It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā” “Yeah, sure ā you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Dumb gimmick in the ’50s, dumb gimmick in the ’80s that looked like blue-and-red blurrovision bullshit.
Still a dumb gimmick that looks only MARGINALLY better in 2009. Can’t go away fast enough, and after enduring the headache, frustration with the stupid glasses and general feeling of looking like a dork sitting there watching MY BLOODY VALENTINE through a fucking smeary VIEWMASTER, I will absolutely NOT be seeing another “3-D” movie in anything but 2-D ever again.
I’m willing to believe that Caroline in 3D helped its gross. You can’t assume that the people who went to see the film in 3D were going to see it at all in 2D. Do you think Journey to the Center of the Earth would’ve grossed as well as it did had it been strictly 2D? I doubt it. 51% of Up’s gross came from 3D, 47% for Ice Age, and 54% for G-Force. http://www.thewrap.com/article/3d-interest-and-bo-are-there-screens-arent_5076 Sure it’s a gimmick, but if done right it’s one that seems to work well these days. I don’t ever see it taking over, but it’s better than it’s ever been, and I think the grosses reflect that.
“The 3D revolution hasn
Reverse Analysis, Brack.
There is a 25% premium for 3D at Universal Citiwalk.
Here are three ways to look at it, re: Up.
1. Up in 2D still sold 12.5% more tickets than 3D.
2. 51% of Up’s domestic gross is $145m. That 25% premium on that number is $38 million. So Up earned about 13% more at the box office because of 3D.
3. That’s actually $21 million back to Disney… or about one-third the spend on domestic marketing or 10% of the cost of the production.
As I wrote above… 10% or 13% is nice. But it’s 13%, not 51%.
Without that extra, the domestic box office would had had it as the #5 Pixar film, behind Monsters, Inc, instead of #2, ahead of Monsters and Incredibles.
I’m not saying it’s bad. I’m not saying they shouldn’t do it. I’m saying that it’s not a big game changer. And I am also concerned that when 3D matures in a year or two with all these releases, the end of the novelty will start to be a problem for the more marginal titles when people refuse to pay the $4 premium to see every single children’s title times (x) however many kids they take to the theater.
way to prove my ‘bean counter’ point, DP
Here it is in a nutshell: if I want to see a picture, and it’s in 3-D, I will see it that way. If I don’t want to see a picture, 3-D will not change my mind. End of analysis. Good night. Drive safely.
Sorry you’re so angry about it, Leah, but you’re going to have to put up a better fight for me to buy into your position.
3D, for the studios investing in it, has EVERYTHING to do with bean counting.
Seriously.
You get this, yes?
I’m not saying that Jim Cameron or Spielberg or Jackson are about the beans. But Disney and DWA are converting because of money. It is a way to increase the ticket price point.
The reason stories are about how 3D will change filmgoing is because of money.
When the technology does change to the point where you can watch the movies without glasses, great. It will be a tool in the toolbox. We’ll see how much people like it then and how many use it.
You know, I like the Avatar footage… even more in 3D. But I am not remotely convinced that it will be a significantly better film in 3D than in 2D. And just because Jim wants it that way doesn’t mean that it is the be all and end all.
Same with watching traditional films in IMAX. Some are better for me… some are worse.
but let me get to THE BIG POINT…
EVERY SINGLE MAJOR TECHNICAL INNOVATION IN CINEMA WAS MADE BECAUSE OF THE BEANS.
Sound. Color. Widescreen. THX. Digital Projection. Digital Production.
Glad they are all here. Not one of them would exist were it not for MONEY as a motivator to the big money investors.
I did not make this up. I am not a mad ogre. I am just the messenger.
Not even Avatar, Lex?
I thought of you when I saw the preview. Aren’t you always complaining about the lack of primary colors these days?
I don’t agree that every tech innovation was due to beancounting. Really, THX as a way to make more money? How? But I do completely agree that 3D is being used primarily to sell more tickets, and filmmakers that want to make 3D movies are in higher demand now because studios they can make more money off their products. It actually comes down to three major things for the bean counters:
1. More money at the ticket stands
2. More difficult to pirate 3D
3. More likely to get butts off the couch and into theaters… because you can only get 3D in theaters.
The argument that filmmakers are actually using is #3, because most of these big guys love to say that their movies should only be seen in theaters and 3D will keep movie theaters alive. If theaters stay 2D, people won’t go to the movies anymore. I don’t agree with this argument, I think it’s a bunch of BS, but that’s the “artistic” argument for 3D, as film’s savior.
good grief, DP, again with the ‘angry’, where do you get angry from? just because i think your 3-D piece is rather weak and one-eyed and i told you so? please. if anyone sounds angry and SHOUTING, it’s you.
