Well, I wouldn't be fine with the absence of 2D. The difference is of
course the glasses, and some people's inability to process it. We don't
need LR Stereo Audio Only theaters because surround is a seamless addition
to the experience. If a viewer went to a movie without it, they would
definitely notice that it didn't sound as good, or big as it should have,
even if they don't know why.
If 3D could work the same way without glasses, headaches, and the other
drawbacks, and no premium ticket, then I wouldn't mind it always being
there. As it is, I seek out the 2D shows because I don't want to pay extra.
If it is a free 3D screening (which happens sometimes thanks to being a
Disney employee) and I remembered to wear contacts, then I don't have a
problem watching 3D. Even a 3D conversion is fine, so long as I didn't pay
more for it.
Ian
From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jay Mahavier
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
Oh! For you it's all about the $4. So if they didn't charge any extra at the
theater for the 3D then you would be totally fine with it? Because I thought
you were making an argument based on the merits or lack of merits of 3D
itself. Now I understand. You are perfectly fine with 3D as long as you
don't have to pay any extra for it. So then if they just got rid of all 2D
screens and only showed 3D and charged just one single price for all movies
you would be cool with that. Very interesting.
Jay
On Sep 17, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Ian Johnson wrote:
>
>
>> If you notice the editing then you are not inside the story. And if
you're
> not noticing the editing, then what's the point?...
>
>
>
> Of paying an extra $4 because it was cut on Avid?
>
>
>
>> If you notice the cinematography then you are not inside the story. And
if
> you're not noticing the cinematography, then what's the point?...
>
>
>
> Of paying $4 for something shot on RED?
>
>
>
> If you notice the sound design then you are not inside the story. And if
> you're not noticing the sound design, then what's the point?..
>
>
>
> Of paying $4 for SDDS?
>
>
>
> The thinking is that if you are paying a premium for the movie, then there
> needs to be a perceived added value. Once your are immersed in the movie
> you tend not to notice that thing you paid extra for. If I have to become
> less engaged to notice the 3D I paid a premium for, then it doesn't seem
> worth it. If the 3D is used in such a way that the 2D version suffers for
> its lack, then it is worth the premium. I think it is fair to say that no
> 3D conversion qualifies.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
> Jay Mahavier
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 12:41 PM
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
>
>
>
>
>
> and just how does that make sense? Let's replace 3D with something else.
>
> If you notice the editing then you are not inside the story. And if you're
> not noticing the editing, then what's the point?
>
> If you notice the cinematography then you are not inside the story. And if
> you're not noticing the cinematography, then what's the point?
>
> If you notice the sound design then you are not inside the story. And if
> you're not noticing the sound design, then what's the point?
>
> If you notice the writing then you are not inside the story. And if you're
> not noticing the writing, then what's the point?
>
> How far do you want to go with that? I'm not trying to defend 3D, but I
just
> want to know how that thinking makes sense.
>
> Jay
>
> On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:35 PM, David Dodson wrote:
>
>> I disagree about AVATAR. If you've had the chance to watch it on Blu ray
> in 2D, it's even more spectacular and more immersive. The world seems
> somehow bigger, probably because you're making the imaginative translation
> into the story world, with all its artifice, rather than the stereo world,
> what with its "real" objects are now much smaller than real life. In other
> words the "literal" nature of stereo presentations makes the physical
> objects smaller than life, which is no good at all.
>>
>> And agreeing with Ian, if you notice the 3D then you're not inside the
> story. And if you're not noticing the 3D, then what's the point? It's that
> inherent paradox that makes 3D pointless except for theme parks.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:25 PM, Andi Meek wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If it's done well, by filmmakers who understand how to use it, it can be
> amazing. Avatar worked considerably better in 3D than in 2D because of the
> immersive world Cameron built and the way he used that space. Scorsese is
> doing it with Hugo. Just watch the trailer, you can see how it will work
in
> 3D and i reckon it will look great. Unfortunately these films seem to be
> pretty few and far between, I agree though, 3D doesn't have a wide enough
> range of instances when it will significantly improve the story, like Ian
> says, limited to spectacle. Check out the trailer for Hugo;
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQNkETGfA6k
>>>
>>> Andi
>>>
>>> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> From: ijohnson2@earthlink.net <mailto:ijohnson2%40earthlink.net>
<mailto:ijohnson2%40earthlink.net>
>>> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:45:36 -0700
>>> Subject: RE: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I avoid 3D whenever I can (unless it's a free screening) but I am
looking
>>>
>>> forward to A Harold and Kumar Christmas in 3D BECAUSE of the stupid 3D
>>>
>>> gimmicks. They have an excuse to use it for comedy and mockery of 3D.
For
>>>
>>> most movies it needs to avoid calling attention to itself so as not to
>>>
>>> distract from the story. If I am engrossed in the story, I'm not
noticing
>>>
>>> the 3D so there doesn't seem to be much point. If I admire the quality
of
>>>
>>> the 3D and what it adds to the image, I am only looking at the movie
> rather
>>>
>>> than experiencing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be ok to notice 3D if it is used in a way that helps tell the
>>>
>>> story, like the way camera movement, focus, composition, etc. are used
as
>>>
>>> storytelling tools. Or in the case of Harold and Kumar, as gags. If it
is
>>>
>>> only an overlay to subtly enhance the realism of the experience, then it
> is
>>>
>>> more in the category of surround sound, and I don't remember ever paying
>>>
>>> extra for a movie because it was shown with DTS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think 3D as a premium is better suited to documentary subjects of the
> sort
>>>
>>> where the selling point is spectacle rather than story.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf Of
>>>
>>> Mark Myers
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:50 AM
>>>
>>> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Not looking good fro 3D theatrically
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe filmmakers will have to actually create good stories instead of
>>>
>>> relying on stupid 3D gimmicks to put butts in the seats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we borrow Bill Clinton's sign and amend it to say "It's the STORY
>>>
>>> stupid!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh what am I saying. I want a pony too.... or maybe a Porsche.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Owner, Director
>>>
>>> SR Film & Video Productions
>>>
>>> 195 W Broad St
>>>
>>> Salunga PA 17538
>>>
>>> 717-393-5333 ex 142
>>>
>>> www.SR-Pro.com <http://www.sr-pro.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Follow us on Facebook
>>>
>>>
>
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Salunga-PA/SR-Film-Video-Productions/13200182
>>>
>>> 0445>
>>>
>>> Linked In <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-myers/8/488/746>
>>>
>>> Twitter <http://twitter.com/SRProductions>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/17/11 10:00 AM, Terence Curren wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2011/09/3d-is-fcked-basically
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>>>
>>> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through
> your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be
> on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> David Dodson
>> davidadodson@sbcglobal.net <mailto:davidadodson%40sbcglobal.net>
<mailto:davidadodson%40sbcglobal.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>>
>> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through
> your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be
> on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>
> If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through
your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be
on your next cell bill.Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment