3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers" - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin 

 

As for lossless audio, the only reason I haven't noticed a world of difference every time is simply because I have to keep volume at a certain level thanks to living in an apartment building. Let's just say if I were the 'screw the people down below me' type, well I wouldn't have the volume buttons at the ready. ;)

 

I've never done an A-B comparison like I've done with Dolby vs. DTS, which itself is skewed because DTS tracks are louder and it's difficult to make a direct comparison with that. It's easy to fall into that louder=better problem.

As if the winking smiley weren't enough of a tip-off, you've probably read enough of my disc reviews to guess that my contribution to Dave's list should be taken with a king-size rock of salt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer! 

That's a whole other can of worms, Nicholas, I have a friend who can't see the 3D effect because of an eye disorder, if everything eventually goes 3D I guess she's screwed, right? Or relegated to waiting for DVD and BD for those films?

 

It's insane.

I know people who can't hear. What if everything goes Talkies and there's no more title cards to read, I guess they're screwed, right? Or relegated to waiting Super 8 release those films?

It's insane.

Even if most films and movie theaters go 3D, there's always room for "flat" projection to accomodate those who won't or can't watch 3D. Just like there are special projections for the hearing impaired and Deaf (with special subtitles or other options). In the extreme, it goes to the courts, gets rolled into the ADA and is another part of our "accessibility" legal landscape.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveF 

I know people who can't hear. What if everything goes Talkies and there's no more title cards to read, I guess they're screwed, right? Or relegated to waiting Super 8 release those films?
 

What they could do is have subtitles that can only be read if you wear glasses with polarized lenses.  Problem solved.

The theaters could even jack up the prices for these showings!  Everybody wins!

Indeed :)

My point, if missed, is there's no need to go hyperbolic over possible problems for those who can't enjoy 3D because of physical limitation. This has been an issue since the dawn of moving pictures, and we've fumbled our way through it.

And if you want to go hyperbolic, you should advocate for the elimination of all movies, since the blind can't enjoy any of it. And then there's the tragic deaf-mute...

But somehow, if it remains popular, I don't think 3D will be the end of humanity. Given that there's enough people that find 3D uncomfortable, there will always be conventional projection.

I have no doubt that the majority of films will continue to be shot in the conventional "2D" format. I just cannot see the use of "3D" as being justified for every production. For example, maybe "Jackass 3D" will succeed in proving how useless "3D" is for conventional live-action comedies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveF 

My point, if missed, is there's no need to go hyperbolic over possible problems for those who can't enjoy 3D because of physical limitation. This has been an issue since the dawn of moving pictures, and we've fumbled our way through it.

 

And if you want to go hyperbolic, you should advocate for the elimination of all movies, since the blind can't enjoy any of it. And then there's the tragic deaf-mute...

A common name for this rhetorical tactic is "parading the horribles". It usually comes out when people don't have any better argument to advance.

Now that's a fantastic term that I've somehow missed all my life!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin-S 

For example, maybe "Jackass 3D" will succeed in proving how useless "3D" is for conventional live-action comedies.

As silly as it sounds, I think they used 3-D cameras to film Jackass so it's not even a conversion like so many other 3-D movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben 

A common name for this rhetorical tactic is "parading the horribles". It usually comes out when people don't have any better argument to advance.

Yes well, the same could be said for the supporters of the 3D format, they're not convincing me of anything with their arguments, either.
 

Jackass filmed in 3-D? Not the end of the world. I draw the line at...oh wait, that really is tacky and pointless. It is the epitome and very definition of tastelessness that will only be topped by reality shows being filmed in 3-D and touted as a reason to buy an overpriced 3-D TV. What's to stop people from going back and converting old movies to the format and re-releasing them to theaters at $16 a pop? Howard the Duck 3-D anyone?

I don't know, have you seen some of the women on Survivor? It could be fun to see some of those in 3D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer! 

 

Yes well, the same could be said for the supporters of the 3D format, they're not convincing me of anything with their arguments, either.

No, you couldn't. Because they're not parading these "horribles", except in mockery to show how silly some of the "con" arguments are. They are guilty of other sins, but not this one :)

The argument for it by viewers is, "I enjoy it."

