Will 3-D rescue the movie business?

[Sandor 459]

From www.showbizdata.com

Digital 3-D cinema could be the motion picture industry's strongest defense against piracy, Titanic director James Cameron said Sunday. Speaking at the National Association of Broadcasters' Digital Cinema Summit in Las Vegas, Cameron said that Digital 3-D "offers a powerful experience which you can only have in the movie theater." He lauded technology that permits virtually any film to be transformed into a 3-D version, and indicated that he is considering releasing his 1997 blockbuster Titanic in 3-D. "Digital 3-D is a revolutionary form of showmanship that is within our grasp. It can get people off their butts and away from their portable devices and get people back in the theaters where they belong," he said.

Well; what do you think?

[AC1 3,565]

Even old films can be made 3D with this new technology. Of course, Lucas is very enthusiastic and wants to release the Star Wars series in 3D.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

It can get people off their butts and away from their portable devices and get people back in the theaters where they belong," he said.[

Lowering the prices slightly, limit the amount of commercials we have to suffer before the film begins, and kick out anyone who uses a cellphone or otherwise makes a nuisance of themselves would be a good start.

So far most films released in 3D treated the format as a gimmick.

But in the last decade or so there has been a large emphesis on surround sound in both cinema's and home cinema's.

It's possible that a visual version of that might be the next big thing.

Perhaps this will mean a re-release of Jaws 3D.

[nightscape94 965]

Cameron's version of 3D is not the "pop-out" type. It's just added depth and dimension to the picture, giving it more feel and reality.

Tim

[Sixers 0]

I think that an actual storyline would do wonders for movies than that damn CGI.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

It can get people off their butts and away from their portable devices and get people back in the theaters where they belong," he said.[

Lowering the prices slightly, limit the amount of commercials we have to suffer before the film begins, and kick out anyone who uses a cellphone or otherwise makes a nuisance of themselves would be a good start.

That, and to stop overhyping useless junk.

[Ollie 859]

Make good films and lower prices and you might get people back in the theaters.

They tried a 3D comeback in the early 80's and I don't remember it being to popular.

[futuremartymcfly 0]

well, 3-d might work if you can have a 3-d movie thats any good, plus a movie you can actually see while wearing the glasses without paying i-max prices.

[nightscape94 965]

Apparently, this new 3D technology doesn't require glasses.

Tim

[futuremartymcfly 0]

really? how is that going to work?

[robthehand 3]

Apparently, this new 3D technology doesn't require glasses.

Tim

How!?

- Rob, who might find that a bit... overwhelming

[Trent B 317]

I think they still do require the special glasses. Before I moved from Vegas I went to the Star Trek Experience one last time and went through The Borg 4-D Invasion for the first time and they gave us the special 3-D glasses. They were designed differently almost actual glasses but it was necessary to have them.

[nightscape94 965]

Oh, my bad. The new glasses are plastic frames with clear lenses, but yeah, you still need them. I thought I read somewhere that the new technology just added more depth to the image already on screen and really wasn't the traditional 3D...sorry.

Tim

[JoeinAR 1,759]

gimics will not save the movie industry

[Damo 0]

Would it possible to put the 3D glasses lenses in the film projector camera, and would that work and save the trouble of putting the 3D glasses on?

[JoeinAR 1,759]

no because the camera projects, it doesn't see

[Elmo Lewis 6]

gimics will not save the movie industry

Didn't Murnau (or Chaplin, to use an example Joe will understand) say that when sound was adhered to movies in 1927? Or anyone else about the use of color film? Or CinemaScope? How many times will we have hear this?

[JoeinAR 1,759]

sound isn't a gimic, its time tested,

3d has come and gone, and come and gone, and come and gone, as long as you have to wear glasses it remains a gimic.

