John Carpenters thoughts on 3D

[reaper_234]

I know these are kind of old, but was just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on one of the Masters Of Horror opinion on the format. He's given about two opinions on this format.

3D movies are just a gimmick I was around for 3D part-one in the 1950s as a kid, and saw a lot of those films. The idea was so exciting, until you put those stupid glasses on, your eyes started going crazy and you'd think, "This is crap!" But it's called showbusiness, not showart, so if someone pays me a whole lot of money, I might do something in that format.

From this link http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...n-2369494.html

This is when he first game his opinion of at E3 2010, since he was at a press conference for the F.E.A.R. 3 game he did the cutscenes for that game.

F.E.A.R. 3 E3 Talk Interview with Steve Niles and John Carpenter Part 2: Why 3D is Just a Gimmick - YouTube

[UFAlien]

If he's basing his opinions on the infamously botched 3D projections of the 1950s, I'm not surprised he still thinks of the format as an eye-gouging bit of terribleness. Most theatres didn't exactly have their act together back then.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

If he's basing his opinions on the infamously botched 3D projections of the 1950s, I'm not surprised he still thinks of the format as an eye-gouging bit of terribleness. Most theatres didn't exactly have their act together back then.

From that time to 90s yea 3D was not really at it's best, never had a chance to see any of those 3D movies in the theaters with those terrible cardboard analogy glasses. During those times 3D was really headache inducing & eye straining with washed out looking colors. And having watched Dial M For Murder on Blu-Ray 3D a few days ago which looks great for a 1954 filmed 3D movie, that movie was in no way a gimmicky nor a waste of money. Heck I would've paid to see that movie in 3D in theaters, but yea I doubt he's really seen any of the recent ones.

[UFAlien]

Analogy? You mean anaglyph? (Autocorrect maybe)?

Anaglyph glasses were never used as the primary display format for 3D movies, it's been polarized since the 50s. That wasn't the issue. Since it was all on two-strip film projection of 3D movies had to be manually aligned and synchronized, which was often done poorly. Even if it was done properly it was easy for them to go out of sync.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Analogy? You mean anaglyph? (Autocorrect maybe)?

Anaglyph glasses were never used as the primary display format for 3D movies, it's been polarized since the 50s. That wasn't the issue. Since it was all on two-strip film projection of 3D movies had to be manually aligned and synchronized, which was often done poorly. Even if it was done properly it was easy for them to go out of sync.

Yea that's what I mean my bad. Was always assuming for years that they used the Anaglyph 3D technology in theaters also, until looking up some reviews for 3D and coming to find out they didn't at all. But with the problems you've mentioned and the others I've read about, it's easy to see why 3D didn't have the same success in the 50s-80s as it does now.

[BleedOrange11]

Yes, you had fallen into the trap of 3D myth #1.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/top-10-3-d-myths

[BleedOrange11]

From Carpenter's comments, he obviously has no respect for or understanding of what good 3D art is.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

He doesn't know what good art is any more full stop. And Niles opinion is irrelevant, dude isn't an artist. I also like it how they are calling it a gimmick while picking up a cheque for a trashy videogame.

I mean I respect John Carpenter as one of the greatest horror filmmakers, but the more I watch the video and read his statements it seems like he's saying it with a kind of arrogance like his opinions is the be all. He doesn't even seem like he's even giving the format a chance only basing his opinion on a few bad 3D experiences he's had. As for Steve Niles the same guy who did both the scripts for the 30 Days Of Night movies which where both pretty bad, as for F.E.A.R. 3 I Haven't played it but heard it was ok pretty mediocre.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by reaper_234

I mean I respect John Carpenter as one of the greatest horror filmmakers, but the more I watch the video and read his statements it seems like he's saying it with a kind of arrogance like his opinions is the be all. He doesn't even seem like he's even giving the format a chance only basing his opinion on a few bad 3D experiences he's had. As for Steve Niles the same guy who did both the scripts for the 30 Days Of Night movies which where both pretty bad, as for F.E.A.R. 3 I Haven't played it but heard it was ok pretty mediocre.