“EVERY SINGLE MAJOR TECHNICAL INNOVATION IN CINEMA WAS MADE BECAUSE OF THE BEANS.
Sound. Color. Widescreen. THX. Digital Projection. Digital Production.
Glad they are all here. Not one of them would exist were it not for MONEY as a motivator to the big money investors.”
wow, do you honestly believe that, or are you just fortifying your ‘position’?
the assertion that ‘Not one of them would exist were it not for MONEY as a motivator to the big money investors” is seriously flawed and completely misses the point, because investors do not come up with the innovations required, they merely FINANCE it.
advancement in film-making technique first requires a creative process in which a person/s with a dream and the imagination and know-how to push the envelope is compelled to come up with the innovation required; this creative process has nothing to do with INVESTORS MOTIVATED BY $, and everything to do with artistic endeavour.
advancements in film-making are and always have been driven by artistic endeavour to do it bigger and better by those people making films – to push the envelope (sound, colour), to evolve the art of moving pictures. which THEN requires investor $ to develop the tech required, based on the promise of a better product to sell and thus more earning potential and $ in the coffers. INVESTORS DO NOT DRIVE INNOVATION, INVENTORS DO. you’ve put the cart before the horse.
cave-people were compelled to tell stories around the fire and drawing on the walls long before the mighty dollar reared it’s ugly head (and do you honesty think cameron – a consummate artist and technician thru and thru with an ego of galactic proportions – and his peeps developed the stereoscopic 3-D camera driven by investor greed and not the desire to push the film-making envelope, to do it better?…)
and i think some people here are evidently confused, assuming that the motivations of film-makers (the artists and technicians who make movies) and the studios (the bean counters) are the same
Leah, I don’t entirely disagree with what you say above, but I do think it’s naive to assume that filmmakers are an entirely altruistic group or work in a vacuum of artistic intention. Many of the most talented filmmakers, Cameron included, have a business side that is perhaps as strong as their artistic side. We will never know his intention exactly, but I would venture to say that he is positioning his film as a 3D event because he feels that artistically it allows him to achieve certain goals, while at the same time achieving certain financial goals. I do not think that looking at Cameron’s filmography you can say that he makes movies with complete disregard for audiences/ticket sales. And it’s not a coincidence that many of his films have made a ton of money. 3D at this time is being driven primarily by money, with some artists like Cameron also trying to use it to do MORE for the medium than just make money… but still, to make money. Short of DP’s THX mention, I’d agree that the rest of his list is accurate as technical advances driven primarily to increase ticket sales.
i disagree. and i am not naive, far from it.
re: cameron, i’ve seen the camera system and talked to cameron about it in person, have you?
and just to be clear, i never once said that film-makers don’t care if their flicks sell tickets, of course they want to make good movies that loads of people go see, that’s the whole point
Apparently James Cameron is to Leah what K-Stew/M-Fox are to yours truly.
I don’t get it.
“As I wrote above… 10% or 13% is nice. But it’s 13%, not 51%.”
Okay, so you’re assuming that all the people who saw it in 3D were going to see the film regardless. I guess you can look at it in that light, but if you take the idea that 3D was the big selling point, you can increase the percentage quite a bit. Point being, you’d have to know whether or not the audience would’ve seen the film, regardless of format.
Leah… you are right… someone had to do the technological work.
But the ONLY reason why these very expensive tools have been implemented widely is because of the investors. Sorry… but these are the facts.
THX is and was a subscription service that movie theaters paid for. There are specs they have to meet, but it is not a sound system that was sold and it is not well managed, in terms of making sure theaters are up to snuff. But it did improve sound, in general, and theaters paid for it because it was a way of differentiating theaters as being “of higher quality.”
Sound came into existence – technology was around for over a decade, as I recall – because of a near-bankruptcy that led to The Jazz Singer and the response to that success. (And of course, it took over a decade to come close to creating tools that would allow a decent amount of camera movement with sound.)
