[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

agreed.

MBV3D was a lot of fun. But why does everything need to be 3D.

because it keeps the indies out of play and it makes more money for the hollywood fatcats

"oooh... 3D"

my dad gets headaches from it

i predict massive failure

3D can lick my balls &

it's time for another indie rebellion-- hollywood gets worse every fucking year with their jerry bruckheimer recycled bullshit and that assclown james cameron. then again, there are bazillions of stupid people ready to suck the hollywood cock of death. so maybe they will keep going forever.

[Pelle]

I've been looking forward to this movie since I first heard about the plans of shooting it, like 7 years ago.

and oh, 3D sucks indeed.
dont understand whats so fucking cool about it. Your eyes hurt after a while, you cant watch it at home of with friends unless you all dont get stupid fuckingglasses all of ya. The list can be made long. Film should be easy to watch.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Pelle

you cant watch it at home of with friends unless you all dont get stupid fuckingglasses all of ya.

well there are now 3D TVs but they look like ass. i saw one at costco a couple of months ago: it looks like paper cutouts in front of a background, like a cheesy puppet theatre made from old magazines.

[static-harmony]

3D tvs won't be popular unless they make it work without the glasses. Also it needs to be able to be viewed good from any angle the owner or guest are watching from. I forgot which company made a glassless tv but it was only 22 inches and that is way too small.

[floatingslowly]

fuck all of this shit. where's the holographic display I was promised? or smell-o-vision? what if we want to actually smell the hobbit's feet? I was PROMISED.

don't even get me started on flying cars.

[Pelle]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

well there are now 3D TVs but they look like ass. i saw one at costco a couple of months ago: it looks like paper cutouts in front of a background, like a cheesy puppet theatre made from old magazines.

yeah, but who the fuck can afford one of those and who wants it??

i seriously dont like where technology is going. Just because its more advanced doesnät make it better..uuhhhh

[gualbert]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

fuck all of this shit. where's the holographic display I was promised? or smell-o-vision? what if we want to actually smell the hobbit's feet? I was PROMISED.

don't even get me started on flying cars.

Cars can't fly, but planes can roll.
The present, formerly known as the future, is quite as expected 50 years ago, somehow.
You have videophones (webcams), so that big brother can spy you in your privacy (I've seen that in a movie).

Asimov's Multivac=Internet.

What do you miss?

[Keeping It Simple]

The movie industry went nuts over 3-D in the 1950s. No one was impressed then, and no one is impressed now.

[atsonicpark]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

I prefer Ralph Bakshi.

THANK YOU!

He is god.

WIZARDS, FRITZ, his LOTR, etc.

Also, many of the scenes in my films are in like 300fps or something. I once compressed 30 minutes of footage into about 10 seconds. That was like 3000fps. Haha. But in the end they end up only being like 15fps, because all the footage has to match to be joined together. But if it was even the standard 24fps, I don't think anyone can tell. The human eye can't even really tell the difference between 24 and 48 in something like this...

[demonrail666]

Something I don't get with 3D in terms of realism is that it doesn't resemble the world as we see it. I'm looking out of my window and obviously seeing things in 3 dimensions but it looks totally different from the artificial distance between objects that 3D creates. That's why I struggle to see how it'll translate to the types of movies that don't rely on quite fantastical special effects, which makes it totally different from the introduction of sound and colour in the cinema, which are as appropriate for a John Cassavetes movie as they are a James Cameron one.

[atsonicpark]

I think 3D is downright annoying, honestly. OH SHIT, THINGS POPPING OUT AT ME. Big fucking deal.

Thanks for your post, though, demonrail, now I'm imagining classic moments from movie history in 3D... images Cassavettes "Faces" in 3D, all the characters screaming and laughing and ranting COMING OUT OF THE SCREEN. OH SHIT.

I dunno, it'd be kinda cool to see some of Godard's PIERROT LE FOU in 3D. Imagine Belmondo and Karina driving that car through your television screen, into your retina. WEEK END, also .. that traffic jam, in 3D? Awwwwww shit dawg!

LAST TANGO IN PARIS... a nice big butterstick up the ass. A 3D ass.

Let's not forget Keitel's performance from BAD LIEUTENANT, sobbing and screaming and making airplane noises while he's completely naked, his tiny dick popping out of the screen in 3D.


...

Why don't they work on a Virtual Anna Karina or something... something practical?

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

I can't stand James Cameron, Peter Jackson, and George Lucas.

They get so obsessed with the technology of film and special effects that they forget that stories are what make films good.

I don't really care to see movies in 3D. The only movie that I saw that was enhanced by the 3D was Jackass 3D.

[atsonicpark]

really? only the first and last segments of jackass were even in 3d!

[DeadDiscoDildo]

They should make 3d porn for facials haha

and who cares about this?

I was psyched that del torro was going to make this film, but I guess he got off board and now jackson is doing it? why am I not surprised?

and dragons havent looked cool in movies since I was a kid...

Im sure it wont be THAT cool.

Ian Mckellan as Gandolf is always awesome though.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

I can't stand James Cameron, Peter Jackson, and George Lucas.

They get so obsessed with the technology of film and special effects that they forget that stories are what make films good.

I don't really care to see movies in 3D. The only movie that I saw that was enhanced by the 3D was Jackass 3D.

coraline was nice in 3d but that's cuz neil gaiman wrote it, the fx were a nice addition but not essential.

[static-harmony]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

coraline was nice in 3d but that's cuz neil gaiman wrote it, the fx were a nice addition but not essential.

This is my favorite movie. It works well in 3D because the story is really good. Avatar and all other 3D movies just focus on technology and not on the storyline. Btw 3D works really well while stoned or maybe shrooms and acid.

[Tokolosh]

From reading this thread, it's clear to me that most of you (excluding Dr. Eugene Felikson, !@#$%! and demonrail666) don't have much a clue or interest in 3d technology. Fair enough.

I for one embrace it. The reason why a lot of filmmakers have chosen to take this path is because technology is advancing at such a rapid pace that noone can actually
predict what the future of 3d will bring. To shoot a film in this way has it's advantages. If we get to the point where the convergence/focus issues can be miraculously resolved,
old stock will be remastered to look a lot more realistic and natural to the eye, than it does now.

For much the same reason why a smart filmmaker would shoot his black and white noir film in colour and later have the freedom to saturate it in post, many progressive filmmakers have realized
that it gives them more options further down the line. Afterall, films shot in 3d don't have to land up that way on the big screen. It only gives filmmakers more latitude to decide
what they do with their footage later on.

With new advancements in HDR and 'Magic Motion', things will only get better.

To have a true understanding of film, filmmakers need to embrace and understand the different aspects of filmmaking and the technologies that come with it.
After all, a lot more is required from a filmmaker than just 'creativity' and a 'good story'. The sooner wannabe 'filmmakers' realize it, the better.

Trust me, you don't want to get left behind in this business.

[Tokolosh]

For Dr. Eugene Felikson and anyone else interested in the making of The Hobbit.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557&com ments

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

From reading this thread, it's clear to me that most of you (excluding Dr. Eugene Felikson, !@#$%! and demonrail666) don't have much a clue or interest in 3d technology. Fair enough.

SYG never took math

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

I for one embrace it. The reason why a lot of filmmakers have chosen to take this path is because technology is advancing at such a rapid pace that noone can actually predict what the future of 3d will bring. To shoot a film in this way has it's advantages.

I think the main advantage right now is a business/marketing one-- you have an exclusive product and you can shut out competitors that lack the resources and technology to do the same. This doesn't mean the product is good, however, it just means that you control a commodity.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

If we get to the point where the convergence/focus issues can be miraculously resolved,

That's a HUUUUGE "if". That would be a holographic image rather than what we're doing today. Holographic mages would indeed be amazing, but they would likely require completely different filming and projection technology. I would love to see holographic film, though i wonder if it wouldn't be restricted to room-size scenarios-- how the hell do you fit in the horizon line into a limited space? But anyway, that's another thing altogether.

