3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches [Archive]

View Full Version : 3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches

Smokey

08-13-2011, 05:51 PM

The nnew research has for the first time supposedly offered proof that 3D offers no measurable improvement in enjoyment for the vast majority of film audiences.

According to a study of 400 filmgoers by L Mark Carrier, of California State University, 3D movies do not allow viewers to experience more intense emotional reactions, are no more immersive, and do not offer any advantage over their 2D counterparts in terms of enhancing the ability to recall a film's details.

Carrier's study did, however, suggest that watching films in stereoscope increased threefold the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision.

Participants in the research were asked to watch one of three films – Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and How to Train Your Dragon – in either 2D or 3D. They were then asked to detail their responses using a list of 60 words ranging from the mild, such as "enjoyment", to the more intense, such as "anger" and "rage". Carrier says there was very little difference between the response of those who watched in 2D and those who viewed in 3D, which surprised researchers.

The research is just the latest suggestion that the tide might be turning against 3D. Many recent films shot in the format – a notable exception is Transformers: Dark of the Moon – have failed to offer a 3D box-office boost in the US, and film-makers are beginning to turn against studios that authorise cheap post-production conversions in the hope of achieving a short-term financial return.

3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches, claims study | Film | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/aug/11/3d-no-better-than-2d)

Hyfi

08-14-2011, 06:09 AM

The nnew research has for the first time supposedly offered proof that 3D offers no measurable improvement in enjoyment for the vast majority of film audiences.

Carrier's study did, however, suggest that watching films in stereoscope increased threefold the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision.

]

You will probably only get one response to say otherwise, but it's a no brainer at this time. Nowhere near enough studies to prove otherwise.

ericc22

08-16-2011, 07:45 AM

I have a 3D tv - a Samsung. We got a 3D starter pack with it. My kids thought it was the coolest thing. For the first 10 minutes. Then even they lost interest. Useless!

Eric

markw

08-16-2011, 08:42 AM

3D is a gimmick. It won't make a bad movie good and I doubt it'll make a good ovie better.

It may be more "interesting" for a time but the basic flaws or goodness of the movie will still shine through the surface gimmickery. I've seen a few to see what it was all about but nowadays, I won't pay the premium for the glasses.

Or, you can't polish a turd.

Poultrygeist

08-16-2011, 01:46 PM

Avitar in 3D was a near out of body experience for me on my Panasonic 55ST30 and so was The Ultimate Wave. ESPN3D is also very cool. 3D is here to stay but think of it as another entertaining feature. It's not an every day format.

Smokey

08-16-2011, 07:52 PM

Avitar in 3D was a near out of body experience for me on my Panasonic 55ST30 and so was The Ultimate Wave.

One reason Avatar might be exceptiion to this case might be that live action was filmed using digital 3-D cameras. So the effects are kind of "real". But majority of 3-D movies these days use post production 3-D effects due to cost-including Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans that were shown to research partcipants. So the results are a mix bag.

Glassses are probably the most inconvenient feature of 3_d format.

Poultrygeist

08-17-2011, 01:44 AM

The glasses are inconvenient and not cheap at this point but mine came with two free pair. I wanted a good plasma at a good price and the one I bought happened to be 3D. It was cheaper than some of the lesser rated non 3D's so a no brainer for me. I do however appreciate the novelty of 3D and it's been a grandkid magnet.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

08-26-2011, 11:33 AM

One reason Avatar might be exceptiion to this case might be that live action was filmed using digital 3-D cameras. So the effects are kind of "real". But majority of 3-D movies these days use post production 3-D effects due to cost-including Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans that were shown to research partcipants. So the results are a mix bag.

Glassses are probably the most inconvenient feature of 3_d format.

You would be really surprised about how much of those live 3D shots had to be redone in post production.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

08-26-2011, 11:36 AM

E-Stat

08-27-2011, 07:14 AM

A study done without...
Last weekend, the wife and I along with one of her friends saw the Harry Potter film at a recently built digital IMAX. From my perspective, the video quality was superb and I found myself totally immersed in the experience. That is also one of three places where I've seen Avatar in all of its glory.

My wife enjoyed the movie and found the lighting better than the previous film, but is not a 3D fan. She and her friend also report getting headaches from watching 3D. Specifically, she commented to me (without prompting) that she should take some Aleve before watching. Bulb? Check. Vision? Minor corrected myopia. I think it is a form of motion sickness since she also doesn't like extreme G rides - which I thoroughly enjoy.

rw

Nasir

08-27-2011, 02:56 PM

I may be in the minority, but I have gone to the theaters for almost all of the 3D movies with the exception of Avatar and Thor, and am a fan of 3D. Its NOT something I would want to experience every single day, but nonetheless, its a thrill for me. I expect to see Captain America next week...... whenever I am working far from home, I prefer to spend my time dining and watching a good football match in a restaurant OR going to the movies, I just cannot sit in the hotel room and watch TV.

RGA

08-29-2011, 11:14 AM

Sir Terrence the Terrible

08-30-2011, 11:13 AM

I don't find that 3D adds anything to the experience - it detracts from it IME - but it could be that the movies sucked anyway. Clash of the Titans was really bad and Avatar to me was only okay. I didn't find the visual effects all that great either - sorry but watching half a cartoon and half people is not my idea of great special effects and adding 3D is just a gimmick to me.

Clash of the Titans is one of the worst 3D conversions ever done, and it is followed closely by The Last Airbender which was actually not a bad movie. In both cases Warner waited to the last moment to make the decision to convert them which did not allow enough time to do it right. Neither movie during pre-production had any plans for a 3D conversion, so no shots were ever planned to support a good 3D conversion.

Another case of people in some board room saying "look at this technology we can use isn't it cool" and no one bothering to ask "but should we?"

The higher price for the tickets tells them they should, but the lower draw they are getting because of the higher price is telling them they are overselling this product.

I think you go to the the people who teach film school at universities - arguably American's top film Critic Roger Ebert and I think he's right. I would argue that we don't need to suck all the imagination out of the viewer.

Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html)

His point 3 was a continuous annoyance in Avatar - Avatar in 3d looks absolutely fake all the time. I see the 2d screen and then I see a kind of overlay - 3d is just junk and I'm amazed so many people let all these obvious problems slip by. Avatar was also a mediocre movie with some horrible 2D cardboard characters - maybe they knew this so throw a bunch of visuals at the screen to make it seem better. ugh.

Roger's 9th point mirrors an article that notes the movie theater industry may be in some big trouble and very soon. If people are like me and some of them at least are - I was a guy who went to 64 movies in the theaters in one year. This year I have seen maybe 4. Apparently viewership at the movies is down nearly 10% this year from last.

Roger Ebert's opinions are well past their prime. He is stuck in yesteryear, and is creating all of this opposition to get press, and remain relevant. When theaters went digital, he complained about the quality of the picture saying it had lost its soul when compared to film. A study of 2,000 viewers showed that overwhelmingly theater goers thought digital cinema looked as good as 35mm film. They do however look very different, but there is no "one is better than the other" to be found. He didn't like digital sound when it came on the scene in 1992. He just does not seem to like progress when it comes to the cinema. , and there is no proof whatsoever that film presentation has degraded in any way because of digital.

I say boo to him. Retire.....

RGA

08-30-2011, 12:00 PM

Smokey

08-31-2011, 03:18 AM

When theaters went digital, he complained about the quality of the picture saying it had lost its soul when compared to film. A study of 2,000 viewers showed that overwhelmingly theater goers thought digital cinema looked as good as 35mm film. They do however look very different, but there is no "one is better than the other" to be found.

I think what he said about digital is that movies that have heavy computer-aided special-effects seem to look better on digital video, were movies that depict the real world look better on films (given that movies shot on digital shown on video projector, and that movies shot on film projected on film).

Lucas demonstrates potential of digital video with 'Attack of the Clones' :: rogerebert.com :: News & comment (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020514/COMMENTARY/55010304)

RGA

08-31-2011, 10:26 AM

I think the debate should be about traditional effects versus CGI - to me there is question whatsoever that Traditional effects look about a billion times better than the CGI in films like Avatar, and the new Star Wars movies. Some blending is ok.

I'm curious to see the new The Thing will look which apparently will come out later this year. If they CGI it - it will look dumb - I can already bank on it.

In fact looking at the trailer I can already see the terrible fake looking CGI in several scenes - It's already depressing me.

The skill in movie making is gone - handed over to people who sit behind computer screens. They'll probably put it out in 3D cause it's "better" - geez - meanwhile the Thing 1982 is nearly 30 years old and the effects are still more believable than most of the crap being pumped out today. There was ACTUAL skill involved in those effects.

And I won't even start on the whole prequel thing. I will give ti a shot because it was from the makers of the people who remade Dawn of the Dead. Though the original Dawn of the Dead was still miles better the remake was entertaining on a visceral level - just lost the mood, the satire, social commentary, intelligence, sense of doom - but hey it had better effects and audiences are much dumber so I guess it's good enough.

Hollywood is complete crap. They need garbage like 3D because the films have zero merit.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

08-31-2011, 12:07 PM

I think his points are valid when it comes to the mind seeing 3D on a 2D screen. The technology of 3D - including Avatar which is supposedly THE best film of the bunch and even Roger liked it more than me looks like a 3D overlay of 2D. In other words to me - it looks completely artificial and I can see something in the foreground a big gap and then something on a 2D screen behind it. It just looks so incredibly fake and has since Jaws 3D.

RGA, his points are bullcrap. I watch 3D on a 180" screen, a 65" screen, and a 55" screen sitting at the proper distance for those screen widths, and I don't see what you are seeing at all. There is some very good 3D out there, and there is some very bad, but not all exhibit the qualities you state. Avatar certainly does not look like you describe.

I have no problem with technology - if it actually improves the movie going experience - it doesn't in my view - it makes it look fake. But that's my problem with a lot of the CGI affects and why Empire Strikes back looks more REAL than Lucas' new movies which look like video game cartoon effects. It's pretty sad that with all the money spent on CGI that a ship in Empire looks like it is made of real steel and has substance while the new movies look like computer made graphics - which of course they are.

First, I don't agree with you that the ship on Empire looks like a real ship, it looks like a wire model to me. The later editions certainly look better better, but they have never been able to clean up the matte markings around the ship.

If you read Ebert's article - and I don't think you read all of the three pages he did note that he was impressed with Avatar's 3D:

I read all three pages ages ago. My problem with Ebert in general is his disdain for progress, and his one dimensional opinion to what he considers a good movie. His opinions when related to film making are outdated, and just because he agrees with you in this one respect does not mean a thing. An opinion is an opinion, and that is all he is forwarding here. His opinions does not make anything fact.

"Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for children’s films, animation, and films such as James Cameron’s Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameron’s film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. It’s used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameron’s Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.

Hitchcocks 3D is nothing like 3D today. To use that as a basis for an argument just shows how far you have to stretch to make a point.

As far as the last comment, simply not true. Camaron, Bay, Nolan, Burton, and a host of other directors are embracing 3D without any encouragement from the marketing departments.

Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.../...

This crap is just plain wrong, and I know this first hand as I work at the studio that produced it. Burton shot Alice with 3D in mind, but could not get the budget to do live 3D. With the 3D cameras they had available at the time, it would have doubled the time to make the picture which would have increased costs dramatically. From the ground up, every shot and frame for Alice was designed with 3D in mind.

Your characterization of events shows that you do not have a grasp of the real information surrounding this subject.

9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.