The broad use of color was a response to television.
Digital Projection has been doable for almost 10 5 years and is just getting rolled out – which is also, coincidentally, how 3D is getting a piggybacked roll out – because the studios finally decided they were losing money by not backing the wide roll-out.
Digital production continues to grow because… there is money in it… even as it slowly destroys some of the long-lasting film-based companies.
As I wrote in my first response, I am not claiming the artists are hacks. Cameron acts as he likes. And he has the money from Titanic to bankroll what he likes. Same with Spielberg and PJ and Zemeckis. They are not your average directors.
It’s all lovely to embrace new artistic tools. I like them too. But the idea that this is some sort of artistic revolution for anyone but the big boys who can afford to play with the big toys is just not realistic.
How many filmmakers really want to make 3D films? Do any of us really know? Would Spielberg be using it for anything but a motion-capture family film?
And finally… Leah… “disappointing, predictable piece”… “frustratingly shallow” … “bean counting” Really? That’s your calm voice?
one a low-budget rip-off of Night Of The Living Dead (copyright evaded by adding
David, David, David… I feel like if you had been an entertainment journalist back in 1927, you’d have said regarding THE JAZZ SINGER: “What’s all this talk about SOUND being the new thing in movies? There’s only one release this year that uses sound! Silents will ALWAYS be what audiences want!”
You’re missing the biggest point here. You sniff that at this time, “what we are looking at… kids films.”
You’re absolutely right.
And the lion’s share of kids films are…? CG.
Making a 3D version of a CG movie is relatively simple — re-render your 2D image with slight offsets on each object, and voila, you have the image for your other eye. Bam: 3D.
Why do you think just about all the movies you mention in your examples were “kids films”? Because CG is driving modern 3D, NOT live-action! Even with new stereo camera systems, live-action’s hard to get right. It’s why Lex had issues watching MY BLOODY VALENTINE, for example. It’s not simple, like rendering out frames in a computer. There’s a lot more you need to account for that you don’t need to worry about on those CG “kids films.” And if you screw something up making a 3D CG movie? You render out your shot again. If you screw up 3D live-action? Not anywhere near as easy to fix. Certainly much more time-consuming to try.
As the live-action 3D camera technology improves — and more importantly, the MEANS to improve what’s already been shot — to make it feel correct so it doesn’t induce headaches… 3D will take off. (But while we’re on the subject, let’s take three upcoming huge “adult” 3D live-action releases in the next 8 months or so: AVATAR, ALICE IN WONDERLAND and the TRON sequel. What do those movies have in common? Yes… extensive *CG* from start to finish.)
There’s something else to consider as well: most experienced DP’s — not to mention directors — don’t WANT to shoot on stereo camera rigs. They have no experience with them yet. So it’s not like every director in town is taking 3D projects to studios, desperate to make them so they can “cash in.” Shooting live-action 3D is a totally different beast than what they’ve spent decades practicing. TOTALLY different. There’s a learning curve, and Cameron will prove to be the exception — you’re more likely to see younger, tech-entrenched DP’s taking those steps, not the Deakins and Kaminskis of the industry.
Discount “the marketplace” for a moment, and think about the technology. It’s still evolving and improving.
They’re making a 3D Salvador Dali biopic. That could be interesting.
mr. F, lots of good points there and actually, cameron’s 3-D double barreled unit is practically as simple to use as any conventional digital camera (tho marginally bulkier), so filming in 3-D is now fairly similar to filming on a conventional 2-D camera system. and like you said, it will become even simpler as the tech is further refined, which it has been even since that clip was produced.
and DP, that is my calm voice, i’m just overly verbose and prone to excessive use of adjectives, esp. when i’m feeling emphatic about something – i would have thought that must be obvious by now! it doesn’t mean i’m angry in the slightest
i understand what you’re saying and some of the points you make there are perfectly valid, but i think we look at things from different perspectives; imho you fall into the trap of working backwards, looking at things from the end result and/or the business perspective rather than the looking at the entire creative process from conception, thus making assumptions based on outcomes.
