The Fish 11080 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 No, mongaloid I'm saying you can't judge a 3D film on a 2D trailer. So that means if I watch the film in 2D at home...then I can't have a relevant opinion on it? bizarre. You're right and I'm sure the lost revenue from Guam is really going to eat into their plans... Why stall progress just because people find it hard to keep up? Because I believe cinema, in theory, is a completely universal medium - it's for everyone - not just the West / economically elite. It's utterly selfish, snobbish and a ridiculous waste of insane money (I read 300 million dollars) to make a film purely for those limited theatres that can financially and technologically support 3D cinema. And you call it 'progress' but what kind of 'progress' limits a work of an art form (I hesitate to call Avatar a work of art) to a score of countries? Because they needed to get the buzz out there. You're suggesting they either a ) only put out a 3D trailer b ) fashion a 2D version of the film specifically for the trailers, that somehow conveys what they're aiming for with the 3D film, or c )don't put out a trailer at all. I'm basically saying that I have no idea why people even bother making 3D films when there are hardly any good 2D ones around. you can't judge a 3D FILM by watching a 2D TRAILER, don't know how I can make that more clear? Cinema evolves, not all cinemas could cope with talkies, but they soon did, not all cinemas could cope with colour, but they evolved, silent to sound, black and white to colour, from film to digital cinema's entire history is evolution. Hell it's very inception was a technological departure from it's parent. I'll wager there were theatre goers screaming, what's the point in this new moving picture nonsense, when I can see (and hear) real actors on stage! You make a 3D movie to prove that you can, to open it up to other people to make 3D movies because someone will make a start. I agree that the quality movies are hidden under the avalanche of Dance Flick and it's brethren, but they;'re out there. Your argument seems to be "Give up now and don't bother trying.", which is derisible. 3D has been going for over a hundred years now... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film There are literally hundreds of 3D films (39 since 2000)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films ...and every time there's a resurgence, they find it adds nothing but headaches and ill-fitting glasses. ...and every one of those films trailers could be judged without seeing them in 3D. So they should not bother trying anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Was there really a need to make Emanuelle IV in 3D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 So, the marketing campaign seems to be working anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 25, 2009 Author Share Posted August 25, 2009 No, mongaloid I'm saying you can't judge a 3D film on a 2D trailer. So that means if I watch the film in 2D at home...then I can't have a relevant opinion on it? bizarre. You're right and I'm sure the lost revenue from Guam is really going to eat into their plans... Why stall progress just because people find it hard to keep up? Because I believe cinema, in theory, is a completely universal medium - it's for everyone - not just the West / economically elite. It's utterly selfish, snobbish and a ridiculous waste of insane money (I read 300 million dollars) to make a film purely for those limited theatres that can financially and technologically support 3D cinema. And you call it 'progress' but what kind of 'progress' limits a work of an art form (I hesitate to call Avatar a work of art) to a score of countries? Because they needed to get the buzz out there. You're suggesting they either a ) only put out a 3D trailer b ) fashion a 2D version of the film specifically for the trailers, that somehow conveys what they're aiming for with the 3D film, or c )don't put out a trailer at all. I'm basically saying that I have no idea why people even bother making 3D films when there are hardly any good 2D ones around. you can't judge a 3D FILM by watching a 2D TRAILER, don't know how I can make that more clear? Cinema evolves, not all cinemas could cope with talkies, but they soon did, not all cinemas could cope with colour, but they evolved, silent to sound, black and white to colour, from film to digital cinema's entire history is evolution. Hell it's very inception was a technological departure from it's parent. I'll wager there were theatre goers screaming, what's the point in this new moving picture nonsense, when I can see (and hear) real actors on stage! You make a 3D movie to prove that you can, to open it up to other people to make 3D movies because someone will make a start. I agree that the quality movies are hidden under the avalanche of Dance Flick and it's brethren, but they;'re out there. Your argument seems to be "Give up now and don't bother trying.", which is derisible. 3D has been going for over a hundred years now... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film There are literally hundreds of 3D films (39 since 2000)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films ...and every time there's a resurgence, they find it adds nothing but headaches and ill-fitting glasses. ...and every one of those films trailers could be judged without seeing them in 3D. So they should not bother trying anymore? They can keep trying if they want. As I said above, I look forward to the day someone makes a 3D film worthy of the glasses and the extra entry fee. I hope this is it. But it's not the experimental brave new world you suggest, it's re-introduced cyclicly every few decades and has failed each time. More exciting than the 3D is the digital aspect....soon we'll all have cinema quality digital cameras in our phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I remember seeing Captain EO at the Disney MGM Studios theme park in Florida when I was young. It was fucking shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Form over content the victory of capitalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Oh, cool. I didn't know that. Do you know if it's still being shown? Might trickle along to see it. Ps you could have been nicer to me Listen to Fop and the wonders of the Multiverse shall be revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 3D risible.... alex? Look, I let Fish invent his own words in the same way I let you invent your own realities. OK? No harm done, is there? No you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11080 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Aye, but Happy, in the history of everything that does work well, there was a period where it didn't. I'm not going to write off a film because of the trailer, and I'm not going to write off a technology just because it doesn't work perfectly yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Form over content the victory of capitalism? I think they're just trying to do something different. As HF says though, there's been an attempt to do something interesting with 3-D every now and again for decades now and I don't think anyone's managed it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Form over content the victory of capitalism? I think they're just trying to do something different. As HF says though, there's been an attempt to do something interesting with 3-D every now and again for decades now and I don't think anyone's managed it yet. Since 1890, you'd have thought they'd have given up by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 25, 2009 Author Share Posted August 25, 2009 Aye, but Happy, in the history of everything that does work well, there was a period where it didn't. I'm not going to write off a film because of the trailer, and I'm not going to write off a technology just because it doesn't work perfectly yet. Neither am I....and you agree the trailer is shit. So what are we arguing about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Form over content the victory of capitalism? I think they're just trying to do something different. As HF says though, there's been an attempt to do something interesting with 3-D every now and again for decades now and I don't think anyone's managed it yet. Since 1890, you'd have thought they'd have given up by now. Until HF mentioned it I didn't realise how old it was but I knew as far back as the 50s in America they were trying this without a great deal of success. I think there was a bit of a craze back then (albeit a short-lived one). If it didn't catch on then (when everyone went to the flicks) you have to wonder if it'll ever catch on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I watch a 3D film at the Imax in Bradford when visiting the National Television museum. It was decent but for large parts of the film I found it uncomfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I watch a 3D film at the Imax in Bradford when visiting the National Television museum. It was decent but for large parts of the film I found it uncomfortable. That one when you're on a rollercoaster etc. is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I watch a 3D film at the Imax in Bradford when visiting the National Television museum. It was decent but for large parts of the film I found it uncomfortable. Bradford can do that, pretend you're in Skegness whilst watching it for a better viewing experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47121 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) The main issue nagging at me throughout this snooze fest of a thread is how will the issue of the glasses be handled at the cinema. If I get a new pair then that's fine, but I don't want to have to wear some that some greasy charver had on half an hour ago. Also, will you be able to watch this at home eventually? Cos how many sets of glasses will you get say if you buy the DVD? and if you get one, that means you have to take turns to watch it. I mean it just sounds not worth bothering with tbh. Come up with a good script and you don't need 3D. Edited August 25, 2009 by Gemmill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 The main issue nagging at me throughout this snooze fest of a thread is how will the issue of the glasses be handled at the cinema. If I get a new pair then that's fine, but I don't want to have to wear some that some greasy charver had on half an hour ago. Also, will you be able to watch this at home eventually? Cos how many sets of glasses will you get say if you buy the DVD? and if you get one, that means you have to take turns to watch it. I mean it just sounds not worth bothering with tbh. Come up with a good script and you don't need 3D. Imagine the poor fecker that had to wear yours. Doesn't usually work in the same way on TV's as it does in the cinema, although there's that new 3DTV which will be the next big rip off, assuming they don't just replace HD with SHD first, that shouldn't need any at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47121 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Have you given some thought to whether you'll be able to get them on over your jam jars, Tyrannosaurus Nerd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Have you given some thought to whether you'll be able to get them on over your jam jars, Tyrannosaurus Nerd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 25, 2009 Author Share Posted August 25, 2009 The main issue nagging at me throughout this snooze fest of a thread is how will the issue of the glasses be handled at the cinema. If I get a new pair then that's fine, but