I'd say nice try Ross, but it really wasn't, oh and byt the way, how many films are still made in Cinemascope.

the sound your hear is Ross' argument crumbling to the earth.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

sound isn't a gimic, its time tested,

Fact is that sound adds theatrality to the cinematographic experience. That's why so many directors ated it. "Talkies" contamined pure cinema. The fact that you've grown with it doesn't mean it is not a gimmick that gets in the way of the visual narration of a story, which is what cinema is all about.

In fact, your beloved Spielberg tries to keep away from dialog as a much as possible. A Hitchcock trait he inherited quite wisely.

3d has come and gone, and come and gone, and come and gone, as long as you have to wear glasses it remains a gimic.

Well, sound came and went since 1896 until it was finally established in the mid 1920's. Actually, it wasn't used after quite a bit later, in 1927. Nobody wanted to finance a "talkie" back then because they thought it was just a gimmick. "Anyone who wants to see a spoken story," they said, "can just go to the theater." Use your imagination for an IMAX analogy.

byt the way, how many films are still made in Cinemascope.

I take it that's a question, despite the punctuation nightmare?

I'd say the big ones. Even Spielberg has gone back to it lately. Or Disney in some animated recent features. It's not as hyped now because it is far from being something fresh and new and it's frankly not a strong commercial selling point. But, historically speaking, it was invented then to draw a line between cinema and TV and is now used for artistic and expressive reasons. Just like 3D will be in 50, 70 years.

the sound your hear is Ross' argument crumbling to the earth.

No, it's the sound of a factless, authoritative reply coming up.

[Ollie 859]

[tpigeon 3]

The one consistent common denominator with cinema and how its progressed over the years is the image on a two dimensional screen. 3-D has come and gone, as Joe has pointed out, precisely because it was a gimmick. What James Cameron is doing is supposedly revolutionizing cinema in that we won't need galsses. Films may be viewed in a three dimensional format without glasses, and it may in fact be what changes cinema. For better or worse, I don't know. I remain skeptical, because to me it does seem like a gimmick. The beauty of a good film, to me, has always been the relationship between the viewer and the filmmaker and how they each engage the world that exists on that two-dimensional screen. The brilliant filmmakers have discovered and used various visual techniques to build narrative worlds that live and breathe in the mind and imagination of the viewer, despite being an image projected on the four corners of a two-dimensional screen. The 2-D aspect of it is the barrier that prevents it from being real, but the beauty of it is creating narratives and images that transcend the two-dimensional aspect of the screen. That's great cinema. This 3-D thing seems like it's almost a betrayal of what cinema is all about, another technological apparatus to distract from the narrative and what the filmmaker should really be doing. Maybe I'll feel different when this supposed 3-D revolution happens, but I will always feel that the defining aspect of cinema is a moving image existing on a flat screen.

Ted

[JoeinAR 1,759]

I take it that's a question, despite the punctuation nightmare?  

I'd say the big ones. Even Spielberg has gone back to it lately. Or Disney in some animated recent features. It's not as hyped now because it is far from being something fresh and new and it's frankly not a strong commercial selling point. But, historically speaking, it was invented then to draw a line between cinema and TV and is now used for artistic and expressive reasons. Just like 3D will be in 50, 70 years.  

JoeinAr wrote:

the sound your hear is Ross' argument crumbling to the earth.

No, it's the sound of a factless, authoritative reply coming up.

If only you were capable, which you were not. Cinemascope was last used before you were even born, so no Spielberg hasn't used it.

wanna try again?

oh and sorry about the punctuation nightmares Ross, I didn't know you were a punctuation Nazi, but living in Spain, I guess you're a punctuation facist.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

Actually, the 1997 animated feature Anastasia used the CinemaScope process, and it is still used on occasion, even though it is not by any means a standard any more.