“Sound came into existence – technology was around for over a decade, as I recall – because of a near-bankruptcy that led to The Jazz Singer and the response to that success. (And of course, it took over a decade to come close to creating tools that would allow a decent amount of camera movement with sound.)”
for example, to say the use of sound came about because of ‘the jazz singer’ seems fine on the surface and it may be an industry parable and part of ‘film history’, but really, film-making with sound came about because it was inevitable, because storytellers always want to tell better, more realistic stories and sound is vital to that end, to expressing the human condition; so whether it was ‘the jazz singer’ or some other film in some other moment, sound would have eventuated because the people who made films wanted to convey a more realistic, encompassing film experience and thus endeavoured to innovate. sound did not come about because of one certain film or business or investors, it was born of the innate creative desire to innovate, that’s the point i’m trying to make.
re: the 3-D camera system shown in the clip linked in my first comment, the point is – and perhaps i didn’t make this clear – that camera systems and technology are currently undergoing a profound revolution, but instead of delving into some of the innovations and implications for the future, you chose instead to quote profitability or lack thereof for 3-D kids features thus far and use that to extrapolate that 3-D tech is doomed to failure, which is rather missing the point.
again, you’re starting at the end and working backwards instead of looking at the new tech and film-making going forwards. the tech revolution IS the story, not 3-D kids flicks. film-makers want to tell great stories and make great movies the same as always, and digital and 3-D is simply part of the evolution, which as refined will be so subtle and sublime as to enrich the movie-watching experience for any type of film. 3-D does not have to be big animated fare, that’s the old paradigm. cueron is using the new camera for his small project – the name of which escapes me at the mo i’m stuffed – and it just going to build.
man i hope that all makes sense, my brain feels like mush now
I’D LIKE TO GIVE MEGAN FOX A 5-D IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
HAHAHAHA BONER
Leah reminds me of Cruise on that leaked Scientology video. She’s been sozzlin’ way too much Cameron cool aid. I await for the nerds to start telling me about Virtual Reality again, two decades after the last time I was supposed to be blown away when I donned headgear and saw TRS80 style robots moving through solid objects on some retarded floating battlefield.
But Leah, 3D film technology has existed for something like 35-40 years. And it hasn’t failed for lack of trying. The technology now, sure, is even better than it was in the past. But people are not going to more 3D movies now than in the 80s simply because the picture’s a little better, but because it’s being heavily marketed to them, more so than ever before. And it’s being heavily marketed to them, because the industry feels that 3D is suddenly one of the best business models out there for a studio release. It’s been marketed to seem cool, and that perception has caught on, although it’s really no less dorky than it was 30 years ago. This is not to say that 3D cannot be utilized to make really cool, exciting film art. But it IS to say that 3D filmmaking is not suddenly becoming more popular because of the technology, or the filmmakers. It’s becoming popular because of those that want to make more money with it. This is not to say that it will remain a gimmick, or remain solely used to bring in extra dough at the box office. Many talented filmmakers may begin utilizing it over the nexe decade. And it may progress the medium in a way that is fresh and unexpected. But again, don’t be naive that this sudden growth is driven by anything but money.
crap, extreme delayed brain function. one of the main points i meant to make earlier and spaced it was re: this comment by DP. the subject just popped into my head so here goes before i forget again tomorrow:
“You know, I like the Avatar footage… even more in 3D. But I am not remotely convinced that it will be a significantly better film in 3D than in 2D. And just because Jim wants it that way doesn’t mean that it is the be all and end all.”
i’m not sure if people are aware (probably they are) that photography techniques for films designed for 3-D vs. those designed and shot conventionally are quite different (this may be what mr. F was referring to now that i think about it, actually, not the camera systems per se but the different photography techniques required, sorry mr. F for being dense if that’s the case).
a film designed and shot for conventional 2-D uses plenty of zoom/movement/cutting back and forth to create the dynamism and interest required to engage the brain on the flat 2-D plane, this seems quite normal for us viewers; for 3-D, however, the idea is to create the sense of ‘realism’, of actually being there, so photography designed specifically for 3-D eschews a lot of fast cutting, zooming and sudden camera movement, because these techniques serve to negate the feeling of actually being there in that reality (we don’t view real life like that so it ‘takes us out’ of the 3-D experience of realism), and can also unsettle/overload the brain and disorient – evidently even going so far as making people feel sick.
consequently 3-D photography is framed differently with an eye to ‘reality’, using far less fast cutting, longer, smoother, more sedate shots and less random movement and zoom vs. 2-D.
