May 15, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
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” — 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 — 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 — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — 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 named—” “Yeah, sure — 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 I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s 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 didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — 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. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s 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
Chris Rock during the Superbowl Pre-Show, pimping “Grown Ups” with Sandler, Spade, and The Stapler:
“It’ll be the only 2D movie out this Summer.”
See it in 2D.
Maybe it’s just my horrific vision or the fact that I’m one of those people for whom 3D just doesn’t “work,” but I enjoyed Avatar 10x more when I could actually focus on plot, dialogue and image instead of some weird-perspective, gray-lit undercranked murk… I’ve made two attempts in the last year (My Bloody Valentine, Avatar) to give 3D a fair shake, and both times I came out feeling like I DIDN’T EVEN SEE THE MOVIE, since I couldn’t focus on ANYTHING but the compromised, annoying image and the murky look.
Whole plot points and dialogue bits would fly over my head and I just COULDN’T WAIT to get those glasses off.
Not to mention THE GERM FACTOR.
Do you know how much BACTERIA is behind the average person’s ear and in their hair oils? Some Arclight Jockey spritzing those things with some TOXIC SOLUTION THAT MIGHT GET INTO YOUR EYEBALLS AND BLIND YOU isn’t much comfort.
The glasses are UNSANITARY, DISGUSTING, and SMEARY.
3D is without a doubt THE STUPIDEST GIMMICK OF ALL TIME, it doesn’t even work, not even in AVATAR, it gives me a headache, or at the very least the MOVIE ISN’T EVEN SUFFICIENTLY BRIGHT.
I will NEVER see another movie in 3D again, ever.
IT SHOULD BE BANNED.
On the positive side: TITANS POWER. This movie is going to FUCKING RULE, but DON’T see it in 3D or you’ll have to see it a SECOND TIME just to pay attention for it.
3D SUCKS.
hey lex, did i ever mention that apparently 3D doesn’t work for about 6% of people, their brains just can’t process the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
anyway, yet another movie with ‘buzz-cut sam’, and this one really flies in the face of logic.
grubby post-apocalyptic buzz-cut marcus, ok, makes a degree of sense, at least it would stay tidy and lesson the likelihood of head lice
marine buzz cut jake, ok, he’s an ex-marine, buzz-cut central, i can get on board
but the perseus of myth, rider of the flying pegasus, when greeks were greek with de rigueur flowing locks and every other male in the entire trailer has magnificent long hair or at least a ponytail, but no! SAM IS BUZZ CUT PERSEUS. are you kidding me? i’m extremely disappointed and saddened at this nonsensical turn of events, we are clearly overdue for a long-locked sam and can’t even get one in a greek friggin mythology ‘clash of the titans’ movie.
(did they decide they wanted to ‘go another way’ with perseus so as not to appear too ‘hamlin’? who has a buzz cut in greek mythology? unbelievably bogus)
Lex — are you saying that the Arclight gives out used 3D glasses to the audience — not plastic-wrapped Real-D type you see in most AMCs, Regals, etc.?
Jesus Christ, that’s fucking disgusting.
Arclight uses a 3rd technology that differs from Dolby3D and RealD – the lenses contain electrosensitive crystals that darken when a charge is run through them. The glasses are chunky monkeys because they contain a bluetooth receiver that literally synchronizes with the screen and alternately blacks out one eye at a time 120 times per second.
So, yeah, the movie is going to be less bright and they’re not going to let you walk out of the building with the glasses. On the plus side, it’s supposed to be the best technology for preventing the “wrong” image for each eye being seen and prevents ghosting (afterimages caused by movement).
I’m all in for Clash of the Titans, 3D is the cherry on top of the sundae. We are talking about a remake of a stop motion Harryhausen classic about Greek Gods and Monsters. If your not looking for gimmicks and cheese out of a project like this, stay home.
Movie with a woman that had snakes for hair +++
Movie that has a woman with snakes for hair that jump out of the screen +++++
Foamy, interesting, thanks for the info.
Preach it, brother Lex!
Finally saw Avatar a few days ago – can’t stand movies with crowds anymore – and I wish I had seen the 2-D version. It not only didn’t add anything, it subtracted – I had a headache for an hour afterward (had to remove the glasses a few times during the film), and it seemed to dull the colors. Just an awful gimmick that I won’t fall for again.