These days, it is more common to use Panavision's anamorphic lenses to shoot movies in the widescreen aspect ratio, which is about the same as the CinemaScope aspect ratio was. The whole wider aspect ratio thing was a gimmick introduced to bring people back to the theaters, so they could have more image at the sides of the screen, rather than the old 4:3 aspect ratio they had at home.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

If only you were capable,  which you were not.  Cinemascope was last used before you were even born, so no Spielberg hasn't used it.

What's the difference really between CinemaScope and widescreen movies? As in, Minority Report. Anyway, as Marc said 1997's Anastasia was released in 'Scope - and I'm not 9 years old. I know you don't like younger people, Joe, but there's a difference between 9 and 21.

oh and sorry about the punctuation nightmares Ross, I didn't know you were a punctuation Nazi, but living in Spain, I guess you're a punctuation facist.

Well, if my country of residence makes my American upbringing and my own intelligence less valid... yeah, I guess that brings a fascist into the conversation.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Not quite true Marc,

While the lens system has been retired for decades, 20th Century Fox has used the trademark in recent years on at least three films - Down with Love, which was shot with Panavision optics but used the credit as a throwback to the films it references, and the Don Bluth films Anastasia and Titan A.E. at Bluth's insistence. Nonetheless, these films are not true CinemaScope as they use modern lenses. CinemaScope's association with anamorphic projection is still so embedded in mass consciousness that anamorphic prints are often referred to, erroneously, as "'Scope" prints.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

Not quite true Marc,

While the lens system has been retired for decades, 20th Century Fox has used the trademark in recent years on at least three films - Down with Love, which was shot with Panavision optics but used the credit as a throwback to the films it references, and the Don Bluth films Anastasia and Titan A.E. at Bluth's insistence. Nonetheless, these films are not true CinemaScope as they use modern lenses. CinemaScope's association with anamorphic projection is still so embedded in mass consciousness that anamorphic prints are often referred to, erroneously, as "'Scope" prints.

In that case, I stand corrected.

Still, I'm quite sure Ross was referring to the issue of wider aspect ratios, and not so much the CinemaScope process singled out.

[Olivier 5]

How about taking it very literally, without any intellectual considerations?

If you consider 3D as a mere gimmick that can only add to the spectacular aspect, without improving the story, why not use it precisely for spectacular movies? Star Wars might be the paradigm here (flying through space), action / adventure movies, ...

This could make them even more impressive, and lure people back in theaters, since this experience would be specific to it and couldn't be reproduced with your home theater set.

Since (I suppose) it's the kind of movies that sell the more tickets, it might indeed help generate a lot of cash, which might be used for various projects.

If you consider it more intellectually, such brilliant filmmakers as Spielberg, Cameron, Lynch, may very well find ways to produce intellectually stimulating movies that benefit from this technology.

Good story and characterization are still the best things, but from a strictly economic viewpoint, it might just work.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

Aren't they currently developing 3D computer screens, that enable you to play video games in a realistic 3D environment, with actual depth?

[Goldsmithfan 3]

I always thought that James Cameron lost his mind sometime around Titanic.

I guess I was right.

[King Mark 2,924]

IMAX 3D has been around for a while.I was there for the 80's 3D renewal period:Friday the 13th part 3,Jaws 3D,Treasure of the Four Crowns,Spacehunter...It was fun while it lasted but it was a gimmick then and always will be.

K.M.

[nightscape94 965]

I'm willing to give Lucas, Cameron, and all those folks a good chance. I'll try anything once.

Tim

[tpigeon 3]

From movieweb: http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/11/12411.php

My last question, and we usually don't hear from directors on this, why do you think we're seeing a decline at the box office?

Ridley Scott: You know, I don't know? I think you can argue all kinds of reasons. You can argue there's an increase in the digital market. There is an access to... people can now afford very high quality technology, where you can have a very good reproduction of a large picture on a large screen at home. People go out less. There's all kinds of reasons. I don't know that it's going to stay that way but, I think also, we've got to start making better movies.

Finally, we have a director who's willing to come forward and acknowledge this fact.

Ted