Anything that does not evolve is destined for extinction. Film presentation has to evolve just like video does. It is your impression that the gap between theaters and the home has narrowed, but that is not reality. They have one more card up their sleeve that we may never be able to replicate at home.

What Hollywood needs is a “premium” experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I’ve been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it’s 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who haven’t seen it have no idea how good it is. I’ve seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull’s Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D."

Showscan has been around for years, and it did not stop 3D from coming to theaters. Showscan is much too expensive to do because it involves film - whose cost is skyrocketing. It involves A LOT of film, more than twice as much as film shot at 24fps. The changeover to digital was done to reduce the cost of making the film, and distributing it as well. Those of us who have seen both showscan AND 4k video know the cost of showscan is not worth it when compared to what can be done at 4k resolution.

Your trying to reach backwards to move forwards does not make logical sense. Everywhere you look, everyone is moving away from film because of the cost. They are not going to go back to film ever, so we need to embrace what we have now, and move forward from there.

3D is not the devil you are trying to make it. Those of us that embrace it, enjoy it more than a 2D experience -at least when it is done well. Those like you who have issues with it don't need to demonize it as something that is awful, and does not add to the viewing experience. That is your opinion, and you are welcome to have it, and I am welcome to reject it. I have experience with 3D in both the theater, and in my home, and your comments on it are far to generalized to be taken seriously.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

08-31-2011, 12:32 PM

I think the debate should be about traditional effects versus CGI - to me there is question whatsoever that Traditional effects look about a billion times better than the CGI in films like Avatar, and the new Star Wars movies. Some blending is ok.

There is no debate here because traditional effects are just to expensive to do. They are trying to make movie making cheaper to do, not more expensive

I'm curious to see the new The Thing will look which apparently will come out later this year. If they CGI it - it will look dumb - I can already bank on it.

Until the movie comes out, there is nothing you can bank.

In fact looking at the trailer I can already see the terrible fake looking CGI in several scenes - It's already depressing me.

Trailers are often in a different resolution than the actual movie. They are usually played off a non-secured lower resolution server.

The skill in movie making is gone - handed over to people who sit behind computer screens. They'll probably put it out in 3D cause it's "better" - geez - meanwhile the Thing 1982 is nearly 30 years old and the effects are still more believable than most of the crap being pumped out today. There was ACTUAL skill involved in those effects.

RGA, how many movies have you written, produced, or directed? Nil, so how do you know the skills are gone? Please, you are blowing smoke here, and you really don't have the experience to make comments such as this. The profoundness of your comments can only be measured by your experience in the field - of which you have none.

And I won't even start on the whole prequel thing. I will give ti a shot because it was from the makers of the people who remade Dawn of the Dead. Though the original Dawn of the Dead was still miles better the remake was entertaining on a visceral level - just lost the mood, the satire, social commentary, intelligence, sense of doom - but hey it had better effects and audiences are much dumber so I guess it's good enough.

Hollywood is complete crap. They need garbage like 3D because the films have zero merit.

If you really think Hollywood is crap, stop buying movies, stop going to the theater, and get Hollywood out of your mind altogether. At this point I have grown tired of your uniformed BS in regards to this subject. Put your action where your mouth is, give up on filmmaking and video, and there is no need for your negative comments going forward. Whatever you do, please stop framing your comments like you are a veteran filmmaker unhappy with the way things are going.

They have been making bad movies as long as film has been in existence, so don't try and act like this is a new occurance. This Hollywood is no worse than Hollywood of the 40's and 50's

Nasir

08-31-2011, 02:47 PM

markw

09-01-2011, 09:06 AM

I go to a movie every chance I get, and usually it has to have body count, special effects and whatever else ( OK, I will say it, gratuitous sex and violence ) to take my mind off my customer problems with the machines I repair. And, the screen is BIG and the sound LOUD, nothing at all like what my good neighbors are used to by now!!
So bring on 4D ( Spy Kids movie with 3D glasses and a smell card, from what I gather ..... ) and entertain me please!!This is all entertainment, cotton candy for the mind. If it takes you away from the harsh realities of everyday life, then more power to it.

After all, this isn't brain surgery where someones life is resting on it. It exists to give us a few giggles and/or thrills and if one cannot extend them some literary license and suspend belief for two hours, well, then they deserve to be dissatisfied. IF finding flaws in life is their biggest turh-on, well, I'd rather spend my time enjoying life than spend all my time trying to find every flaw in it.

Unless one deals with this as a profession, all this nit-picking and sneering at a less-than-perfect simulation is not unlike debating which nudie magazine provides the most realistic simulation of a sexual experience. It may show a lot of dedicated effort, but to what avail? It still ain't real, and it never will be!

While I'm no fan of 3D, I have no problem with those who like it. And as long as they don't stop releasing 2D in favor of 3D, I have no problem, but I really think 4D will be easier to implement in the home.

BTW, my favorite 3D scene was the one in "The A-Team" where the inmates were watching the movie with the red/blue glasses. That was one heckuva effect. (Pssssst... I saw it in 2D.)

GMichael

09-01-2011, 09:32 AM

.................
........................................
.................................................. .............
.................................................. ..................................
It is your impression that the gap between theaters and the home has narrowed, but that is not reality. They have one more card up their sleeve that we may never be able to replicate at home. .......
.................................................. ............................
.............................................
.........................
..........

Sticky floors?:skep:
The guy behind you who won't stop talking?:mad2:
The girl in front of you who won't take her hat off?:crazy:
The two in the back row making grunting sounds?:ihih:

Sorry. I had-ta do it.....:lol:
Still friends? ;)

RGA

09-01-2011, 09:54 AM

Blockbuster video canada is going out of business - reason - digital downloads have killed their business.

Movie theaters in Canada are in trouble. Might be in trouble everywhere but they're definitely in trouble in Canada. MPAA BETRAYS THEATERS: Asks FCC To Let Studios Transmit First-Run Films Directly To Consumers – Deadline.com (http://www.deadline.com/2009/11/mpaa-betrays-theaters-asks-fcc-to-let-studios-transmit-first-run-films-directly-to-consumers/)

Feanor

09-01-2011, 11:49 AM

RGA, his points are bullcrap. I watch 3D on a 180" screen, a 65" screen, and a 55" screen sitting at the proper distance for those screen widths, and I don't see what you are seeing at all. There is some very good 3D out there, and there is some very bad, but not all exhibit the qualities you state. Avatar certainly does not look like you describe.
...
To me Avatar looked very good when I saw it in theatre. A few days ago I say Conan the Barbarian and it was terrrible -- kind of like RGA describes: 2D objects floating about a 2D background. I suppose it has something to do with the respecitive technologies.l

......
My problem with Ebert in general is his disdain for progress, and his one dimensional opinion to what he considers a good movie. His opinions when related to film making are outdated, and just because he agrees with you in this one respect does not mean a thing. An opinion is an opinion, and that is all he is forwarding here. His opinions does not make anything fact.
...
Well, I was always more likely to agree with Siskel -- a big loss there.

But RGA has that problem with critics: he picks those who agree with him and presents their views as Gospel.

RGA

09-02-2011, 07:55 AM

No Question Avatar is FAR better than anything else I have seen on 3D. Perhaps it would have helped if I though Avatar was a good movie. I am not fooled by effects into thinking crap stories are good.

Avatar to me looked good compared to Clash of the Titans and there were less issues with what I call overlay - to me when you walk down the street you and are looking at a car coming toward you, you get a smooth transition as the car approaches you - this is LIFE - this is 3D life. In the movies it seems staggered in a series of points (at best) and at worst it seems to jump and you can see it almost as a series of planes. It simply does not look natural either in the theater or on the top of the line Sony I saw it on. It does not look as natural as "Real Life" and anyone who says it delusional.

As for Ebert - He gave Avatar four stars and raved about the 3D - I gave the movie a marginal thumbs down due to stupid writing, formula story, idiotic bad guys, forgettable good guys (cute blue cat lady though) and overrated 3D - I was expecting too much perhaps from all the hype.

I like Ebert - but I don't agree with him too much - he also gave 4 stars to Episode 1 of the new Star Wars with Jar Jar - I shut it off half way through and it was on my list as the worst film of the year. It was an epic fail on pretty much every level and IMO the effects stunk because effects are supposed to aid the story not replace it.

Sir T thinks people who do not have background in film making are not suppose to critique movies. I have a degree in English literature, studied acting, took acting classes - So I am allowed to judge those but I can't say one thing looks more real than another thing. I think the effects in American Werewolf in London look more real than the CGI in American Werewolf in Paris. But I can't say that because I am not a visual effects worker for Universal?

You're talking to a guy who likes the original Doctor Who series which has to have some of the worst effects going. I can see past the effects for the story every time. Take Jurassic Park which was on TV the other day. Holds up pretty well but there are obvious weaknesses with the effects and obvious strengths - it looked great when it came out - and a lot of it was CGI. And because it was a good movie for what it is you can forgive some of the weaker CGI effects.

I enjoy a lot of movies that have obvious CGI effects because the movie is good. What is bothersome to me is a movie that "relies" on CGI is touted as being one of if not the best - costs 200 million plus to make and then because it's a weak movie - I will focus more on the visual effects (after all it's supposed to be great).

With Avatar plenty of people dislike the effects (Ebert's not one of them) - I hope Siskel would have called it out. The Navi look completely fake - cartoons - and no amount of 3D or good effects elsewhere can fix that. Sure it has terrific visual effects for large segments of the movie but they get let down enough to be off putting - and I still don't see the 3D being any sort of aid - several scenes look like a 3D effect - unnatural.

Maybe if there was ONE good movie that came out in 3D it might help - when all of them SUCK it's hard to get into it. Scorcese is making one in 3D so I have hope. But why buy a 3D TV when every movie filmed in 3D is unwatchable crap.

This is my new favorite critic and he is bang on with Avatar Avatar Review (Part 1 of 2) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA)

TheSmartIdiot95

09-02-2011, 09:31 AM

I think that if it's done right, 3D can look good. It doesn't always look fake either.

...one of the worst 3D conversions ever done, and it is followed closely by The Last Airbender which was actually not a bad movie...

Even "The Last Airbender" (not a great movie but still OK) had some parts where the 3D was better than others. But yes, most of the 3D conversion did suck.

...no shots were ever planned to support a good 3D conversion.

And that's when 3D begins to suck. When they don't plan for it or don't think it through.

...live action was filmed using digital 3-D cameras. So the effects are kind of "real". But majority of 3-D movies these days use post production 3-D effects...

I agree. 3D looks better when special cameras and equipment are used instead of post-production editing. It's better to do shots in 3D than to take the 2D shots, make a copy, and do some cheap editing. And the effects are "real" because of how your brain interprets the images when they are taken by 2 cameras at the same time and focused into one image.

If the motion picture industry would spend more money on this equipment than maybe more people would want to see it and actually enjoy it. And yes, some films do look good in 3D.

The glasses are inconvenient and not cheap at this point...

Actually you don't need 3D glasses. Some mobile devices support 3D because they have something similar to the glasses built into the screen. I'm not saying you're wrong. We have yet to see something like that on a full size TV or in a theater. However, my point it that I'm sure you will see it eventually (maybe then I'll buy a 3D TV). My best guess it that it won't go past the point of TVs though (it would cost the theaters too much).

Sir Terrence the Terrible

09-02-2011, 10:46 AM

No Question Avatar is FAR better than anything else I have seen on 3D. Perhaps it would have helped if I though Avatar was a good movie. I am not fooled by effects into thinking crap stories are good.

