"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Dennis M

Oh no let's not bring up that subject yet again. - "Format War" -

I think most of us would rather just forget it even happened.

So much time, energy, and resources wasted.

Yeah, but I met your sorry ass because of it...

[Dennis M]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Yeah, but I met your sorry ass because of it...

Lol... True enough.

[sharkshark]

Speaking of Hitler and film...

http://twitchfilm.com/news/2011/07/n...h: Everything)

[Dennis M]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Speaking of Hitler and film...

http://twitchfilm.com/news/2011/07/n...h: Everything)

Almost had my interest.

Having these 2 individuals, with diametrically opposing views on humanity, engage each other would produce some valuable discussion.

But then I read Hindi musical, and it all went to pot.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

If filmmakers expended as much effort on writing as they do on CG and 3D, I'd be far more impressed.

I agree. IMO any episode from the Law and Order TV franchise has better writing than most Hollywood productions. In fact, I'll admit that watching scripted TV shows has virtually replaced going to the cinema for the very same reason you mentioned. That is...until I saw Avatar in 3D and WOW; I was hooked. Yup...sign this ole geezer up for the duration....

Eliminate the glasses, eliminate the dimness, and make sure the rest of the film is quality, and I'll buy into 3D.

Problem is all this elimination business takes time; probably years.

My local discount theater complex has converted one theater to 3D. That's right. For $3.50 (2D is $1.50) movie goers can enjoy a quality RealD 3D presentation. My newly opened first run complex has at least 4 3D theaters. It doesn't take a genius to figger out what's happening and where the movie industry is going.

Buying into 3D is getting a lot cheaper and easier.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

So, are you also waiting for the writing to improve across the board before jumping in on this whole "color" thing?

I may be wrong, but the introduction of color films didn't require viewers to wear special glasses (and thus no viewers could report adverse reactions from wearing the glasses), color films weren't projected dimmer, and cinemas didn't charge more to see color films.

My comments about a film's quality is related to that last point. I'm not willing to pay more for a cinema ticket just because of a process that doesn't make the actual film any better. If I want crappy drama in 3D, I can just walk outside my door for free and perhaps the neighbors will be fighting on their lawn again.

[Penton-Man]

Well then, if this is brought to market, I guess this sort of apparatus is waaay out of the question for you, if you find wearing special glasses troublesome -

YouTube - ‪"Immersive Digital Entertainment" VR System #DigInfo‬‏

[Penton-Man]

Blu-ray.com member Objectivity….for your wife, if it’s applicable to her particular challenged vision condition. Something perhaps to keep an eye on for future developments like possible clinical trials in the U.S. ……http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors...009260.article

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

My comments about a film's quality is related to that last point. I'm not willing to pay more for a cinema ticket just because of a process that doesn't make the actual film any better.

Well, paying more is another matter. My point, though, is just that I've never known a development in cinema technology to have much of a direct impact on the average quality of scripts being produced, so if you're going to use that as a barometer for the value of any presentation advances, I think you're going to be waiting a loooooooooooooooooooong time.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

I may be wrong, but the introduction of color films didn't require viewers to wear special glasses (and thus no viewers could report adverse reactions from wearing the glasses), color films weren't projected dimmer, and cinemas didn't charge more to see color films.

My comments about a film's quality is related to that last point. I'm not willing to pay more for a cinema ticket just because of a process that doesn't make the actual film any better. If I want crappy drama in 3D, I can just walk outside my door for free and perhaps the neighbors will be fighting on their lawn again.

There may be a few million Avatar fans that would be inclined to disagree with you.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well then, if this is brought to market, I guess this sort of apparatus is waaay out of the question for you, if you find wearing special glasses troublesome

No, thanks. I already live in an immersive 3D world without wearing a Black Manta helmet.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Well, paying more is another matter. My point, though, is just that I've never known a development in cinema technology to have much of a direct impact on the average quality of scripts being produced

You're correct. Better technology doesn't equate to better writing, but better writing leads to better films. If a film's good, it's just as good in 2D. If a film's bad, it's just as bad in 3D.

I don't watch films so I can wear potentially headache inducing glasses and watch dim images. I watch films because I want to be captivated by the storytelling. Fix the technical issues and I might be able to accept 3D for a film that's good on its other merits.

so if you're going to use that as a barometer for the value of any presentation advances

3D is a technological advance, but I'm not convinced it's a presentation advance.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

My local discount theater complex has converted one theater to 3D. That's right. For $3.50 (2D is $1.50) movie goers can enjoy a quality RealD 3D presentation. My newly opened first run complex has at least 4 3D theaters. It doesn't take a genius to figger out what's happening and where the movie industry is going.

The most recently opened cinema near where I live has several 3D equipped screens and even a pseudo-IMAX screen. I don't disagree that this is the way the industry would like to go.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

You're correct. Better technology doesn't equate to better writing, but better writing leads to better films. If a film's good, it's just as good in 2D. If a film's bad, it's just as bad in 3D.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a bad film.

Its story line sucks eggs...everyone says so.

It may be on its way to grossing a billion dollars world wide. Why??? Are today's movie goers all nuts??

I liked it. No...not the story..but the 3D. What a ride!!! If it was shot in 2D only, I never would have bothered. I'm looking forward to seeing Cowboy & Aliens in 3D would you believe. How's that for a title.

Anyway...if a film is "bad," maybe it's not as bad... if it has good 3D. Man, the world just keeps getting more complicated.

I don't watch films so I can wear potentially headache inducing glasses and watch dim images. I watch films because I want to be captivated by the storytelling. Fix the technical issues and I might be able to accept 3D for a film that's good on its other merits.
3D is a technological advance, but I'm not convinced it's a presentation advance.

Me too. But, I'll tell you....great 3D imaging in and of itself can be just as captivating for many people and when combined with great story telling as in Avatar, it's easy to understand how that title grossed 2.7 billion dollars world wide.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

I'm looking forward to seeing Cowboy & Aliens in 3D would you believe. How's that for a title.

You are joking right? Not about the film, but that it's in 3D. Favreau nixed 3D on the project the moment he announced it at Comic-Con last year.

fitprod

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a bad film. Its story line sucks eggs...everyone says so. It may be on its way to grossing a billion dollars world wide. Why??? Are today's movie goers all nuts??

Michael Bay is master of big dumb action movie spectacle. He makes his films with such conviction that they're entertaining by sheer force. I know that contradicts my complaints about lack of quality writing, but I'm occasionally inconsistent.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

I know that contradicts my complaints about lack of quality writing, but I'm occasionally inconsistent.

It's the only way to fly.

[Steedeel]

I wonder if the announcement about glasses free 3d in five years could actually do more harm than good. Who is going to take the plunge now when a new tech will come out that would make current 3d tv obsolete. Also, would this new glasses free tech still allow the watching of normal 2d? Finally, how would 3d bluray discs fit into all this. would the technical side of the discs stay the same? too many unanswered questions at moment. Uncertainty breeds lack of interest eventually.

[worth]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

So, are you also waiting for the writing to improve across the board before jumping in on this whole "color" thing?

Colour can actually be used in a way that reveals something about the characters and helps tell the story. I don't get that with 3D. I'd compare 3D more to surround sound or widescreen.

I also don't find 3D to be seamlessly dimensional - it's more like watching several stacked layers, like a kid's pop-up book. Real IMAX presentations are far more enveloping to me, but to each his own.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by worth

Colour can actually be used in a way that reveals something about the characters and helps tell the story. I don't get that with 3D.

Well, you may not get it, but I would definitely argue that absolutely the same can be said for 3D. Watch Coraline in 3D- I think the impact on storytelling is quite evident.