The argument against it by viewers is, "I don't enjoy it."

That's all there is. But that doesn't make for an interesting thread, so it quickly becomes about argumentative theatrics and hysterics and analogies and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer! 

I don't know, have you seen some of the women on Survivor? It could be fun to see some of those in 3D.

I'd just rather they had an unblurred version!  Think of the possibilities -- a PG version on broadcast, but unblurred with glasses on.

Someone invent this right now!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveF 

No, you couldn't. Because they're not parading these "horribles", except in mockery to show how silly some of the "con" arguments are. They are guilty of other sins, but not this one :)

 

 

The argument for it by viewers is, "I enjoy it."

 

The argument against it by viewers is, "I don't enjoy it."

 

That's all there is. But that doesn't make for an interesting thread, so it quickly becomes about argumentative theatrics and hysterics and analogies and so on.

I'm not parading anything except in your perception because that's how your choosing to look at it.

And sure I could say that, some of the "pro" arguments are just as silly to some of us.

I just know I'm going to get shit for this because you guys have an answer for everything but I don't think it's so wrong to consider how this trend will affect others (slaps head) especially when it looks as if it will get harder and harder to find 2D presentations of films if this trend sticks around and continues growing in the coming years.

Why is it so silly to consider that it might become a problem? Yes it's been stated that one can easily seek out 2d presentations but that's right now, what about 2-3 years from now? Can you say with absolute certainty that it will be so easy then?

I'm already bored of 3D.

I am not at all bored with HD or Blu-ray.  
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer! 

I'm not parading anything except in your perception because that's how your choosing to look at it.

As I've said before, this sort of thing is both parading and silly:

Because if you were sincerely concerned about such things, you'd have been crying out against the use of sound for the Deaf who can't hear it; and crying out against the movies themselves for the Blind can't see them. And the whole shebang for the Blind and Deaf can't enjoy any of it except the rumble of the loudest bass.

Or they relegated to simply not being part of society, unlike your friend who merely can't watch 3D?

No, this is a pointless argument against 3D as a whole. As we've done for the Deaf, we have special sub-titled showings. (The blind are still screwed, as far as I know.) And should 3D take hold as other technologies have before it, there can still be flat showings for those who can't enjoy it.

As I said, all the arguments distill to:

"I like it." and "I don't like it"

Anything else is just jabbering on the internet -- of which I'm quite the participant :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveF 

 

And should 3D take hold as other technologies have before it, there can still be flat showings for those who can't enjoy it.

One can only hope.

Ok, I'm one of those special people who can't see in 3D so, really, my thoughts might not matter.

I can understand the appeal of 3D but only if the film was filmed in stereoscope (ie Avatar, the new Resident Evil, etc).  When you start converting films into 3D is where it becomes gimmick and these should be eliminated.  To echo the previous arguing: Should Hitchcock's Psycho be converted to 3D to make it better?  No.  It wasn't filmed for 3D so it shouldn't be converted to 'make it better.'  Same argument goes for colorizing films.  Just because it can be doesn't mean it should.

Was Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans filmed for 3D presentation or were they post-converted.  I believe it was the latter.

Personally, if I could see 3D I think I would only go see those movies specifically made in stereoscope, just like I would only go see an IMAX Hollywood film if it were filmed with IMAX cameras (Dark Knight).  A blown-up standard filmed movie is as pointless as a colorized black and white or a mono-scopic filmed movie converted to 3D.

Changing the subject slightly -- how much 3D product is out on store shelves?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the only 3D blu rays that are out there come only as exclusives when you buy a new tv.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul D G 

Was Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans filmed for 3D presentation or were they post-converted.  I believe it was the latter.

Alice was planned to be shot in 3D, but then Burton didn't want to deal with the hassle of a 3D camera rig, so he shot it in 2D and had it processed for 3D.  But at least they knew it was going to be 3D when it was made -- Clash wasn't shot with 3D in mind -- the studio decided to convert it to 3D to cash in after it was completed.

But yes, AFAIC, this kind of 3D processing of 2D material is no better than colorization of B&W films.