If you watch the video, Carpenter repeatedly states that this is only his opinion. Neither one of them have a clue about 3D and are just comfortable with the 2D that they're used to, which is not much different than anyone else in the general public.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

If you watch the video, Carpenter repeatedly states that this is only his opinion. Neither one of them have a clue about 3D and are just comfortable with the 2D that they're used to, which is not much different than anyone else in the general public.

I have many times and I know, was just saying tho.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

If he's basing his opinions on the infamously botched 3D projections of the 1950s, I'm not surprised he still thinks of the format as an eye-gouging bit of terribleness. Most theatres didn't exactly have their act together back then.

That sums it up well.
With many people, their first impressions of 3D last a long time. So if they see weak 3D, or their eyes hurt, they dismiss 3D as terrible.
Carpenter is a fan of video games, so the fact that he's open minded to 3D if given enough of a budget to work with, is at least hopeful that he hasn't completely ruled it out.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

That sums it up well.
With many people, their first impressions of 3D last a long time. So if they see weak 3D, or their eyes hurt, they dismiss 3D as terrible.
Carpenter is a fan of video games, so the fact that he's open minded to 3D if given enough of a budget to work with, is at least hopeful that he hasn't completely ruled it out.

True this, Yea he is he even campaigned actively for The Thing prequel game. I have a feeling tho that if EA gives him the rights to do a Dead Space movie, since he said two months ago that he really wanted to do it. That studio is gonna want the movie in 3D, so he may end up filming the movie in 3D if that's what they want.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by reaper_234

I have many times and I know, was just saying tho.

Yeah, sorry. I think I misread your original comment. It was late.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

I love Carpenters early movies but he shot them with fuzzy optically broken anamorphic lenses. Lenses that were heavily criticized when they came out and still are very criticized due to poor image quality. Orson Welles hated anamorphics he felt it was a bit of a cheat.

I'm just looking it up right now, cause I don't know too much about Anamorphic lenses, from my understanding it pretty much puts a widescreen image into a 35mm camera. That sounds like it really give the image quality a really compressed look to it, if that's what you're talking about I'd understand why Orson Welles considers it cheating. If you're gonna do a film in a widescreen format wouldn't you be shooting using 65mm-70mm film? Sorry If It seems like I'm not grasping this.

[blae03]

I would love to see THE THING 80's version in strong 3d. youd be awesome!!!!

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by blae03

I would love to see THE THING 80's version in strong 3d. youd be awesome!!!!

I agree that's one of Carpenters movies I would love to see in 3D, As for Halloween idk if that would work or not. But I think a really good 3D conversion would work for In The Mouth Of Madness, making that movie look more creepier than it already does.

[Jsmith82]

(cross eye viewing)





I know, it's not that good. I only spent about 1/2 an hour on it, shifting layers around and redrawing background, but damn would The Thing be an awesome 3D movie! Lots of great scenes to create depth.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

(cross eye viewing)





I know, it's not that good. I only spent about 1/2 an hour on it, shifting layers around and redrawing background, but damn would The Thing be an awesome 3D movie! Lots of great scenes to create depth.

I can only imagine how great the scene with the crawling head would look in 3D, also the scene with the stomach mouth that bites off that guys arms.

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by reaper_234

I can only imagine how great the scene with the crawling head would look in 3D, also the scene with the stomach mouth that bites off that guys arms.

In The Mouth of Madness as you suggested would also be a terrific 3d film! That's an underrated gem right there, I love to see it get brought up now and again for any reason.

Guess what day it is? Today is Mommy's day.

Such a creeper lol

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

In The Mouth of Madness as you suggested would also be a terrific 3d film! That's an underrated gem right there, I love to see it get brought up now and again for any reason.

Guess what day it is? Today is Mommy's day.

Such a creeper lol

Glad to see someone agree, and yea that line from those creeper deformed children lol. Also think the scene with the old tentacled lady at the hotel would be creepy in 3D also.