|
Post by GL on Mar 1, 2011 10:56:24 GMT -5
None of those are truly gimmicks at all. Color, sound and screen-width are the normal filmmaking styles that are used to tell the story of the movie within. A gimmick is a special trick that can only be found in select showings that enhances the experience, hence why it's a gimmick. It's not the norm, it's a special treat.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on May 6, 2011 16:04:02 GMT -5
Figured I'd ask in case you have a thought on this, GL. I am watching Piranha 3D on bluray at home in 3D. It is still a gimmick since I can watch it in 3D in my house? If so, why? Like I said, there was a time when you could watch movies in color in the theater, but that was the only occasion you could see them that way because your home television set would've been black and white. Did that make color movies a gimmick? Will 3D cease to be a gimmick when everyone has a 3D television and it isn't rare anymore?
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 9, 2011 9:45:40 GMT -5
Let me offer you this, it'll help to where I'm coming from more than just a straight-up rant against 3D:
Films are about presenting a story, meant to entertain in every intent, to an audience not there to witness it as though they were there to see it, done through the eyes of the camera. We are an invisible entity along with the characters in the film, where our eyes looking in on what's going on is the camera. What we see is exactly the same as what comes across the screen, the sound is what we hear and so on.
Now, apply that rationale to any film and you'll see where I'm coming from.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on May 9, 2011 13:41:55 GMT -5
Sorry, but that is just not true. Sometimes the camera intentionally adopts an aggressive or hostile stance to the characters. Sometimes it adopts a sympathetic one. Camera angles and what you are permitted to see change the feel of a movie or scene completely. Sometimes the camera even takes on a first person point of view of a character in the film (think the opening of the original Halloween, for example). Do we hear and see exactly what the characters do? Not necessarily. Remember, for example, the scenes in the original F13 where several characters immediately identifies the killer, but you the viewer have no idea at that time who the killer is.
In short, there are all kinds of ways that a scene can be filmed. Different viewpoints and perspectives. Filming in 3D is just one more perspective that the camera can take on. Your statement does not make 3D a gimmick equivalent to buzzing theater seats. I think it is pretty clearly more than that. Is it necessary to watch a 3D movie in 3D? Not yet (though I can easily imagine how a film could be done so that it was integral to the plot and development of the film). It isn't necessary to watch a film in widescreen either, though. You can watch a film in pan and scan if you want. That certainly does not mean that a film presented in widescreen doesn't look better.
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 10, 2011 9:49:39 GMT -5
Meh. Mere exceptions, not the rule.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Jun 24, 2012 19:15:15 GMT -5
I've never seen it in 3D but would sure love to. In fact if they ever release a remastered blu-ray in 3D it would be make me upgrade to a new blu ray and television. Well it looks like my wish is coming true - Warner Bros. have announced that they are going to be releasing all their catalogue of 3D movies,starting with Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder in October,before moving onto House of Wax. Looks like I need to start searching for 3D equipment.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Jun 24, 2012 19:38:49 GMT -5
Enjoy. I think I'm still a few years away from upgrading to 3d.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Jun 25, 2012 4:20:19 GMT -5
Enjoy. I think I'm still a few years away from upgrading to 3d. It's not that expensive now. I have a LG passive 3D tv and it comes up great!
|
|
|
Post by GP on Jun 25, 2012 4:58:50 GMT -5
I guess I'm with GL on the 3D question although perhaps for slightly different reasons. I find 3D (RealD) to be a distraction. It's not true 3D, it's a number of 2D images overlaid over each other at different 'depths' that reminds me of a short lived 80s 8 bit computer game gimmick called parallax. I hate wearing 3D glasses as they mute the colour vibrancy of whatever I'm watching and everytime frenetic motion takes place everything becomes blurred and undefined. I saw Prometheus in both 3 and 2D and it was an infinitely better experience in 2D (as well as being about 30% cheaper per ticket). The amount of detail put into the movie by set designers and sfx crews deserves to be seen and in 3D I missed so much thanks to the aforementioned muting and the sheer distraction of the gimmick. All these problems were even worse in John Carter (which for the record I really enjoyed). I'm with Chris Nolan on this. The sooner 3D dies again the better.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 25, 2012 9:52:47 GMT -5
Thank you, GP. Glad I got someone else on my side on this.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Jun 25, 2012 10:00:24 GMT -5
Thank you, GP. Glad I got someone else on my side on this. With you all the way on this Daddio. A pox upon 3D.
|
|
|
Post by Clathian Salvator on Jun 26, 2012 13:30:02 GMT -5
Great Price film, Charles Bronson's first film...with a fake last name
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Jun 26, 2012 17:10:52 GMT -5
Actually mate, Buchinsky was his real name.Bronson was the fake.
|
|
|
Post by Clathian Salvator on Jun 27, 2012 8:04:27 GMT -5
Corrected. Thanks Gave it a 5. Of course every Price film gets a 5 from me
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Jul 1, 2013 18:15:59 GMT -5
October 1st is the release date for the 3D blu ray. I am already salivating.
|
|