The story is one thing RGA, the technical part of the movie is something completely different.

Avatar to me looked good compared to Clash of the Titans and there were less issues with what I call overlay - to me when you walk down the street you and are looking at a car coming toward you, you get a smooth transition as the car approaches you - this is LIFE - this is 3D life. In the movies it seems staggered in a series of points (at best) and at worst it seems to jump and you can see it almost as a series of planes. It simply does not look natural either in the theater or on the top of the line Sony I saw it on. It does not look as natural as "Real Life" and anyone who says it delusional.

Its not real life, its CGI. Anyone walking into a CGI based movie looking for what is real is off their rocker. Real is real, and what is created in a computer is what is created in a computer. None of the CGI in Titanic looked like real life, that goes for 2012, Transformers, or any other CGI based movie. You are not looking for real, you are looking for suspension of belief. Two different concepts.

As for Ebert - He gave Avatar four stars and raved about the 3D - I gave the movie a marginal thumbs down due to stupid writing, formula story, idiotic bad guys, forgettable good guys (cute blue cat lady though) and overrated 3D - I was expecting too much perhaps from all the hype.

If you think Avatar's 3D is overrated, then you have no clue to what 3D really is about.

Still I agree with this critic more than Ebert.

I like Ebert - but I don't agree with him too much - he also gave 4 stars to Episode 1 of the new Star Wars with Jar Jar - I shut it off half way through and it was on my list as the worst film of the year. It was an epic fail on pretty much every aspect.

In your opinion. The movie made $924 million dollars world wide, so apparently somebody went to the theater to watch it.

Sir T thinks people who do not have background in film making are not suppose to critique movies. I have a degree in English literature, studied acting, took acting classes - So I am allowed to judge those but I can't say one thing looks more real than another thing. I think the effects in American Werewolf in London look more real than the CGI in American Werewolf in Paris. But I can't say that because I am not a visual effects worker for Universal?

You can critique movies from a story line perspective all you desire. But when you inject revisionist history in the name of "being in the know" about technical and production values of a movie, then I am going to object big time.

I studied film making from the production side, that does not make me a director or DP.

You're talking to a guy who likes the original Doctor Who series which has to have some of the worst effects going. I can see past the effects for the story every time. Take Jurassic Park which was on TV the other day. Holds up pretty well but there are obvious weaknesses with the effects and obvious strengths - it looked great when it came out - and a lot of it was CGI. And because it was a good movie for what it is you can forgive some of the weaker CGI effects.

Good CGI is good CGI. Bad CGI is bad CGI even if the movie was good. You are using your emotional stimuli to judge a technical issue, and I am afraid it colors your perspective from a technical standpoint.

I enjoy a lot of movies that have obvious CGI effects because the movie is good. What is bothersome to me is a movie that "relies" on CGI is touted as being one of if not the best - costs 200 million plus to make and then because it's a weak movie - I will focus more on the visual effects (after all it's supposed to be great).

Perhaps the movie was weak to you, and nobody else.

With Avatar plenty of people dislike the effects (Ebert's not one of them) - I hope Siskel would have called it out. The Navi look completely fake - cartoons - and no amount of 3D or good effects elsewhere can fix that.

This is your opinion, and yours alone. Too bad there are not that many people who share your opinion.

Maybe if there was ONE good movie that came out in 3D it might helps - when all of them SUCK it's hard to get into it. Scorcese is making one in 3D so I have hope. But why buy a 3D TV when every movie filmed in 3D is unwatchable crap.

Why buy a good audio system when there is so much musical crap out there? I bought all of my 3D products because I enjoyed the 3D movies I purchased. I am not going to make a decision to do so based on somebody else's obviously negative opinion if I don't share it.

This is my new favorite critic and he is bang on with Avatar Avatar Review (Part 1 of 2) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA)

Anyone can pick somebody who agrees with their perspective. This is the weakness of your comments - they are one sided.

Feanor

09-02-2011, 11:36 AM

...
As for Ebert - He gave Avatar four stars and raved about the 3D - I gave the movie a marginal thumbs down due to stupid writing, formula story, idiotic bad guys, forgettable good guys (cute blue cat lady though) and overrated 3D - I was expecting too much perhaps from all the hype.

I like Ebert - but I don't agree with him too much - he also gave 4 stars to Episode 1 of the new Star Wars with Jar Jar - I shut it off half way through and it was on my list as the worst film of the year. It was an epic fail on pretty much every level and IMO the effects stunk because effects are supposed to aid the story not replace it.
...
I think if the industry wants to flog 3D they and better come up with better applications of the concept. The 3D was good in Avatar , (never mind the plot which was cliché upon cliché), but other flicks not so much. C of T and Conan which are just saw are not only rubbish movies, they misuse 3D as gimick. This schlock might not stop 3D adoption but underminds its credibility and will slow it down.

Star Wars Episode 1 was a travesty to old-time Star Wars lovers. Strictly an effort to sell toys, games, and T-shirts to pre-teen children.

Ebert isn't my favorite critic by a long shot. For one thing he's simply too lenient with 2nd rate films.

RGA

09-02-2011, 03:15 PM

Its not real life, its CGI. Anyone walking into a CGI based movie looking for what is real is off their rocker. Real is real, and what is created in a computer is what is created in a computer. None of the CGI in Titanic looked like real life, that goes for 2012, Transformers, or any other CGI based movie. You are not looking for real, you are looking for suspension of belief. Two different concepts.

This is best accomplished through story and performance which is why one is able to suspend disbelief with great stories and lesser effects than great effects and dumb stories.

If you think Avatar's 3D is overrated, then you have no clue to what 3D really is about.

I know that it doesn't look particularly great - I know that a much better movie and 2D is superior to this schlock done in 3D. When a good movie is done in 3D then we might have something.

In your opinion. The movie made $924 million dollars world wide, so apparently somebody went to the theater to watch it.

Half of the U.S. population doesn't believe in Evolution, McDonalds sells the most burgers, and Bose sells more than the 5 top selling high end speaker manufacturers "combined" - Apparently lots of people have lousy taste and aren't as bright as most night lights. Big deal.

Good CGI is good CGI. Bad CGI is bad CGI even if the movie was good. You are using your emotional stimuli to judge a technical issue, and I am afraid it colors your perspective from a technical standpoint.

I go all the way back to Aristotle and his theory of tragedy. CGI and special effects in general would be classified as spectacle. (this would also include set design, make-up, costuming etc. From most important to least important is Plot, Characters, Thought, Diction, Melody, and last Spectacle.

Sure he was talking about plays but this is easily transferred to movies - and I suspect why plays tend to be much superior to movies. As Brent Spiner once said - if it ain't on the page it ain't on the stage. Star Trek IV was the best Star Trek movie and used the special effects as a backdrop rather than part of the story. You could argue for The Wrath of Khan but it was hardly due to the special effects. It was the acting and the character development of the Kirk and Khan and their battle (submarines in space).

I can think of movies where the effects were critical to the movie's ambiance - Blade Runner comes to mind, 2001, The original Star Wars and Empire - but those were only great because of well developed characters and effective simple story. Had those not been there - it would have been forgotten ages ago - they only hold up on the strength of the unforgettable characters - as you noted the effects have problems to you. To me I can let them go because A they're 30+ years old and they hold merit based on the strength of the story and characters like Vader, C3-PO and Han Solo. Avatar? Hell I saw it when it came out and I can't name you a single character - not one - completely forgettable.

Perhaps the movie was weak to you, and nobody else.

This is your opinion, and yours alone. Too bad there are not that many people who share your opinion.

Yes most people who saw it liked it - but seriously Sir T - Nobody Else? I guess it's me and Mr. Plinkett and
"Avatar": Dances with aliens - Stephanie Zacharek - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/review/2009/12/17/avatar)

Avatar (Three-Disc Extended Collector's Edition) (2009) - Preview | Sci-Fi Movie Page (http://www.scifimoviepage.com/dvd/avatar_extended-dvd.html)

ON FILM: Mining gold (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/jan/29/film-mining-gold-20100129/)

"Last night a fellow critic was talking about the Blu-ray release of "Avatar"and the bonus feature of a full-length documentary. I explained that having to watch a full length doc on "Avatar" was akin to having surgery without anesthesia and then being forced to watch a video of it after. No thank you! I did not like "Avatar" and I have no interest in any bonus features that prolong the agony of the 160 film. The film looked beautiful but the storytelling was formulaic and the plot was a rehash of "Fern Gully." Plus with such a trite tale, Cameron didn't need nearly three hours to simply deliver predictable clichés. I know the film delighted audiences and racked up big bucks at the box office but it bored me to distraction." New on DVD: 3D in 2D and Old Classics | KPBS.org (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/nov/16/new-dvd-3d-2d-and-old-classics/)

5/10 Avatar < PopMatters (http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/118001-avatar/)

Groundbreaking, and goddamn boring. Avatar | Reviews | Screen | Philadelphia Weekly (http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/reviews/Avatar-79565587.html)

But this is the first time Cameron has stopped there — the first time I've seen him fail to turn a good-looking film into a great one.../..."Avatar" just wasn't that much fun for me to watch. Maybe other theaters were filled with adoring fans, but two people in my row decided to leave early and at the end of our screening it sounded like one guy managed some weak applause that no one picked up." 'Avatar' review: I don't see it | SeacoastOnline.com (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20091224-ENTERTAIN-912240308)

See that's the difference - Raiders of the Lost Ark a film about a BILLION times better than Avatar didn't have the special effects but when that movie ended people stood up and cheered - that's a great entertainment - Avatar is a complete snooze fest.

"Watching "Avatar" is like watching a magic show. There's lights, and sounds, and smoke, and hand waving and it's mesmerizing if you watch without caution, but if you manage to go back stage and see what's really happening, you'll find that what show there is is all just an illusion, it's all just razzle dazzle with an empty center. That's what James Cameron's phenomenon is like sitting through. An exhausting two and half hours basically amounts to nothing more than a carnival ride, an experience that's interesting sure, but easily forgotten once you've decided to move on to the next light show waiting for you. Cinema Crazed (http://www.cinema-crazed.com/0-g/avatar-2.htm)

"Without a doubt, this is Cameron’s worst film since Piranha Part Two: The Spawning, and that film may’ve actually had better character development than can be found in the bloated Avatar. Not a nice way to cap the decade in film." http://www.newsreview.com/reno/big-blue-turd/content?oid=1342868

"Avatar is a phenomenon you can't ignore, monumentally imposing and done with extraordinary expertise – but the same could be said of the Dubai skyline, and I'm not sure that represents any future worth investing in." Avatar, James Cameron, 163 mins, (PG) - Reviews, Films - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/avatar-james-cameron-163-mins-pg-1845569.html)

And that just tips the ice-berg. Just because the movie made money doesn't mean it's any good. I paid to see Avatar in the Theater and didn't like it - so umm I made up part of that near billion it took in. Doesn't mean because people paid to see it that they all liked it. Many people only go to the movie theaters to get what they feel they can't get on the small screen - at that time 3D big screen that supposedly would revolutionize movies like Star Wars did. It's a reason why Shawshank Redemption flopped at the box office but has been one of the biggest selling movies on video. Shawshank is a billion times better than Avatar despite making $28 million at the Box office. $28 million for one of the all time beloved movies and huge DVD seller.

So don't give me lame ass arguments about box office numbers and the quality of movies. The same taste buds that consume Big Macs consume rubbish like Avatar. Even if we go by IMDb rankings as a so-so system of evaluating quality movies - Avatar ranks 187 - Shawshank is number 1 followed by the two Godfather films - gee those relied heavily on CGI now didn't they?