What we have right now isn't amazing-- it's a gimmick that sometimes is nice and sometimes sucks ass.

The fact is that we've had access to 3D film and stereoscopic images for over 50 years. It was a fad in the 50s and it went away. I think this fad will also pass because it brings nothing new to the table-- it's the same old shit in a brand new package. Once the novelty wears out there is nothing behind it.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

old stock will be remastered to look a lot more realistic and natural to the eye, than it does now.

That would still require a stereoscopic image that's not there, but I image one could be extrapolated and rendered by computer without excessive hassle. Actually you'd need 2 extra images to recreate the original one in the middle in 3D.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

For much the same reason why a smart filmmaker would shoot his black and white noir film in colour and later have the freedom to saturate it in post,

wait, i don't get how this is possible. you can't "saturate" black and white-- you can colorize it, like ted turner did with old movies, but if there's no color information there is nothing to saturate. the opposite trick is useful however-- to shoot in color and later DEsaturate-- desaturate all or maybe just one channel for a "pleasantville" effect. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

many progressive filmmakers have realized
that it gives them more options further down the line. Afterall, films shot in 3d don't have to land up that way on the big screen. It only gives filmmakers more latitude to decide what they do with their footage later on.

That i suppose is true in some level, but you also kill your finances, use double the film stock (if shooting film) and have to use pricier cameras. When you consider the cost and risks of making movies, suddenly the idea of burning a ton of money out of the gate for no particular purpose ceases to be appealing.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

With new advancements in HDR and 'Magic Motion', things will only get better.

HDR is very promising because it offers to reproduce the way we see the world, without clipping whites and crushing blacks the way video does today, but that's completely separate from the 3D problem. Better motion capture is a good thing too, anything better than the creepy looking shit like "polar express" (yuck), but again it's a separate problem from 3D or dynamic range.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

To have a true understanding of film, filmmakers need to embrace and understand the different aspects of filmmaking and the technologies that come with it.

hell yes. goes without saying. but to understand the technology also means to know its limitations.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

After all, a lot more is required from a filmmaker than just 'creativity' and a 'good story'. The sooner wannabe 'filmmakers' realize it, the better.

Yes, true, but when the good story isn't there the result is utter shit, like avatar. I know that movie was a commercial and technological success, but I find it unwatchable, except as a scientific curiosity ("oh, wow, look how they did that") which places me completely outside the universe of the movie.

Just the other day i watched "My Dinner With Andre" for the first time, and one of the great things about it was that it filled my mind with pictures while the movie itself was just 2 dudes talking. That's what a good story can do.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

Trust me, you don't want to get left behind in this business.

I have a friend who shoots in 16mm. Beautiful experimental stuff, some of it hand-painted, but at $50 for every 2 minutes of raw footage-- OUCH! Still, only way to get that stuff done. We've had HD video for years now, but most festivals still lack the capability for HD projection, so you end up downrezing and compressing your HD movie for consumption. BR is not as widespread as one would expect and how many people have the capability to watch HD video files? DVD is still the main distribution medium for movies even though it's theoretically "obsolete". Shit, even a lot of TV is still SD, in spite of all the advances.

2D films are here to stay, just like we still have books and paintings that don't need to be replaced with instructional videos or photography. 3D will remain a specialty market for a very long time, at least until we discover a way to make true holographic movies. 3D TVs look like utter shit and I don't believe the hype. Cameron making those pronouncements is just trying to psych out the competition and drum up business for his products. Fuck him. Fuck Peter Jackson too-- Lord of the Ringworms was fucking boring! Del Toro is a much more imaginative director-- Pan's Labyrinth used effects and technology to a great end.

[gualbert]

I hope no one will turn old movies to 3d..

Lot's of old movies have been re-colorized, and it sucks.
Sometimes it's alright, sometimes it's ugly, but I have no problem with b&w anytime.

And extra speech on mute movies, or commercials ban aren't welcome either.