thus, a film designed for 3-D which is viewed in 2-D isn’t exactly the same only ‘flat’ like people might think, because without the 3-D sensation of actually ‘being there’, the film can appear lacking in the dynamism and movement we need to engage in 2-D(and conversely, conventionally shot films converted to 3-D after the fact can appear choppy and zoomy and manic and make your head spin, not like ‘being there’ at all, just gimmicky).
so watching ‘avatar’, which was designed for 3-D and photographed as such to create the sensation of ‘reality’ will not be the exact same viewing experience in 2-D because the quite different filming techniques will effect how the film is perceived by the brain.
fuck i’m ponderous, but at least i’ve said what i meant to and now i can shut my face
except to say, martin, no. damn, i almost got out.
3-D is not even remotely the same now as 30 yrs ago, not even close, snooze. and if you want to believe new tech is driven not by the desire to innovate but by studio greed and investor greed go right ahead, but please stop calling me naive. because i don’t think you actually know what you’re talking about past what you’ve been told to think
i’m knackerd and i’m going to bed, so fuck all y’all
(no, i’m not serious)
Martin: “3D” has actually been around since the turn of the century… the LAST century. Everyone assumes it was invented in the 1950s, but it’s been around almost as long as film itself. BUT, and this is the key: the current wave of 3D, “good” 3D if you want to call it that, was ONLY facilitated by two things: CG films and digital projection. CG, because it’s still much easier to make it 3D; and digital projection, because you can now exhibit it without those damned red and blue glasses. The medium is still relatively young, and you can’t say it’s the same as the 3D that has come before.
And because of that long history of 3D — and because most of the original 3D releases were shlock, which is what most people know and remember (50s era; 80s “resurgence”; etc.), it’s had a lot of negative opinions to counteract. But the current 3D isn’t about poking you in the eyes, as it was before. This is not Count Floyd’s idea of 3D. It’s about making you feel like you’re in the world itself. Why else is Cameron pitching AVATAR like he is? Not because he plans on having the Na’vi poke their spears in your face every other minute… but because he thinks you’ll feel like you’re actually ON another planet. That’s why he thinks it’s a “gamechanger.” We’ll see if he’s correct.
And Cameron’s stereo camera system isn’t the only one out there. (Why does he talk like it is? Because he invested money to make the equipment, of course…) Take the U2 concert movie. That 3D looked AMAZING. You felt like you were there. That was shot on a different system, using different techniques in post to bring everything together. And there are still OTHER stereo camera rigs and ways to use them. So it’s like ANY emerging technology — it’s going to take a while for people to make sense of what works best, and what should become the industry standard.
David: what you’re saying about digital 3D is the same thing people were saying about digital projection ten years ago. Give it time to come to fruition before dismissing it! It’s not cheap… and more importantly, you need ADDITIONAL equipment to show 3D movies, ON TOP of the expensive digital projection conversion. Most theaters still use film projectors; are you trying to argue that digital projection is a “pipe dream” because we aren’t at 100% saturation? Because satellite or fiber optic distribution hasn’t happened yet… would you also say it’s never going to happen? The truth is, evolution– whether it’s technological or biological — is a long, gradual process. Let’s see where it takes us before writing it off, or, in the case of 3D, blaming it on marketing.
I just get tired of people arguing that this kind of 3D has been around for years, and is simply a marketing gimmick. Marketing is only one piece of the puzzle, and they tend to ignore the larger piece itself… that of the new and evolving technology to make it possible.
When 3-d without glasses is possible, then it will no longer be perceived as a gimmick.
Mr. F… the reason 3D is being used, for the most part, right now is a marketing gimmick.
The analogy that says I would be screaming about how silly sound in movies are is silly and perhaps disingenuous.
But on the other hand, there was a reason for journalists to be unhappy with the initial integration of sound… it killed the beautiful moving camera for years.
On the other hand, the communication it allowed was worth the adjustment.
Is that true of 3D. Is there really a story that needs 3D to be better told?
“You sniff that at this time, “what we are looking at… kids films.”
I don’t sniff at it. I just point it out. And I completely understand why that is easier for the studios to do. But it also does speak to what audience is more interested in the experience of this technology right now.
And I hear you, Leah… but my issue is that I am not convinced that the technology is a real step. I believe, at this point, that it is another tool in the toolbox… like motion capture… like CG… etc.