I don't want to have to wear some that some greasy charver had on half an hour ago. Also, will you be able to watch this at home eventually? Cos how many sets of glasses will you get say if you buy the DVD? and if you get one, that means you have to take turns to watch it. I mean it just sounds not worth bothering with tbh. Come up with a good script and you don't need 3D. They'd prefer it didn't transfer to the home. It's basically an anti-piracy measure. Fish wouldn't dream of downloading Avatar because the 2D version isn't the film. The director says you have to see it 3D to see it properly....and rather than being £6.50....you have to pay £9.50....but you can't keep the glasses or anything and pay £6.50 next time....you have to pay more because they need new projectors and that....not because they'll be showing 3D films for years....but because they'll be showing digital films for years....but digital is lower quality than film.....so they can't exactly charge more for a poorer picture....but it saves the studios money when they make the film and add effects....so we're getting it whether we like it or not....and funding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 The main issue nagging at me throughout this snooze fest of a thread is how will the issue of the glasses be handled at the cinema. If I get a new pair then that's fine, but I don't want to have to wear some that some greasy charver had on half an hour ago. Also, will you be able to watch this at home eventually? Cos how many sets of glasses will you get say if you buy the DVD? and if you get one, that means you have to take turns to watch it. I mean it just sounds not worth bothering with tbh. Come up with a good script and you don't need 3D. They'd prefer it didn't transfer to the home. It's basically an anti-piracy measure. Fish wouldn't dream of downloading Avatar because the 2D version isn't the film. The director says you have to see it 3D to see it properly....and rather than being £6.50....you have to pay £9.50....but you can't keep the glasses or anything and pay £6.50 next time....you have to pay more because they need new projectors and that....not because they'll be showing 3D films for years....but because they'll be showing digital films for years....but digital is lower quality than film.....so they can't exactly charge more for a poorer picture....but it saves the studios money when they make the film and add effects....so we're getting it whether we like it or not....and funding it. You think anti-piracy measures (that just happen to help rake in more investment) are a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Could have bought 3 Newcastle's with the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 25, 2009 Author Share Posted August 25, 2009 The main issue nagging at me throughout this snooze fest of a thread is how will the issue of the glasses be handled at the cinema. If I get a new pair then that's fine, but I don't want to have to wear some that some greasy charver had on half an hour ago. Also, will you be able to watch this at home eventually? Cos how many sets of glasses will you get say if you buy the DVD? and if you get one, that means you have to take turns to watch it. I mean it just sounds not worth bothering with tbh. Come up with a good script and you don't need 3D. They'd prefer it didn't transfer to the home. It's basically an anti-piracy measure. Fish wouldn't dream of downloading Avatar because the 2D version isn't the film. The director says you have to see it 3D to see it properly....and rather than being £6.50....you have to pay £9.50....but you can't keep the glasses or anything and pay £6.50 next time....you have to pay more because they need new projectors and that....not because they'll be showing 3D films for years....but because they'll be showing digital films for years....but digital is lower quality than film.....so they can't exactly charge more for a poorer picture....but it saves the studios money when they make the film and add effects....so we're getting it whether we like it or not....and funding it. You think anti-piracy measures (that just happen to help rake in more investment) are a bad thing? Why don't you have done with it and suck my cock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 The main issue nagging at me throughout this snooze fest of a thread is how will the issue of the glasses be handled at the cinema. If I get a new pair then that's fine, but I don't want to have to wear some that some greasy charver had on half an hour ago. Also, will you be able to watch this at home eventually? Cos how many sets of glasses will you get say if you buy the DVD? and if you get one, that means you have to take turns to watch it. I mean it just sounds not worth bothering with tbh. Come up with a good script and you don't need 3D. They'd prefer it didn't transfer to the home. It's basically an anti-piracy measure. Fish wouldn't dream of downloading Avatar because the 2D version isn't the film. The director says you have to see it 3D to see it properly....and rather than being £6.50....you have to pay £9.50....but you can't keep the glasses or anything and pay £6.50 next time....you have to pay more because they need new projectors and that....not because they'll be showing 3D films for years....but because they'll be showing digital films for years....but digital is lower quality than film.....so they can't exactly charge more for a poorer picture....but it saves the studios money when they make the film and add effects....so we're getting it whether we like it or not....and funding it. You think anti-piracy measures (that just happen to help rake in more investment) are a bad thing? Why don't you have done with it and suck my cock? "One swallow doesn't make a spring". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now