Why buy a good audio system when there is so much musical crap out there? I bought all of my 3D products because I enjoyed the 3D movies I purchased. I am not going to make a decision to do so based on somebody else's obviously negative opinion if I don't share it.

I have no problem if you buy 3D because you like it. I could care less if people like it. I don't and I'm not wrong for not liking it. Incidentally - if I had a million bucks in the bank - I might be bored and would be buying up every technical gadget around to stuff my house with stuff too to watch a handful of movies on 3D. But then trying to say that it is superior because I happen to own it is silly. When one has lots of disposable cash one loses sight of the "value" of a thing. Does it make sense to spend $20,000 on a good 3D based system to watch a few at best OK movies on it because it makes something look like it is coming at you more? It is at best a superior form of Aristotle's "spectacle" which is the least important aspect of play or film. So all the money is being spent on "spectacle" where a better movie on a tube tv with no surround is better than some lousy schlock dressed up to the hilt in 3d and 19 channel surround sound.

Anyone can pick somebody who agrees with their perspective. This is the weakness of your comments - they are one sided.

This is subjective - I want good stories acting thought and 'quality' - you seem to want a Disneyland ride from your movie.

If you were in charge we'd be stuck with Casablanca and Citizen Kane and Schindler's List in 3D. And when that happens - I will stop watching movies. Oh wait those were all Black and White - stone age technology to be sure - by default they're bad - Black and White is "old" technology - they need colour and 3D.

E-Stat

09-02-2011, 03:36 PM

This is best accomplished through story and performance which is why one is able to suspend disbelief with great stories and lesser effects than great effects and dumb stories.
I feel just the opposite. The plot and actor's performance is utterly irrelevant to the feeling of realism afforded by the environment. I never feel that I am in the same space as the actors in 2D. Painted ships on a painted sky.

As Brent Spiner once said - if it ain't on the page it ain't on the stage.
Ironically for an advanced android, I guess he's never seen IMAX footage shot by NASA astronauts in space. There's no plot, no actors. Just the realism of floating there in the Shuttle or tethered to the Space Station orbiting 200 miles above the earth.

"Last night a fellow critic...
Another amateur critic?

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible

09-04-2011, 09:41 AM

This is best accomplished through story and performance which is why one is able to suspend disbelief with great stories and lesser effects than great effects and dumb stories.

So what you are saying here is that your opinion on what is good or not is the only valid one. Bullshyte! What is a good or bad story is in the opinion of the beholder, and not you exclusively.

I know that it doesn't look particularly great - I know that a much better movie and 2D is superior to this schlock done in 3D. When a good movie is done in 3D then we might have something.

So now you are the foremost expert on good 3D. Damn are you full of yourself RGA. First its Audionote, and now its 3D.

Half of the U.S. population doesn't believe in Evolution, McDonalds sells the most burgers, and Bose sells more than the 5 top selling high end speaker manufacturers "combined" - Apparently lots of people have lousy taste and aren't as bright as most night lights. Big deal.

Based on your musing here, it looks like you are one of those folks.

I go all the way back to Aristotle and his theory of tragedy. CGI and special effects in general would be classified as spectacle. (this would also include set design, make-up, costuming etc. From most important to least important is Plot, Characters, Thought, Diction, Melody, and last Spectacle.

Aristotle theory of tragedy does not apply to every movie does it? Nope, and Aristotle never did movies did he? Nope. Can you apply and apple to apples comparison rather than some out of date stage stuff.

Sure he was talking about plays but this is easily transferred to movies - and I suspect why plays tend to be much superior to movies. As Brent Spiner once said - if it ain't on the page it ain't on the stage. Star Trek IV was the best Star Trek movie and used the special effects as a backdrop rather than part of the story. You could argue for The Wrath of Khan but it was hardly due to the special effects. It was the acting and the character development of the Kirk and Khan and their battle (submarines in space).

BS, not all plays can be transferred to movies, that is why many stage plays have never been made to film. Stay with the apples please, you are beginning to get schetzo.

I can think of movies where the effects were critical to the movie's ambiance - Blade Runner comes to mind, 2001, The original Star Wars and Empire - but those were only great because of well developed characters and effective simple story. Had those not been there - it would have been forgotten ages ago - they only hold up on the strength of the unforgettable characters - as you noted the effects have problems to you. To me I can let them go because A they're 30+ years old and they hold merit based on the strength of the story and characters like Vader, C3-PO and Han Solo. Avatar? Hell I saw it when it came out and I can't name you a single character - not one - completely forgettable.

Wall-e was a very good movie. It had zero dialog, and no actors. As Ralph stated the IMAX footage in space done by NASA was spectacular, and not a word was uttered. Star Wars was not great just because of the acting, it was great because of the entire package. If you had great acting but lousy CGI, the movie would have been a flop. It the package RGA, not the individual parts.

Yes most people who saw it liked it - but seriously Sir T - Nobody Else? I guess it's me and Mr. Plinkett and
"Avatar": Dances with aliens - Stephanie Zacharek - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/review/2009/12/17/avatar)

Avatar (Three-Disc Extended Collector's Edition) (2009) - Preview | Sci-Fi Movie Page (http://www.scifimoviepage.com/dvd/avatar_extended-dvd.html)

ON FILM: Mining gold (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/jan/29/film-mining-gold-20100129/)

"Last night a fellow critic was talking about the Blu-ray release of "Avatar"and the bonus feature of a full-length documentary. I explained that having to watch a full length doc on "Avatar" was akin to having surgery without anesthesia and then being forced to watch a video of it after. No thank you! I did not like "Avatar" and I have no interest in any bonus features that prolong the agony of the 160 film. The film looked beautiful but the storytelling was formulaic and the plot was a rehash of "Fern Gully." Plus with such a trite tale, Cameron didn't need nearly three hours to simply deliver predictable clichés. I know the film delighted audiences and racked up big bucks at the box office but it bored me to distraction." New on DVD: 3D in 2D and Old Classics | KPBS.org (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/nov/16/new-dvd-3d-2d-and-old-classics/)

5/10 Avatar < PopMatters (http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/118001-avatar/)

Groundbreaking, and goddamn boring. Avatar | Reviews | Screen | Philadelphia Weekly (http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/reviews/Avatar-79565587.html)

But this is the first time Cameron has stopped there — the first time I've seen him fail to turn a good-looking film into a great one.../..."Avatar" just wasn't that much fun for me to watch. Maybe other theaters were filled with adoring fans, but two people in my row decided to leave early and at the end of our screening it sounded like one guy managed some weak applause that no one picked up." 'Avatar' review: I don't see it | SeacoastOnline.com (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20091224-ENTERTAIN-912240308)

Once again you pick and choose stuff that supports your opinion. And once again it does not make your opinion word, or even legit - it is just an opinion from a person that really does not understand them meaning of "entertainment" as opposed to "high art".

See that's the difference - Raiders of the Lost Ark a film about a BILLION times better than Avatar didn't have the special effects but when that movie ended people stood up and cheered - that's a great entertainment - Avatar is a complete snooze fest.

If you really believe that Raiders had no special effects, then you are not as bright as I thought. Raiders has ton's of video effect shots, tons of them.

"Watching "Avatar" is like watching a magic show. There's lights, and sounds, and smoke, and hand waving and it's mesmerizing if you watch without caution, but if you manage to go back stage and see what's really happening, you'll find that what show there is is all just an illusion, it's all just razzle dazzle with an empty center. That's what James Cameron's phenomenon is like sitting through. An exhausting two and half hours basically amounts to nothing more than a carnival ride, an experience that's interesting sure, but easily forgotten once you've decided to move on to the next light show waiting for you. Cinema Crazed (http://www.cinema-crazed.com/0-g/avatar-2.htm)

"Without a doubt, this is Cameron’s worst film since Piranha Part Two: The Spawning, and that film may’ve actually had better character development than can be found in the bloated Avatar. Not a nice way to cap the decade in film." Avatar - Big blue turd - Film Reviews - Film - December 24, 2009 - Reno News & Review (http://www.newsreview.com/reno/big-blue-turd/content?oid=1342868)

"Avatar is a phenomenon you can't ignore, monumentally imposing and done with extraordinary expertise – but the same could be said of the Dubai skyline, and I'm not sure that represents any future worth investing in." Avatar, James Cameron, 163 mins, (PG) - Reviews, Films - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/avatar-james-cameron-163-mins-pg-1845569.html)

Well, Avatar got a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, so it looks like your opinion on the movie is the minority opinion.

And that just tips the ice-berg. Just because the movie made money doesn't mean it's any good. I paid to see Avatar in the Theater and didn't like it - so umm I made up part of that near billion it took in. Doesn't mean because people paid to see it that they all liked it. Many people only go to the movie theaters to get what they feel they can't get on the small screen - at that time 3D big screen that supposedly would revolutionize movies like Star Wars did. It's a reason why Shawshank Redemption flopped at the box office but has been one of the biggest selling movies on video. Shawshank is a billion times better than Avatar despite making $28 million at the Box office. $28 million for one of the all time beloved movies and huge DVD seller.

If you were as bright as you want us to believe, you would not be comparing two different storylines, two very different movies, with different content, and actors as if it were an apples to apples comparison. A remake can be compared, but not two DIFFERENT movies. This is like comparing the Verdi Requiem to the Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique. You can't, they are too different.

So don't give me lame ass arguments about box office numbers and the quality of movies. The same taste buds that consume Big Macs consume rubbish like Avatar. Even if we go by IMDb rankings as a so-so system of evaluating quality movies - Avatar ranks 187 - Shawshank is number 1 followed by the two Godfather films - gee those relied heavily on CGI now didn't they?

My high and might RGA, who's opinion rules over all. To some folks a Big Mac is not rubbish.

You can go to a number of different ranking sites, and you will not find Shawshank as the number one movie. AFI lists it as number 72 which is below the effect feast of Lord of the Rings, 2001 A Space Odyssey, and Star Wars as well, all effects laden films. It also finished behind effects laden E.T, Wizard of Oz, and King Kong. It also finished behind Close Encounters on that same list.

I have no problem if you buy 3D because you like it. I could care less if people like it. I don't and I'm not wrong for not liking it. Incidentally - if I had a million bucks in the bank - I might be bored and would be buying up every technical gadget around to stuff my house with stuff too to watch a handful of movies on 3D. But then trying to say that it is superior because I happen to own it is silly. When one has lots of disposable cash one loses sight of the "value" of a thing. Does it make sense to spend $20,000 on a good 3D based system to watch a few at best OK movies on it because it makes something look like it is coming at you more? It is at best a superior form of Aristotle's "spectacle" which is the least important aspect of play or film. So all the money is being spent on "spectacle" where a better movie on a tube tv with no surround is better than some lousy schlock dressed up to the hilt in 3d and 19 channel surround sound.

People don't make buying choices based on your lame ass opinions. They spend their money because they like what they see or hear. I sure in the hell are not going to make my buying choices based on your opinions, because we do not share the same taste. I think my Dunlavy SC-V and my ATC SCM-300A sound better than any Audionote speaker I have ever heard.

I have over 100 3D titles in my collection, and it is growing by the week. 3D is not going anywhere, and as long as titles are released, I get my monies worth out of my $35,000 3D projector.

This is subjective - I want good stories acting thought and 'quality' - you seem to want a Disneyland ride from your movie.