That’s GREAT. But is it a revolution?
Like I say, I really like the Avatar stuff… but is it really that much different than every other 3D experience? Well, yes… because Cameron knows how to shoot action as well as any person who has ever lived. But the 3D immersion? Even in IMAX? Not so much.
What worked about Polar Express in IMAX 3D – which it was not made for – was that Zemeckis had made this very dense world that needed the depth of 3D to see right. And the IMAX screen equally so, as my eye needed some space so characters – especially in the big group scenes – weren’t just mushed into one another.
I expect Christmas Carol to make a next step, from the eye of Zemeckis. I expect Avatar to be a big leap… from the eye of Cameron.
But Francis Lawrence did a nice job shooting I am Legend… and it had no business being on an IMAX screen. All the intimacy he had created on that giant NYC canvas was lost.
Speed Racer was another interesting experience. On the massive screen, it looked like the cars had weight when they didn’t look that way on a smaller screen.
I have nothing but pleasure about the idea of artists having an expanded toolbox. But 3D as savior is a disaster of an idea. Cameron changed the world with the CG in T2 and again with how he integrated CG in Titanic. He will break new ground with Avatar.
But the huge aesthetic difference between CG and 3D is the integration that Cameron has been so great at doing. We see CG on TV shows now, making tweaks to all kinds of things we never think of. But no one watches 3D without being quite aware they are watching 3D.
I am pleased with this discussion… however loud. But to my eye, the money thing/savior thing is one discussion and the technology/art is a different discussion. Just because I address one does not mean that I am ignorant/disdainful of the other.
The hype around 3D right now is about money.
Will the art of it be improved to the level where people aren’t self-conscious of the experience. Well, artistically, I hope so. Financially, it would be a disaster, since the hope of distributors is that they can milk extra money out of ticket buyers with 3D.
But the real hope is when 3D costs exactly the same as doing 2D. Then it becomes like choosing a film stock. And different artists will make different choices. And that is all, I assume, any of us want.
yikes, hopefully it’s obvious my witching hour ramble about 2-D vs 3-D photography was is in regards to the new generation of spiffy digital 3-D tech and not the old ‘creature from the black lagoon’ type stuff. i probably should have mentioned that somewhere
“And Cameron’s stereo camera system isn’t the only one out there. (Why does he talk like it is? Because he invested money to make the equipment, of course…) Take the U2 concert movie. That 3D looked AMAZING. You felt like you were there. That was shot on a different system, using different techniques in post to bring everything together”
actually, mr. F, that’s incorrect; the U2 3-D concert was filmed using only the cameron/pace designed ‘fusion’ 3-D cameras, several of them in fact
U2 sucks. WORST BAND EVER. BIZKIT > U2. Hell, HANSON > U2. Fuck Bono. I can’t even imagine seeing that PRETENTIOUS SANCTIMONIOUS DOUCHEBAG in fucking 3D. The Edge seems like a cool guy, though.
Oh, yeah: 3D FUCKING BLOWS. Even if they had a movie where K-STEW and Megan Fox crawled out of the screen in perfect 3D I wouldn’t want to see it in that stupid BOGUS format that looks like shit and is all blurry and JUVENILE.
VIVA LA 2D. Gee, why don’t you go and really WOW ME and hit a PADDLE BALL into the frame like it’s 1907 or something, Vincent Price.
somehow i missed your comment above when i posted, DP, but i’m glad you’re into the convo at least and not completely ‘bah humbug’!
“And I hear you, Leah… but my issue is that I am not convinced that the technology is a real step. I believe, at this point, that it is another tool in the toolbox… like motion capture… like CG… etc.”
well, this statement baffles me, mostly because motion capture and in particular cgi were absolutely huge REAL STEPS in film-making innovation – CGI having irrevocably changed the way most movies are made, with far more emphasis on post production now – so i assume you just need time to adjust to the idea that the new 3-D tech is yet another ‘real step’? nobody is saying that every single film from here on out is going to be made with fusion cameras from now on – and i think it’s the studios machines behind much of the over-hyping, not film-makers – but i think you’re in a bit of denial about just how innovative the ‘dual-eye’ cameras are, because very soon any movie will be able to be shot in subtle, sublime 3-D as easily as conventional 2-D, and that is most certainly a game-changer.
