complicated by 3D Video Corporation's TV broadcasts. It is further hurt when so called experts like Roger Ebert declare definitively that anything prior to 2005 was anaglyph. So yes, people seeing DIAL M and CREATURE in this manner are definitively good things. Even better would be nationwide reissues in digital 3D. But that's just me dreaming.
I have shot in dual video camera and released in anaglyph. I'm working on reediting the films in Side by Side format.

 

[Richard--W]

The 3-D release of Creature From the Black Lagoon and Dial M For Murder will have a positive impact on 3-D all across the board. Watch and see. I don't drink, but the occasion is worth bending the rule and opening a bottle of whatever.

 

[Doctorossi]

The 3-D release of Creature From the Black Lagoon and Dial M For Murder will have a positive impact on 3-D all across the board. Watch and see.

Let's hope that you're beyond right!

 

[Charles Smith]

Let's hope that you're beyond right!

Amen to that -- which is what I've been thinking and hoping for all along!

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /t/321783/creature-from-the-black-lagoon-3d-1954/210#post_3983425
The 3-D release of Creature From the Black Lagoon and Dial M For Murder will have a positive impact on 3-D all across the board. Watch and see. I don't drink, but the occasion is worth bending the rule and opening a bottle of whatever.

Don't forget House Of Wax when it arrives, that one should be amazing.

 

[Mark-P]

It is further hurt when so called experts like Roger Ebert declare definitively that anything prior to 2005 was anaglyph.

Did Roger Ebert actually say such a thing or are you simply pulling up a name with no reference? I remember watching a Siskel and Ebert show back in the late eighties or early nineties where Ebert demonstrated his clip-on polarized lenses that he used for 3D movies.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From an article by Jack Theakston on his Central Theater blog of March 12, 2007:
In a September, 1996 issue of 3D News, Marvin Jones told this amusing story in his article about the misconceptions of red and blue-- anaglyph-- 3-D glasses, and the general attitude towards 3-D movies by "critics," which I believe will illustrate my point for this article beautifully:

This came to a head a few weeks ago when, in a cable-TV special on movie gimmicks, film critic, Roger Ebert, commented that one of the things that killed 3D movies was the dislike of the audience for those pesky red and blue glasses.

Jones went onto an Internet forum which Ebert frequented and set the facts straight, only to find a truism about posting facts on the web-- there will always be a million monkeys with a million keyboards to "set you straight":
Immediately the bulletin board was filled with messages from literally dozens of people who clearly and without any doubt remembered going to 3D movies as kids, and watching them through red and blue glasses! One man had absolute proof-- when he saw HOUSE OF WAX, he became so frightened that he removed the glasses and saw the images on the screen fringed in color, proving that they could not possibly have been anything but red and blue glasses he so clearly remembered anyway!
Another man had seen the Polaroid system for the very first time only a couple of years ago at a business conference and he had commented at that time that if this technology had been available in the 1950s, 3D movies might have survived, a sentiment shared by the dozens of others at the meeting.
Many made the point that Roger Ebert should certainly know what he was talking about and is much more to be believed than some obstinate no-nothing like me who refused to accept the testimony of dozens of reliable eye witnesses.

 

[Mark-P]

Now see, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Ebert's actual quote "one of the things that killed 3D movies was the dislike of the audience for those pesky red and blue glasses" is very different from "declare definitively that anything prior to 2005 was anaglyph" unless someone can pull up another quote that confirms this claim.
Ebert knew that polarized glasses existed in the 80s and 90s because he was reviewing during that period. In the 1950s he was just a kid so of course he doesn't remember the process.