That's what you want, and the only thing this establishes is that we want two different things from our movies. I want entertainment, and to escape from reality. You want a bunch of people sitting around talking and killing each other brutally. No thanks, I hear about that on the news everyday.

If you were in charge we'd be stuck with Casablanca and Citizen Kane and Schindler's List in 3D. And when that happens - I will stop watching movies. Oh wait those were all Black and White - stone age technology to be sure - by default they're bad - Black and White is "old" technology - they need colour and 3D.

You don't know WTF I would do if I were in charge, you don't know anything about me. I never said ANYWHERE that 3D was for every movie, I have stated the exact opposite if you read my posting on 3D(which you obviously have not). I don't think 3D is appropriate for every film, just like I don't think recommending an Audio Note speaker on every freakin speaker thread is appropriate.

Just to give your lame ass some information, 3D looks slightly different based on the format it is presented on. If you make your judgments based on what you see in the theater, it will not be valid for what you see at home. The two use different technology to render 3D to the screen. One is polarized, the other is shutter based. While one may have certain characteristics, the other will have others. In the theater are you judging a two projector 3D, or a one projector 3D? Is it IMAX, or RealD? Both present 3D quite differently. Are you watching it on a flat panel, or projector based system, each renders 3D quite differently.

In the theater, did the foot lambert of the projection system meet SMPTE spec's? If not, it will make the 3D too dark.

As you can see, the complexities of judging 3D are not as simple and general as you make it. You go to the theater, and think you have nailed the qualities of 3D down. When you see it in the home on a good shutter based calibrated 3D projector, the effect is quite different. I know first hand, do you? Nope.

RGA

09-07-2011, 02:23 AM

Eesh defensive much - did I say that special effects were worthless? Nope. My gripe was more with CGI based films - pointing to E.T. 2001 and several others that happened to be above Shawshank on a list doesn't say much to me since they didn't use CGI.

I do agree with you on Star Wars that spectacle is important to the popularity of that film - but there are 6 Star Wars movies - and the three best ones were the three with the "oldest" special effects. Those are the only ones that most people like critics and the public. And those are the ones that get re-released in theaters because people would actually pay a second time to go see it. Ditto for E.T. It is not the effects people are going back to see as you pointed out way back - they're deficient by today;s standards - the reason people go back is on the strength of the memorable characters, and "entertainment" value.

I never said that a film can't be good if it uses special effects - but that can't be ALL it has. IMAX experiences and Omni-max experiences and National Geographic type films obviously don't need characters or plot. The experience E-Stat points out is an important exception. I have no issue with that. Though I think that experiences plays out better on 100 foot screens that 40 inch monitors which is probably the average home owner - 27-32 in Asia likely.

Stage plays and Aristotle.
No something new doesn't need to be said - he said it. The argument is valid for anything that has a story structure. It makes no difference whether it is film stage play, or even a comic book.

I never said spectacle was of zero importance - special effects are critical in certain movies to aid or enhance the experience - but there has to be something to aid and enhance.

As for finding people to support what I say - you said no one but RGA on the entire planet earth disliked the movie Avatar - you said I was "alone' in that view. So I showed you many critics on rottentomatoes.com who disliked the movie. And I didn't even get past 4 pages out of about 25 pages of critics.

Never said I was the final arbiter of what is good - I also said that most of the critics liked the movie and probably most people who saw it. So yes I am in the minority of folks who didn't like it. I didn't hate it just didn't think it was average.

As for 3D - here's my issue. They bring this technology out to the public on the back of Avatar. Basically like the Transformers cartoons which were made to sell toys - Avatar is largely about selling a new technology. What kind of boneheads bring this out to substandard movie chains. Cineplex theaters are the main big chain in Canada so basically the movie goer is expected to go to the manager and ask them what the lamplight rating is, which kind of projector is being used before he buys his ticket?

If you can't see the idiocy of this Sir T then I don't get it. It's like buying a car and not getting tires. Wait - I was supposed to make sure it comes with tires and it's not some sort of optional extra. I get the crappy 50 year old movie theater may not be up to par but when it's THE chain and the pricey megaplex customers should not have to ask about the technology in the theater - it should be cutting edge.

And if it is true that most theaters suck - then please point me to a website or some sort of approved list of theaters with cutting edge cinema screens. Roger Ebert has that kind of access and sees them on the best screens and his view seems somewhat similar to mine - however may the screen I saw it on used a lousy 3D projector system - I had no complaints about the brightness level.

I get you don't agree with Ebert but even people who don't agree with him - you have to admit the man has seen a LOT of movies in a LOT of movie theaters. I would be willing to wager he has seen more movies on the big screen than you by a large margin and probably every person on this forum combined. I think he has a valid opinion on the technical side of the industry since he has lived and breathed the film industry his whole life.

$35,000 3D home projector - this is superior to the theater projectors or theater experience?

By the way movies somewhat heavy or very heavy in special effects that place in my top 200 all time in no order are

Empire Strikes Back
2001
E.T.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
The Terminator (and T2)
Star Wars
Saving Private Ryan
Aliens
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Star Trek IV
Back to the Future
The Exorcist
The Incredibles
Shrek
Forrest Gump
Spiderman 2

There are tons of movies I like that use a ton of effects
The Thing 1982
Event Horizon
Demolition Man
Jurassic Park
Total Recall
The new Batman movies
Wizard of Oz
Cloverfield
The James Bond movies
Last Crusade
K-19
Hunt for Red October
Kill Bill
Dawn of the Dead 2004
Blade Runner
Alien
Minority Report
Fifth Element
Run Lola Run

There are movies I didn't particularly like - like the LOTR movies. The effects could not save them for me. I respect people liked them - and liked the effects. If they liked the movies they would probably be wowed by the visuals and would forgive any weaknesses. I didn't care for the movies and so maybe I will be more apt to nitpick the effects. Certainly they were done well but because I found the story extremely repetitive and drawn out and simplistic and the the whole thing a rather bore - all I had left was to look at the cartoony looking backgrounds and effects. If you loved the acting story and were engrossed in the characters then you probably are willing to suspend disbelief and buy into the special effects more.

Many of these films are obviously "enhanced" due to the superior special effects and in some cases the effects could seriously impact the movie - especially the ones that I feel teeter on marginal recommendation status.

That said I still maintain that the plot and story characters, thought override the effects - just as Empire and the original Star Wars are much better "experiences" to the new movies - the new movies may have better effects but those effects don't turn a turd into Godiva chocolates.

The new Dawn of the Dead is vastly better in the special effects department )and arguably acting quality) to the original but the original destroys the new movie in plot, thought satire and overall ambiance - so most horror lovers always choose the older cheaply made film.

My Raiders comment was about CGI so sorry for the confusion - it uses a lot of effects but mostly traditional ones. It is to me the best action adventure film of all time. The newest movie has much better technology at its disposal but again the movie is largely crap. So it doesn't matter how good the effects are - it can't save a bad movie. But a movie with so-so effects can still be a great movie. And you know why? Because once a special effects laden movie gets old - the visuals look dated - in other words by modern standards the effects look like crap. If the movie is still hugely popular - then you know it's not popular because of the effects.

People still love the original Star Trek series - it's way better than prequel Star Trek TV series that could not even make it's 7 year voyage. Oh sure the effects were ten times better but so what when you have a completely uninspired dreadfully boring cast with one note story lines. So desperate to generate life they had to get cast members from other shows to do a bunch of ratings grabs. The original Star Trek TV series have comically bad special effects in numerous places and yet it is the most popular of the Trek Series - along with the next oldest and out of date special effects series in TNG.

I liked the new Die Hard movie - even though the special effects were impressive and downright implausible and even idiotic at Bruce living through fighter planes crashing through highways - the effects were pretty cool - problem was that they were some of the weakest parts of the movie because the very special effects used took away from the plausibility of a pretty well told action movie with a pretty good idea. Had the director not had the CGI technology he may have chosen something a little more plausible and it would have kept more of an edge to the story. The big dopey effects scene while certainly cool to look at was also highly distracting because it took a pretty smart action movie and turned it into a video game and removed much of the tension with a silly unnecessary action sequence.

As for finding facts to support your case as an argument against me you do the same thing.

For instance I took Shawshank as an example of a non effects based film - the film itself is irrelevant but I chose it because the IMDB list is largely FAN based or consumer based vote. These are the paying public. The unwashed masses - and they chose for the first three spots Shawshank and Godfather movies. The POINT I was making was that people choose story, characters, over vacuous special effects movies like Avatar.

You then want to refute this by bringing up the American Film Institute that ranked LOTR, Star Wars, ET above Shawshank. But wait my argument has been about CGI - and Avatar incidentally will never make that list of the top 100 unless a lot of people lose a lot of brain cells. Choosing E.T. LOTR and Star Wars over Shawshank is neither here nor there. You can make a legitimate case that those are better overall movies. I may disagree with LOTR but I can see the argument - and I can certainly see why people would pick E.T. or Star Wars. Star Wars arguably revolutionized the space movie and E.T. is practically impossible to not like - A kind of Casablanca of the stars.

But what you didn't do was keep the case to the point I made. I used Shawshank as an example of a film not using special effects you try to discredit my view by taking some movies that use effects that got a higher score.

But here is the top 20 from the very list you selected

1 CITIZEN KANE
2 THE GODFATHER
3 CASABLANCA
4 RAGING BULL
5 SINGIN' IN THE RAIN
6 GONE WITH THE WIND
7 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
8 SCHINDLER'S LIST
9 VERTIGO
10 THE WIZARD OF OZ
11 CITY LIGHTS
12 THE SEARCHERS
13 STAR WARS
14 PSYCHO
15 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
16 SUNSET BLVD.
17 THE GRADUATE
18 THE GENERAL
19 ON THE WATERFRONT
20 IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

There are only 2 special effects films in space on this list and both are outdated by today's standards. Wizard of Oz is also outdated. The common theme to all three is that they were pivotal in the special effects realm when they came out - and all three were also excellent movies. Had they been sucky sucky movies they would not have been here. And even Star Wars is a little overrated here as a great movie. This IMO is an example where the effects boosted its ratings on these lists as most of the critics and critic forums at rottentomatoes don't rank the movie anywhere near this high without accounting for the impact the movie's effects had on film making. And the first 9 movies are non-special effects intensive - Though used well in Schindler's List.

My main argument and Aristotle's is that substance trumps spectacle - not that spectacle has no value but that it is less valuable and in general all of the best films that have lots of spectacle like Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back and Raiders have a lot of substance first and spectacle that supports it.

Lastly the same argument can be made for music listening. If I had a choice of two - to listen to Vivaldi's Four Seasons on a $500 stereo than own a $1million dollar stereo and listen to Patricia Barber's best recorded disc I choose the former. The substance of the music overrides the quality of the reproduction spectacle.every single time. The greatness of the stereo reproduction of well recorded Barber may sound absolutely amazing but I'd still rather listened to some mangled by the stereo Vivaldi any day of the week.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

09-07-2011, 09:53 AM

I am not going to address all of your long winded rubbish, but I will address certain points.

As for finding people to support what I say - you said no one but RGA on the entire planet earth disliked the movie Avatar - you said I was "alone' in that view. So I showed you many critics on rottentomatoes.com who disliked the movie. And I didn't even get past 4 pages out of about 25 pages of critics.

Once again RGA, it got a 92% on Rottentomatoes which means whether you liked it or not is pretty irrelevant at this point. A lot of folks did, and paid to see it not just once, but as many a three or four times.