As is the case for not being able to accurately measure how many tickets AREN’T purchased because of the higher amount, one thing in measuring 2-3D ticket sales would be the existence of the item itself. Does that Cloudy w/a Chance of Meatballs get made if not for 3D? Certainly all 500 bazillion dinero invested in Avatar wouldn’t have been reduced to $80M to make some mere animated flick. At a certain point don’t you have to look at the premium 3D price as being X with tix sold in plain ol’ 2D as being (X-25%)?
Speaking of math, Dave, I’m a little lost w/your earlier explanation. Under #2, you have that $38M is the 25% premium on the $145M portion of 3D tix sold. How did you get $38M? Wouldn’t it be $29 million?
Instead of 3D they should just invent REPLICANT WOMEN THAT YOU HAVE SEX WITH like in BLADE RUNNER.
Is that what THE SURROGATE is about because aside from the springed abs, those posters of the Surrogate chicks give me a GIANT BONER.
It would RULE to have FEMBOTS or SYNTHETIC WOMEN so you could get all the BANGING AND HOTNESS and none of the STUPID OPINIONS and you could CONTROL WOMEN without having to LISTEN TO THEM.
GOOD IDEA.
Listening to Triple Option and Leah talk about 3D is about as exciting as a fucking tax seminar.
triple, just when he’s talking movies you’re pulling DP back into the bean counting! NOOOOOOOO!!! š š
Hey! Hey! Kick the legs out of his bean counting and then he’s got ZERO argument. That’s it. Show’s over.
You’ll thank me later.
I AM YOUR GOD.
YOU ARE A DOUCHE.
I’M SMARTER THAN YOU.
leahnz: it’s true that 3ality used Fusion rigs to shoot U2 3D (mostly with Sony cameras)… but the way they combined the images, not just during shooting but in post as well, is a proprietary method of their own invention, and not like the way Pace works. Plus, they did a ton of dissolves between shots, rather than hard cuts, to allow the viewer’s eyes to refocus. Again, competing standards… and stil, there are others out there.
The (dear-God-I-can’t-believe-I’m-typing-this) Wikipedia page on U2 3D actually has a very smart and comprehensive look at the shoot, as well as all the gear that made it happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_3D#Production
Lex: you might hate the band, but at least the movie wouldn’t have given you a headache. It’s really good 3D. (And besides, how could you possibly HATE a band that cameo’d on your favorite show: ENTOURAGE! Come on! The boys LOVE the U2!)
The 3D for U2 3D looked like crap at the Irvine Spectrum.
Plus the audience acted like it was a concert instead of a movie, and talked the whole time.
I think I would have liked it under optimum conditions.
I saw U2 3D at the Bridge and was completely knocked out. Luke, sounds like you saw it in the wrong theatre.
QUEL SUPRISE that an old motherfucker like Cadavra (age: 64) likes U2.
THEY SHOULD MAKE BIZKIT IN 3D or ICP 3D: JUGGALO’S REVENGE.
Cadavra, I was living in the wrong county then. For EVERYTHING.
I saw “U2-3D” five times before it opened. I went to every single press screening, including two at the Bridge. It made my top 20 list last year, tied with “Speed Racer.” I thought it was a remarkable visual experience, no matter what you think of U2 as a band.
It suggests a whole new way of shooting live performances. If you could broadcast that 3D feed live to any digital theater, you could do simulcasts of concerts that would be better than a front row experience. Different, maybe instead of saying better, but it seemed to me to afford a POV that no one in the audience could ever have, and it was sort of amazing.
Beautiful example of the tech done right.
mr. F,
my point was, the pace/cameron ‘human eyes’ unit WAS the tech used for filming the U2 footage — what ‘3ality’ then did with the cameras with their own unique set-ups for the shoot was their own individual production, AND THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT: take the new technology available and make it your own to innovate and create, limited only by the imagination.
but you can’t say the concert was filmed on a ‘different 3-D system’ from cameron’s because it wasn’t; without the fusion camera system to capture the footage, none it would have been possible, so credit where credit is due. you seem resentful towards cameron for ‘claiming credit’ for the innovation, but the fact is he and pace DID invent the unique tech being used in many different applications. so what is the problem with that? everyone will use the system in their own style, nobody is saying ‘the camera has to used how pace uses it or not at all’! quite the contrary, as evidenced by the technology already having been and currently being used by various film-makers.