I got one of the plastic-wrapped glasses at Regal, by the way, and had the feeling they’d been used before. Are they just repackaged after use? Because the first ones I got had a scratch down the right side, and I had to ask for replacements.
Regal (apparently) uses RealD – if they came in plastic-wrap then they’re probably the disposable versions. Depends on the theatre, but those glasses cost around 30cents to make and are included in the ticket price so many theatres will let you walk out with them.
RealD uses a type of polarization lens, which means that any head movement can cause minute variations in the image that you see. As Leah said, for the majority of people it’s fine as their brain will compensate, but for a small proportion it will cause headaches (and for an even smaller proportion it wont work at all as their brains will refuse to combine the two images the eyes are seeing).
Dolby3D may be slightly better for some people, as it relies on wavelength technology. The glasses are much more expensive, and so you “rent” them (for RealD the big expense is in the screen, which is made from special material to preserve the polarization). Dolby3D however does have some issues with people who have varying degrees of colour sensitivity, so your mileage may vary as to which technology is more suited to you.
If you’re in LA (and a few other select locations nationally and internationally), you may be able to find synchronization technology similar to the Arclight mentioned above. This is the most expensive version, but usually has the least issues with sensitivity to movement and colour. But there is always a chance you’re just in the 6% for whom it just doesn’t work no matter what you try.
As an addendum – RealD theatres usually have a bin at the exit for recycling the glasses (if you want to or not), so there is a fair chance that your ones were repackaged from earlier use.
Watching AVATAR without 3D makes no sense.
Finally saw AVATAR the other night. Though I usually prefer to see 3D stuff at the Arclight, after some cursory research it seemed like maybe RealD was the way to go, so I caught it at AMC Burbank. It looked great to me; nothing murky or ghosty, and no headache — only a slight discomfort from having the extra weight on my nose for almost 3 hours. Of course, I can pretty much say the same for my other 3D experiences. Clearly, I’m not in that 6%.
Loved the movie, too, lame dialogue and all.
Thanks for the info, Foamy.
Yeah, I just dropped my glasses in the bin, as I certainly had no more use for them. As I did receive a packaged, but scratched pair, I just assumed they had repackaged ones that had been in the bin.
Christian: Is that a critique on the movie?
Since Cameron designed and shot the film to be an immersive 3D spectacle, why would I want to see it in a flat format? And I don’t know that it would play as well for me in 2D. I wouldn’t want to watch FRIDAY THE 13TH IN 3D without the 3D either.
What about Clash of the Titans, which wasn’t filmed with 3-D in mind?
USA Today: What happens to those 3-D glasses after ‘Avatar’?
http://tinyurl.com/ygjyvd8
Apparently RealD makes up for 70% of the market. Enjoy the larger IMAX glasses myself.
Actually, Christian, the film was shot specifically with the expectation that it would mostly be seen in 2D. But don’t let the facts get in the way.
So looking back at the 3D thread from almost 2 months ago….any change of opinion DP?
The thing, for me, that separates movies made with 3D in mind and those that are converted after the fact is the use of the technology. I find those where 3D was part of the shooting process tend to include more environmental shots – people standing in the foreground are actually IN the foreground, shots to demonstrate scope of the environment add a feeling of depth etc. Those that are converted later tend to pay more attention to THINGS FLYING AT YOUR FACE.
I suspect that Clash of the Titans will have many spears and scorpion tails flying at the audience’s face, and be relatively sparse between the action set pieces.
“Actually, Christian, the film was shot specifically with the expectation that it would mostly be seen in 2D. But don’t let the facts get in the way.”
This indicates they shot it with the intention of converting it to 3D from the start. Which directly contradicts just about everything known about the film’s post-Avatar, date-pushing switch to 3D. So, what facts would those be?
And for those who don’t like the idea of recycled glasses – why not just keep a pair, cleam them yourself, and reuse them?
Wrong movie Story – Christian/DP are talking about Avatar, not CotT.
David, you mean Cameron would prefer people to see AVATAR in 2D? Or it doesn’t matter to him? So why go through such a technical jungle if it didn’t matter to him? Why film it in 3D? He didn’t shoot any scenes congnizant that they’d be viewed in 3D? And what do you think is the major technical draw of the film?
The facts are that Cameron shot and released a film that most audiences have seen in 3D. For a reason.