As for 3D - here's my issue. They bring this technology out to the public on the back of Avatar. Basically like the Transformers cartoons which were made to sell toys - Avatar is largely about selling a new technology. What kind of boneheads bring this out to substandard movie chains. Cineplex theaters are the main big chain in Canada so basically the movie goer is expected to go to the manager and ask them what the lamplight rating is, which kind of projector is being used before he buys his ticket?

You don't make a movie to sell technology, the technology was already here. Digital 3D was around long before Avatar even came out, so your premise, and your information is not correct.

Your comments about 3D are generalities based on your lack of 3D education. You don't have to ask any theater manager what 3D format they are using, it usually states it already. All movie theater use some sort of polarized method for 3D. Each will produce a different characteristic of 3D, they are all not the same.

IMAX 3D emphasizes pop out effects more than depth. Images can "cardboard" with IMAX because of this, and it is more hard on the eyes than the other 3D technologies in theaters

Real3D is the most common format used, and it does not emphasize pop out, does not cardboard, but emphasizes depth much better than IMAX does. Some ghosting can occur most because of the glasses, and not the hardware

Dolby 3D is considered the best way to watch 3D. There is very little to no ghosting, no cardboarding, very sharp images, and all of the color information is preserved.

Each one of these format will present 3D in a slightly different way, and does not lend itself to simplistic generalizations on 3D in the theater.

3D in the home is a completely different animal. It uses active shutter based 3D as opposed to passive polarized 3D found in the theaters. It is sharper, has more depth, less ghosting, full color, and can provide more depth on the frontal and rearward plane of the screen. Out of the hundred or more 3D movies I have at home, only two of them exhibited the characteristics you have described.

Avatar had four different digital files optimized for each of these theatrical 3D formats. Each file presented Avatar's 3D in very different ways, so you cannot generalize how Avatar looks on the screen until you identify which format you saw it in.

With all of these facts, you can see why I look at your simplistic statement and think they are bullshyte?

If you can't see the idiocy of this Sir T then I don't get it. It's like buying a car and not getting tires. Wait - I was supposed to make sure it comes with tires and it's not some sort of optional extra. I get the crappy 50 year old movie theater may not be up to par but when it's THE chain and the pricey megaplex customers should not have to ask about the technology in the theater - it should be cutting edge.

They don't have to ask, the theaters usually state them right up front. The technology may be cutting edge, but it can be out of calibration or out of spec. The Xenon lamps used in DLP projectors cost about $5,000 bucks a piece. Because of this cost, theater owners will use them until they die, which is part of the problem. These bulbs lose their brightness as they age, and when the light output drops to a certain level, it is out of spec, and will not present 3D very well. When you combine this with the fact that the glasses will eat up light as well, then you have a real problem with 3D images that have nothing to do with 3D itself. The effect is much like a well mastered recording played back on a poorly setup audio system.

And if it is true that most theaters suck - then please point me to a website or some sort of approved list of theaters with cutting edge cinema screens. Roger Ebert has that kind of access and sees them on the best screens and his view seems somewhat similar to mine - however may the screen I saw it on used a lousy 3D projector system - I had no complaints about the brightness level.

This comment is pure bullshyte. Roger Ebert does not go to some high performance theater to see his screenings. He goes to his local theater just like you do, whether it is calibrated well or not. 3D may bother Roger eyes because he has a problem with focusing on centrally located images(he does wear glasses), just like about 5-10% of Americans do. That may well be his problem rather than 3D itself, but he is not going to tell you that as it will reveal his hidden agenda - and I believe he has one.

The amount of movies you see does not make your opinions fact. Movie critiquing is a subjective art, I know, I did it for four years. While Roger may be good at evaluating the content of movies, he is not good with evaluating movie technology. In this area he is sadly behind the times, as he has gone on record saying he does not like digital cinema, he likes film. Well, film is on its way out. Almost every studio has now announced to exhibitors they are no longer going to support 35mm film prints going out to theaters. So now what is Roger going to do? Retire?

$35,000 3D home projector - this is superior to the theater projectors or theater experience?

Far better. My setup uses high performance ghost busting technology, so no ghosting at all. The processing in my projector adjusts its circuitry so as the lamp gets older, it still will output a picture that meets SMPTE specs for 3D. I get a yearly calibration, something that does not happen in the theater. My screen gain is optimized for both 2D and 3D presentation, and theaters cannot do this. Shutter based technology is far better at presenting 3D that passive polarizing methods that theater use. My 3D system compensates exactly for the loss of light when viewed through the glasses, theaters don't do this. So the answer is a resounding YES!

So here is reality RGA. Traditional effects are gone, CGI is here. Film is gone, digital cinema is here. 3D is here, and it is not going anywhere soon. If you don't like any of this, stop going to the theater, which means there is no need for any further comment on theaters, 3D, digital cinema or anything related to movie theaters.

RGA

09-08-2011, 05:49 AM

Ajani

09-08-2011, 06:39 AM

Feanor

09-08-2011, 07:07 AM

The theater I watched it in just states the following Real D 3D, Digital 3D.
....
Cineplex Odious? :biggrin5:

GMichael

09-08-2011, 07:32 AM

I think that there is room in the world for both types of movies. There is no need for one type to be labeled as good and the other as bad. They are just different.

It's nice to see a movie that has many plot twists, or makes you think. But my daughter would loose interest and we'd end up having to leave in the middle. Action movies are a lot of fun and can make you think, wow, that's cool. 3D can be a big part of these movies and add to the enjoyment. I see no reason to label them as stupid. They can be very entertaining if you just let them be. If you don't like them, then I suggest that you don't go to those and let the rest of us enjoy them.

Feanor

09-08-2011, 08:27 AM

GMichael

09-08-2011, 09:30 AM

Sounds like you're saying we should always just sit back and accept any action movie for what it is. Maybe you're right.
No. You shouldn't always do anything. But action movies should not always be expected to have great stories. Sometimes a simple story can be fun. Not everyone is looking for a brain teaser every time they go to a movie. I saw Avatar and enjoyed it. The story was very simple, but fun. I've even watched it several more times at home. I still enjoyed it. Is that really a bad thing? Once I am 3D ready at home, I'll probably get the 3D BR.

Then again have you seen Conan the Barbarian (2010)? Truly stupid and the 3D was awful.
I haven't seen the 3D version. Probably because I didn't think that much of the original. It was ok to watch once, but it's not on my must see list.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

09-08-2011, 10:10 AM

The theater I watched it in just states the following Real D 3D, Digital 3D.

You stated that Dolby 3D is better and your system is better so I will take your word for it - I can tell you this - what I saw was not the least bit impressive.

That has nothing to do with the technology, and can have everything to do with the specific theater.

What would Roger's motives be?

I don't know, you would have to ask him. It could be because he has eye issues that don't allow him to watch it comfortably.

You seem to have a special "interest" in this technology to me.

My "special interest" is quelling simplistic generalizations that are more emotional than technical accurate.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

09-08-2011, 10:15 AM

Sounds like you're saying we should always just sit back and accept any action movie for what it is. Maybe you're right.

I would say you should just sit back and be entertained if the movie entertains you. I am not into talkies or "high art" movies, they are boring to me. I don't really care how good they are, they bore me.

Then again have you seen Conan the Barbarian (2010)? Truly stupid and the 3D was awful.

This movie did not entertain me, and was just bad. You are right, the 3D was bad, but since the movie was bankrolled by three very minor new studios, I can understand why. They didn't have the cash to do it right.

Feanor

09-08-2011, 10:17 AM

No. You shouldn't always do anything. But action movies should not always be expected to have great stories. Sometimes a simple story can be fun. Not everyone is looking for a brain teaser every time they go to a movie. I saw Avatar and enjoyed it. The story was very simple, but fun. I've even watched it several more times at home. I still enjoyed it. Is that really a bad thing? Once I am 3D ready at home, I'll probably get the 3D BR.
...
I'm OK with that. Sometimes a flick has a lot of enterainment value without being "deep" in any sense. Avatar had a million cliches that maybe we were supposed to take seriously; well I didn't take them seriously and enjoyed the film -- including the 3D.

There are quite a few "literary" film critics out there, (English majors, etc.), who always have to have something deep -- or think they've found something deep that isn't there. Pee on these effete snobs! :p

I'll admit I like to check the reviews before I see a movie. I like Metacritic where you can get both pro critics and popular rating; sometimes there is a big divergence. I always thing twice if the critics are thumbs-up but the popular vote is down. E.g. Lost in Translation, (2003): Critics = 89; Popular = 6.6. So the popular was a lot closer but, IMHO, still too high. Man! What a aimless, boring flick that was.

RGA

09-09-2011, 06:53 PM

I see Avatar as a perfect example of what is wrong with 3D... Avatar looked good, but that's all I can say for it... The plot and just about everything else was a joke...

My problem with 3D is that too many films use it in a half-assed manner, as an excuse to jack up ticket prices... Just having 3D effects will not make a crap movie into something worth watching... Much the same way that massive explosions, and other special effects, don't make a film great...

What I'm hoping to see one day are really good movies using proper 3D visuals.... Then we can truly judge how useful (or not) 3D is...

Here's my problem - 3D has been around pretty much my whole life - I remember Jaws 3D (maybe it goes back longer but that's the first movie I remember seeing) - also a lousy movie.

Avatar aside as I accept many people like it - what great movie or even good movie (that is plot and story driven and not an IMAX Omni-Max special) has been made?

It seems to me that whenever anyone has any complaint about 3D a bunch of excuses come out. The studio didn't have the money to do it right, it was a bad theater who set it up wrong, the projector lightbulb must have been too old.

In other words it's never 3d but it's always the implementation - badly done 3D at the source - Clash of the Titans, Conan or if the likes of Avatar fails it's the theater and projector or it's because you wear glasses - (I wear glasses) So it rules out anyone who wears glasses?

It also seems to me that the only way to truly get 100 titles (how many are good story and plot driven) to look good is if you spend $35,0000 on a projector. So how many people are going to do that?

Sir T doesn't realize the fact that anyone who comments on 3D will comment on the "Mid-line" technology they see. I see the technology in the theater and at the Sony Store - 99% of the 3d that the average unwashed masses see. It looks mediocre to lousy. So sure the $35,000 projector may in fact be revolutionary and better and he is frustrated that we have not seen what 3d can "really do" but I say "c'mon" lets evaluate the "base-line" or the 3D in the mass market gets and evaluate ONLY that and tell me it's great - if it was great there would be no need to spend $35,000 you could buy a 50 inch Sony or go to the movies - but even the supporters say they're much worse (after all if the $35k projector is MUCH BETTER then the theater has to be MUCH WORSE.

What happened to the no glasses 3D when is that coming? And virtual (holo-deck) experience that Nasa was working on. images 360 and you wear a headset - looked pretty cool 5 years ago and the system was many millions of dollars. Now that's a Revolutionary experience that I'd pay for.

I am now living in a Metropoulos in Hong Kong where there must be one good theater. This is the techno geek capital of the world after all.

One thing that is nice is they actually give a damn about classical music still - the local CD shop has about a thousand classical and jazz titles on the shelves - Best Buy and HMV in my area in Canada dumped those years ago. Well they still have about 50 jazz titles maybe they've been there 2 years waiting to sell.

Basically which plot story driven movies have been made for and done WELL in 3D other than Avatar. Any? Because it seems when movies come out in 3D everyone starts saying - the movie's 3D was done badly - Clash of the Titans, Conan, and some others which were 2D and they tried to convert it to 3D badly.