Leah, can you say JeffMCM semantic argument? This is hardly a technology that has been solidified into a one-piece-fits-all hardware choice, there are any number of 3D technologies out there being developed including farther off ones that do not require the dorky glasses. What Pace developed with Cameron is one of the best systems currently out there but we’re hardly in a time where 3D has matured to the point where tech innovation is no longer necessary, the format still has problems including a significant portion of the audience that does not even get the full 3D experience due to certain limitations with their eyes vs the 3D system. I’d say we’re still 15-20 years away from a mature 3D theatrical that has settled on 1-2 primary formats for shooting.
Fred Durst? The GOD that made a KIDDIE SPORTS FILM with ICE CUBE?
BAD IDEA.
3D is Star Tours all over again.
Meaning Star Tours was supposed to be the shit, A star wars roller coaster that wasn’t a roller coaster, a virtual experience of really being in space on a star ship!
And it’s just sitting in a room, watching a movie that shakes you and tilts you a bit.
and then you walk next door and go into space mountain and have one of the most fantastic theme park ride experiences ever devised. why? because it is real. Cameron may want 3D to give Avatar viewers the sensation of being on another planet, but it’s as silly a hope as the hope that Star Tours will be as good as a roller coaster.
3D is not real and never will be real. You’ll still know you’re in a theatre watching a movie, just like Star Tours. There’s nothing in the experience of the ‘new technology’ comparable to the air whipping past you and sensation of real motion whilst hurtling through the unknown black starfields of Space Mountain.
3D is, as Poland says, all about the dollars, it’s not giving you more realism, just a “new” high tech gimmick that has a glossy appeal (for now). That’s why, today, there is no line or wait for Star Tours on any given day at Disneyland, but Space Mountain will have a 1-2 hour standby wait time everyday (and your fast pass is likely to be for three hours later, rather than merely an hour later).
The Indiana Jones ride is almost as bad, a mostly lame roller coaster with some “new, exciting technology! will change the way rides are made!” jolts to hammer the cart up and down and sideways in a most uncomfortable fashion, the much slower and quainter and older Splash Mountain is a hell of a lot more exciting.
“Leah, can you say JeffMCM semantic argument?”
Hey! I didn’t think I was THAT bad.
MARTIN: no, not ‘semantic’, how do you figure that? what the hell are you on about? where did i say no further innovation was necessary? please point that out to me. if anything, i’ve said quite the opposite. yet again, i’m sorry but i don’t think you actually know what you’re on about, simply regurgitating what you’ve read/been told.
name the other 3-D systems in development ‘out there’ not based on the fusion camera (and team cameron IS the one currently bent on innovating for ‘sans glasses’ 3-D, god help him)
“I’d say we’re still 15-20 years away from a mature 3D theatrical that has settled on 1-2 primary formats for shooting.”
huh? rubbish. based on what? and what ‘primary formats’? what are you talking about? do you actually know anything about this new generation of digital 3-D tech/camera systems/filming techniques? there is no ‘1 – 2 format’ limit, the only limit is the imagination of film-makers who will use cameras to achieve their specific visions, much as 3ality did so well for the U2 concert. there is no ‘one way’. brush up before you wade in.
the ‘human eye’ camera is here, the baseline technology. there are infinite applications (not ‘1-2 primary formats’), sport could be huge, concerts such as U2, the possibilities are endless. the cameras are being snapped up like hotcakes at the mo, and within a few years they will be in widespread use in different applications.
will the tech constantly improve? of course, it always does! but the baseline camera is here. get used to it. deal with it. (3-D without glasses IS many, many years away, that much is certain. also, about 7% of the human population simply can’t handle 3-D, their brains can’t process it. period. that likely won’t change because it’s physiological. so obviously not EVERYBODY is going to dig 3-D, no matter how realistic and life-like)
and man, some of you can be cynical tools and repetitive parrots towing the party line. why assume that technological revolution is driven by bean counters so they can raise ticket prices? for fucks sake, talk about NAIEVE
“QUEL SUPRISE that an old motherfucker like Cadavra (age: 64) likes U2.”
But the funny thing, Lex, is that no matter how old I get, my age will always be higher than A) your IQ, and B) the number of hot chicks you’ve banged.
Cadavra FTW!