My take from the facts was that while it was shot explicitly for 3D, the expectation was that most people would see it in 2D – simply because that’s what the trend was out in the marketplace. Even for other movies where 3D was a big element a buttload of people were still watching the plain 2D version, so they were initially operating on the expectation that the same would hold true for Avatar.
Then the 3D fever took hold and the rest is pretty much history…
I saw Avatar at the Arclight opening night. I’m glad I did it because it was supposedly the first time ever 3D had been in the Dome.
Other than that, I got the feeling I would have enjoyed the 2D more. It’s an awful long time to be wearing those heavy glasses and my eyes were watering the whole time.
I read somewhere that the glasses cost $100 a piece to the theatre. So, yeah, they’re recycling and no, you can’t take them with you.
“Wrong movie Story – Christian/DP are talking about Avatar, not CotT.”
Ah, I see. My mistake. Though I’d have to think the assumption that’d mainly be seen in 2D was way early in the process.
movies shot for 3D are indeed designed differently (and avatar is most certainly designed for 3D, cameron has made it clear it also has to WORK in 2D, but that is quite different from designing and shooting it for 2D sensibilities)
effective 3D instills in the viewer the immersive ‘actually being there observing’ experience, this the hook, what captures our interest, the feeling you are in the scene watching.
where 2D movies typically use faster, choppier editing and camera movement to create and sustain visual interest, these things can actually detract from the ‘being there’ 3D experience. 3D design utilises far less editing, chopping from character to character and shot to shot, focusing instead on longer, smoother, continuous shots designed to mimic real life and lend themselves to the ‘being there’ feeling.
because in real life our eye tracks from object to object and our vision does not chop from one thing to the next like an edited piece, our natural visual experience is akin to one long tracking shot and effective 3D design attempts to mimic this ‘real vision’ experience. if watch avatar with this in mind, the subtle 3D sensibility is apparent in both the action and character sequences.
also, this is why movies designed for 2D (particularly action-y movies) and then converted to 3D can just seem mental and make your head reel, too choppy and hectic, because the elements designed to create and sustain visual interest in 2D actually detract from the ‘actually being there as observer’ 3D experience.
“effective 3D instills in the viewer the immersive ‘actually being there observing’…”
Never, ever, ever came close to feeling this while watching 3-D. In fact, it does exactly the opposite for me, never letting me forget I’m watching a movie.
“effective 3D instills in the viewer the immersive ‘actually being there observing’…”
Never, ever, ever came close to feeling this while watching 3-D. In fact, it does exactly the opposite for me, never letting me forget I’m watching a movie.
—
I agree. I never felt like I were “actually being there observing”. However, I did feel that there was something immersive about the experience but I don’t quite know how to explain it. Not immersive as in I’m surrounded by the action, but immersive as in I’m more involved and more seduced by the visuals BECAUSE of the 3D.
Cameron has said several times that the 3D experience of his movie was more like looking out a window unto another world.
My RealD experience of AVATAR was underwhelming. Could’ve been the theatre’s fault, the projectionist’s, scratched glasses, my seat, I don’t know…
But when I watched the movie again in Dolby 3D and sat closer to the screen, slightly off-centre, it was a fantastic experience. Almost nothing felt out-of-focus, no fuzziness, very little ghosting, the colours were brighter, the images more gorgeous, and I had no trouble focusing on things.
After ranting against 3-D, LexG removes his right to ever use the phrase “OLD as FUCK” against anyone else, and be taken seriously.
On topic:
LOU I don’t know what that means, but 3D blows and JUST YOU WAIT till the first Avatards start catching Hep C, herpes, and head lice from those glasses.
OFF TOPIC BUT THERE ISN’T A BYOB (and no one will care anyway for the usual reasons):
BIEL POWER. LETTERMAN RIGHT NOW THIS SECOND, OH, MY GOD LOOK AT HER. SO HOT.
BIEL 4 EVER. Right after the HOLY TRINITY (K-Stew, Fox, Swift) THERE IS BIEL, and SEYFRIED. The five hottest women IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
It means that you sound like an OLD MAN ranting against technological innovation. You and my dad have that in common. And it’s the only area where you sound decidedly old-fashioned.
You can’t catch VD from glasses. Shave your head, and head lice won’t even be a worry. At all.
Agreed that Biel is hot, but if even the prospect of biel boobies can’t save Powder Blue then you have to remove “power” from the sentence.