So which good (I'll settle for good) movie with story and characters and not a cartoon movie has been done in 3D that makes 3D looks excellent. Or in lieu of this is there any coming out soon to theaters that are supposed to be good movies that use 3D well? I know Scorcese has one coming so if there is any hope at all I definitely put my chips down on him. Or maybe Spielberg?

Was Super 8 done in 3D - I liked the movie on the plane over here. Even on a tiny screen and with crappy headphones I managed to be entertained by it.

RGA

09-09-2011, 07:24 PM

I'm OK with that. Sometimes a flick has a lot of enterainment value without being "deep" in any sense. Avatar had a million cliches that maybe we were supposed to take seriously; well I didn't take them seriously and enjoyed the film -- including the 3D.

There are quite a few "literary" film critics out there, (English majors, etc.), who always have to have something deep -- or think they've found something deep that isn't there. Pee on these effete snobs! :p

I'll admit I like to check the reviews before I see a movie. I like Metacritic where you can get both pro critics and popular rating; sometimes there is a big divergence. I always thing twice if the critics are thumbs-up but the popular vote is down. E.g. Lost in Translation, (2003): Critics = 89; Popular = 6.6. So the popular was a lot closer but, IMHO, still too high. Man! What a aimless, boring flick that was.

The thing to remember about critics is that a lot of them see over 300 movies a year every year for decades. When there are basically 7 story types you have pretty much seen the same thing over and over and over - boy meets girl, something happens where boy loses girl, some sort of misunderstanding, it gets resolved - boy gets girl back and they live happily ever after. It gets old fast and nothing new or interesting is added to the equation then critics will be much harder on the movie than the average movie goer who sees maybe 2 of these types of movies a year - so they tend to like it more.

Movies like Lost in Translation are generally different and separate themselves from the pack - perhaps they get overrated as a result but I like the movie perhaps because I've lived in Asia and could somewhat relate to Bill Murray's character in certain respects.

The best film critics have to like movies in general - but they also have to try and rate the movie in the genre - I don't expect an action movie to be as deep or intelligent as a drama. I love some of Mel Brooks' movies which are completely idiotic in many ways but to me they're brilliant "Young Frankenstein", "The Producers 1967" and Blazing Saddles.

A critic simply needs to justify why he likes a given film or does not.

I liked Gene Siskel in the sense that even when he didn't particularly care for a genre of film like horror he could still evaluate which ones were good ones. I didn't care for either critic some years where I felt they chose a best movie of the year just to try and promote a lesser viewed movie - to me you should pick it best if you felt it was best not because you want people to watch it. Siskel chose some really stupid movies over the years - Babe 2 Pig in the City as best film of the year? Though Ebert chose some goofball movies as well.

Here are their ten best lists since 1969 - I'd say both were good critics and both had glaring omissions over the years. But they have movies like Lethal Weapon and Raiders make their lists.

Siskel and Ebert Top Ten Lists (1969-1998) (http://www.innermind.com/misc/s_e_top.htm)

Feanor

09-10-2011, 02:41 AM

...
I liked Gene Siskel in the sense that even when he didn't particularly care for a genre of film like horror he could still evaluate which ones were good ones. I didn't care for either critic some years where I felt they chose a best movie of the year just to try and promote a lesser viewed movie - to me you should pick it best if you felt it was best not because you want people to watch it. Siskel chose some really stupid movies over the years - Babe 2 Pig in the City as best film of the year? Though Ebert chose some goofball movies as well.

Here are their ten best lists since 1969 - I'd say both were good critics and both had glaring omissions over the years. But they have movies like Lethal Weapon and Raiders make their lists.

Siskel and Ebert Top Ten Lists (1969-1998) (http://www.innermind.com/misc/s_e_top.htm)
Thanks for the Siskel/Ebert link.

I was always more likely to agree with Siskel (or him with me) than Ebert. In general I found his recommendations to great although I'm not endorsing his Top 10's per se.

I certainly agree that he was able to appreciate films regardless of genre. He was a critic who could appreciate the enterainment value of a movie as well as any "deep" qualities it might have

RGA

09-10-2011, 05:25 AM

Most of their top ten lists were pretty similar - a lot of movies were on both lists most years just in different orders. I used to watch them every week. I didn't find I agreed with one over the other more. I did find that Ebert seemed to like more movies - more forgiving of what I considered pretty dopey movies. On the other hand he gave The Usual Suspects 1 1/2 stars and 2 stars to Clockwork Orange - both I rank very highly. I could never quite figure that out.

Still I always liked Roger's writing style and you can tell he loves what he does. One of my favorites was Dawn of the Dead. Dawn of the Dead :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19790504/REVIEWS/905040301/1023)

Sir Terrence the Terrible

09-11-2011, 09:02 AM

Sir T doesn't realize the fact that anyone who comments on 3D will comment on the "Mid-line" technology they see. I see the technology in the theater and at the Sony Store - 99% of the 3d that the average unwashed masses see. It looks mediocre to lousy. So sure the $35,000 projector may in fact be revolutionary and better and he is frustrated that we have not seen what 3d can "really do" but I say "c'mon" lets evaluate the "base-line" or the 3D in the mass market gets and evaluate ONLY that and tell me it's great - if it was great there would be no need to spend $35,000 you could buy a 50 inch Sony or go to the movies - but even the supporters say they're much worse (after all if the $35k projector is MUCH BETTER then the theater has to be MUCH WORSE.

RGA, I think you need to stick to voicing your own opinions rather than attempting to get into my head. Invariably you always get your shyte wrong as two left shoes on a man with one right foot.

Anyone with half a brain will realize that 3D under florescent lights will not look the same as 3D in a darkened room. Secondly, only a idiot would believe that they are seeing the best the technology can offer in a store. The set there are almost never calibrated properly, the shutter glasses fall in and out of sync because of the store lights interfering with the IR signal. You are never allowed to sit at the proper distance, or have the ideal angle for the best 3D effect.

So RGA, now the bass-line is the reference. Digging pretty low to make your point eh? You don't approach audio from this perspective, so why approach 3D from this perspective? To make your lame point?

Lastly, I own two passive 3D projectors by LG, two 65" 3D plasmas, and two Sony 55" LCD LED 3D sets, so my only reference for 3D is not a $35,000, but comes at several price points using both passive and active 3D technology.

Anyone who has actually seen movies like Coraline, Avatar, Monsters and Aliens, and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 3D from either a calibrated set or projector would tell you that you are full of dog mess in your opinions of 3D. However you are entitled to them no matter how off the mark and lame they are.

It seems to me that whenever anyone has any complaint about 3D a bunch of excuses come out. The studio didn't have the money to do it right, it was a bad theater who set it up wrong, the projector lightbulb must have been too old.

In each and every case of poor 3D I have seen has been because it was an afterthought, and not the objective in the first place. This is not an excuse, it is a reality - if you don't plan your shots with 3D in mind OR you don't devote enough time in post production to do the conversion correctly, you are going to get poor 3D.

If you understand SMPTE specs for theater presentation, and the economics of movie theaters, you'll understand that theaters use their bulbs way past their prime, even with 2D movies. Theater managers always want to milk every bit of light out of those bulbs because of the cost of replacing them. With 2D we don't notice the dimness as much, but with 3D glasses between our eyes and the screen, the effect is most noticeable. This is a fact, whether you recognized it or not.

In other words it's never 3d but it's always the implementation - badly done 3D at the source - Clash of the Titans, Conan or if the likes of Avatar fails it's the theater and projector or it's because you wear glasses - (I wear glasses) So it rules out anyone who wears glasses?

I wear glasses, so glasses are not the issue. RGA, you act like you have never heard a good recording on a bad system. Clash of the Titans, and Conan failed because it was never intended for 3D presentation in the first place - it was an afterthought. Both movies looked bad in the theater, and at home. Anyone who thinks Avatar looked bad has vision issues - and that has nothing to do with the source or the hardware.

Once again RGA, you need to seperate the quality of the movie from the technology used to present it. You seem incapable of doing so, and that is the part that disturbs me.

RGA

09-12-2011, 06:47 AM

wait you insulted Roger Ebert by claiming he can't view 3D properly because he wears glasses - so now glasses are ok?

Problem I have is you are making assumptions - you assume because I didn't LOVE 3D that it was the theater - 3 different movie theaters. All their managers are using old bad bulbs. As I said before - at no time did I have any problem with the brightness level - you keep bringing up the light level - but IT WAS NOT A PROBLEM. So what else is it?

Then you say that Sony (and presumably all the big box chains) are lousy ways to watch 3D because of the lighting in the given rooms. You liken it to audio. I think that's a crap analogy because audio in those stores are generally lousy because of the room size and the fact that they stuff 20 speakers beside each other.

The 3D demos I have seen all have a single 3D TV section all by itself on it's own power - not sharing some sort of splitting device.

You say the calibration is the culprit. Wait a minute. The speakers carried by big box chains are generally crappy brands that no self respecting High end audio dealer would be caught dead selling. These "high end" 3D TVs are selling in big box chains - these are massive corporations who do their research. You're telling me that these marketing machines didn't do 5 seconds of research to consider the lighting at a big box chain like Best Buy which are all basically lit the exact same way and then not consider to calibrate the TV for best showing in such a room?

Even audio speakers are geared to be bright and boomy in order to sell against the boring but balanced and more long term enjoyment type loudspeakers - I suspect they do it on purpose because they know about the Munson effect. If some audio company can figure that out but Sony and LG can't you can sell your Bridge to someone else.

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people are looking and judging this technology the exact two ways you just said were CRAP. Theaters and big box chains. Sony, Best Buy, and Future Shop.

Yes I have a problem with the movies too - but I also have a problem with an expensive technology that continually looks bad in multiple theaters and in all of the major places selling it. But we're expected to fork out $10 grand on the "hope" and "promise" that once we get it home it will somehow be much better. All to watch Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs? Whoa - yes let's fork over the money to let 9 year old girls be happy they got to accessorize their 3D glasses.

I get it's here to stay - apparently there will be 5 times the amount of 3D "capable" TVs on the market next year to last.

And morons will dole out the extra money to watch lame ass cartoons on it. It still looks hokey (artificial and contrived).

Your only real argument is that "if it's done properly" it can be real good. And I asked you - when (in a movie that is story and plot driven and NOT a cartoon) has it EVER been done well - that answer is Avatar - and that's it. And it ONLY looks good because everything else is So VERY VERY bad. Sure it's great compared to Jaws 3, Conan, Piranha 3D (meh) and Clash of the Titans (the worst of the lot).

Again you don't address the reality of the problem - there are no good titles, most of the titles out there suck, most movies you agree suck are the ones not ORIGINALLY shot in 3D.

All I see is the future where studios will re-release a bunch of excellent 2D movies into crappy ass 3D processing like Clash of the Titans just to make some bucks and prop up the 3D catalog. It's a dumb technology to invest in because most movies are still being made in 2D and most of the 3D movies are done badly. The investment will be for the James Cameron's of the world and they are not that many. So you have ONE director who actually does a good job and he makes a movie every 3 years. So at best in 20 years you'll have 100 movies that are NOT cartoons or Imax 40 minute run with the moose kind of movies, that are actually done in 3D competently. And even then - according to you no one can see this superior experience unless they buy it first and bring it home and hire an electrical engineer to set the damn thing up so it looks right.

This is one of the biggest scams I've seen in recent years IMO. Selling expensive technology to people with more money than brains and offering a dreadful selection of software and the only way to get software is to wait for future titles. And all back titles because they were not shot for 3D will look like Clash of the Boody Titans. Chortle - chortle - what a bill of goods.

Here is what an expert has to say on this "Alexander Murphy is the pseudonym of a top CG supervisor in a prominent visual effects studio in Los Angeles, CA. "

The Movie Studios' Big 3D Scam (http://gizmodo.com/5493832/the-movie-studios-big-3d-scam)

His big argument was the SAME thing that I complain about "Endless rotoscoping provides layers that can be separated to fake a different perspective for the second eye, but that's what it looks like, layers. So yes, you can push things away and pull things forward and enhance the depth, but the content within each layer has no depth."

Seems to me that my eyes with glasses are pretty damn sharp since that is the number one complaint I have and it is distracting and looks terrible. And I saw it when i saw Avatar - less so but it's still there.

Even if I agreed with your assessment of the technology - and hell I don't even mind conceding the point - that if I saw your system I would be impressed by the amazing uttlerly true to life 3D experience that makes me believe that it's physically there - so let's say I concede this point - all back titles will never look good - because you yourself noted they were not shot or intended for 3D use. At least you could go back and improve tape with DVD and DVD with Blue Ray - but doesn't look like you can do that with 3D - so useless technology.

Feanor

09-12-2011, 08:22 AM

Good grief, RGA, do you get paid by the word?

Personally I won't be buy 3D anytime soon because:

Equipment is still relatively expensive, and
There aren't yet enough titles, (good or bad), to justify the cost in my case.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

09-12-2011, 11:04 AM

wait you insulted Roger Ebert by claiming he can't view 3D properly because he wears glasses - so now glasses are ok?

I never said he could not see 3D correctly because he wears glasses. I said he probably could not see 3D well because of eye issues. There is a difference, and he would not be alone in this.

Problem I have is you are making assumptions - you assume because I didn't LOVE 3D that it was the theater - 3 different movie theaters. All their managers are using old bad bulbs. As I said before - at no time did I have any problem with the brightness level - you keep bringing up the light level - but IT WAS NOT A PROBLEM. So what else is it?

Its called projector calibration and maintenance.

Then you say that Sony (and presumably all the big box chains) are lousy ways to watch 3D because of the lighting in the given rooms. You liken it to audio. I think that's a crap analogy because audio in those stores are generally lousy because of the room size and the fact that they stuff 20 speakers beside each other.

I thought you would be smarter and get the connection. Both are examples of poor auditioning spaces and conditions. If you wouldn't make a decision about speakers in the store, you shouldn't with 3D as well.

The 3D demos I have seen all have a single 3D TV section all by itself on it's own power - not sharing some sort of splitting device.

You say the calibration is the culprit. Wait a minute. The speakers carried by big box chains are generally crappy brands that no self respecting High end audio dealer would be caught dead selling. These "high end" 3D TVs are selling in big box chains - these are massive corporations who do their research. You're telling me that these marketing machines didn't do 5 seconds of research to consider the lighting at a big box chain like Best Buy which are all basically lit the exact same way and then not consider to calibrate the TV for best showing in such a room?

The answer is no, just like they don't calibrate the 5.1 audio systems they demo.

Even audio speakers are geared to be bright and boomy in order to sell against the boring but balanced and more long term enjoyment type loudspeakers - I suspect they do it on purpose because they know about the Munson effect. If some audio company can figure that out but Sony and LG can't you can sell your Bridge to someone else.

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people are looking and judging this technology the exact two ways you just said were CRAP. Theaters and big box chains. Sony, Best Buy, and Future Shop.

You got your stuff mixed up, and your number is way off. First, Sony is not the only theatrical vendor of 3D projectors. Barco, Texas Instruments, Christie, Panasonic, Mitsubishi and several more folks offer projectors for the theatrical environment. Secondly, Amazon sells quite a bit of 3D televisions as well, and they are purchased sight unseen. So Sony style stores and Best Buy are not the only places one can audition 3D set, some folks buy based on reviews.

Yes I have a problem with the movies too - but I also have a problem with an expensive technology that continually looks bad in multiple theaters and in all of the major places selling it. But we're expected to fork out $10 grand on the "hope" and "promise" that once we get it home it will somehow be much better. All to watch Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs? Whoa - yes let's fork over the money to let 9 year old girls be happy they got to accessorize their 3D glasses.

What a stupid statement. Everyone does not share your negative 3D opinion, and Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs is not the only 3D movie out there. It does not cost 10k to get into 3D, and the only award you win for this response is the one given for the most effective use of hyperbole.

I get it's here to stay - apparently there will be 5 times the amount of 3D "capable" TVs on the market next year to last.

And morons will dole out the extra money to watch lame ass cartoons on it. It still looks hokey (artificial and contrived).

Another stupid uneducated statement. Animation(not cartoons dummy) is not the only 3D out there. So folks are morons because they like 3D, and you are superior because you don't? I always knew you were full of yourself, and thanks for confirming it.

Your only real argument is that "if it's done properly" it can be real good. And I asked you - when (in a movie that is story and plot driven and NOT a cartoon) has it EVER been done well - that answer is Avatar - and that's it. And it ONLY looks good because everything else is So VERY VERY bad. Sure it's great compared to Jaws 3, Conan, Piranha 3D (meh) and Clash of the Titans (the worst of the lot).

Well, let's tackle more of your stupid comments(see a trend here). First we are talking about the technology, not the plot or story(likes or dislike is subjective), you seem to like to mash it together since you can't intelligently discuss the technology. Good 3D;

Alice in Wonderland
Tron Legacy
Final Destination
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Saw the Final Chapter

All live action. Then we have the various IMAX releases which are also live action and very good.

Again you don't address the reality of the problem - there are no good titles, most of the titles out there suck, most movies you agree suck are the ones not ORIGINALLY shot in 3D.

Good titles and what sucks is subjective. What I find you good, you might not and visa versa. Please don't think your opinions are the last word in objectivity.

All I see is the future where studios will re-release a bunch of excellent 2D movies into crappy ass 3D processing like Clash of the Titans just to make some bucks and prop up the 3D catalog. It's a dumb technology to invest in because most movies are still being made in 2D and most of the 3D movies are done badly. The investment will be for the James Cameron's of the world and they are not that many. So you have ONE director who actually does a good job and he makes a movie every 3 years. So at best in 20 years you'll have 100 movies that are NOT cartoons or Imax 40 minute run with the moose kind of movies, that are actually done in 3D competently. And even then - according to you no one can see this superior experience unless they buy it first and bring it home and hire an electrical engineer to set the damn thing up so it looks right.

Its a good thing you are not very good at predicting the future.

This is one of the biggest scams I've seen in recent years IMO. Selling expensive technology to people with more money than brains and offering a dreadful selection of software and the only way to get software is to wait for future titles. And all back titles because they were not shot for 3D will look like Clash of the Boody Titans. Chortle - chortle - what a bill of goods.

BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah...this is what you sound like RGA. You sound like this with 3D and audio note products. You just go on and on with your lame opinons as if they are word. Good thing I am not relying on you for my 3D education, I would be stupid as hell if I did.

Here is what an expert has to say on this "Alexander Murphy is the pseudonym of a top CG supervisor in a prominent visual effects studio in Los Angeles, CA. "

The Movie Studios' Big 3D Scam (http://gizmodo.com/5493832/the-movie-studios-big-3d-scam)

His big argument was the SAME thing that I complain about "Endless rotoscoping provides layers that can be separated to fake a different perspective for the second eye, but that's what it looks like, layers. So yes, you can push things away and pull things forward and enhance the depth, but the content within each layer has no depth."

You throw the word "expert" around much too loosely. I know Alexander, and he is not an expert. He is good at what he does, but he is not an expert. Secondly, he is speaker of 3D in theaters, not in the home. Different technology. There are no shutter glasses available for $0.03. And he is wrong on this statement

None of the prints or projectors I have seen 3D movies in properly compensate to counteract that loss of light

He obviously has not seen Transformers 3 which had 8 different prints to compensate for the loss of light through the glasses. All where properly tweaked, and matched to the 3D system that the theater chose.

Secondly, theatrical 3D projectors do have compensation processing, but because it require the projectors light levels to be turned up, theater managers don't use it. It decreases bulb life, and they do not want to spend the money so they can meet specs.

Seems to me that my eyes with glasses are pretty damn sharp since that is the number one complaint I have and it is distracting and looks terrible. And I saw it when i saw Avatar - less so but it's still there.

I am sorry, I cannot agree with your assertion that your eyes are pretty damn sharp. Something ain't right here, and its either the eyes, or the brain and I am not sure which at this point.

Even if I agreed with your assessment of the technology - and hell I don't even mind conceding the point - that if I saw your system I would be impressed by the amazing uttlerly true to life 3D experience that makes me believe that it's physically there - so let's say I concede this point - all back titles will never look good - because you yourself noted they were not shot or intended for 3D use. At least you could go back and improve tape with DVD and DVD with Blue Ray - but doesn't look like you can do that with 3D - so useless technology.

You cannot say all back titles won't look good, you have not seen them yet. Another prediction in a vacuum? Yep. Not all post production 3D is bad, Alice in Wonderland(and some of the titles I mention above) has proven that.

3D is an enhancement, not a scale up technology. When you understand the difference, you won't make stupid statement like this.

RGA what you so forget is that people have been complaining for years about the bad presentation that you get in theaters even when 2D was the only game in town. Nothing wrong with film, but everything wrong with its presentation. Blown subs, rattling surrounds, sound leakage from adjoining theater, cropped or dim images, and wrong aspect ratio being presented. These have all been problems for years, and yet no DP complained about film being a poor presentation medium. Now you expect with Digital cinema and 3D for things to improve? I don't think so. The theatrical environment will only be as good as the theater mangers keep them. If they don't get their projectors calibrated yearly, 3D will not look good on it. If they don't keep light levels up to spec, images both 2D(much less) and 3D will be effected. If they choose the cheaper polarized glasses, 3D will look like crap. Alexander is right about one thing, 3D does not and will not look good with the cheap polarized glasses theaters use. This is why I have stated that at this time shutter based 3D is the best presentation of 3D.

So RGA, we get your point. You hate 3D. So can you STFU and move on now?

bobsticks

09-12-2011, 12:00 PM

Smokey

09-13-2011, 01:53 PM

This thread remind of of an episode from SCTV with John Candy that was shown on TV. This segment was suppose to be in 3D (sarcasm) and in every few second they moved an object in their hand close to TV, back and forth. Hilarious :D

I found that segment on Youtube:

SCTV 3 Dr Tongues 3D House of Stewardesses - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u4tTFEF_XE)

E-Stat

09-13-2011, 01:54 PM

Good grief, RGA, do you get paid by the word?
You're just now noticing his inability to craft words carefully? :)

rw

bobsticks

09-14-2011, 05:45 AM

You're just now noticing his inability to craft words carefully? :)

rw

...recalls the phrase "moldy wordsmithing"...

AliceWool

09-20-2011, 12:07 AM

For me 3D seems to be like a fashion trend these days abd each second film ends with "3D"-tail. Personally I do not see any great difference between 2D and 3D, so the latter seems to be waste of time except for some really excellent examples of using this technique (like Avatar mentioned above).
If you want to become part of the action and perceive everything that a movie hero does then you should use 5D. That is the thing you will hardly be able to stand for more than 30 min):dita:

Poultrygeist

09-20-2011, 05:23 AM

I like to think of 3D as a worthwhile feature on my plasma not unlike PIP was a few years ago. It's loads of fun but not for everyday viewing. I wouldn't pay much more for it but when the price of a non 3D set is the same it's a no brainer.