Movie Talk (New Films, Old Films... doesn't matter) (40 Viewers)

Buck Fuddy

Lara Chedraoui fanboy
May 22, 2009
10,630
don't know about you but I didn't waste any of my talents, just my moneys :p

I blame myself though, 3D or not, in the end of the day it's the same shit ... in 3D. Was just tagging along with friends thinking I had nothing better to do (boy, was I wrong) but gotta give it to the marketing mofos, when all is said and done, they did get my 13 bucks :(
Congrats, you are now part of the gullible mainstream public who bought into the 3D hype!

Spend money, simpleton, spend :D
 

Osman

Koul Khara!
Aug 30, 2002
59,102
I went to Star Trek, I strictly was going for non 3D regular viewing (by now I know loooong in advance which ones will be worth seeing in 3D, like Hobbit, which is an extreme rarity these days), but the pesky motherfuckers are smart, they made me wait like 2-3 days after I wanted to see it simply because it was all 3D showings. And the day its non 3D, its in the smallest and most obsecure theatre I barely gone to before, and only 1 or 2 showings, rest of day in 3D. Talk about trying to force it on ppl, I didnt care when the price difference was so minimal, but now like a regular viewing is 100 krs (like 10 euros) while a 3D one is 155 krs (15 euros). Yeah, just fucking pass on that.


But I will see Man of steel in 3D, simply because I just have to see it on its premiere, and it looks like it will use the visual style of 3D decently enough, since its Snyder doing it.
 

Buck Fuddy

Lara Chedraoui fanboy
May 22, 2009
10,630
What's wrong with 3D?
I think it's a gimmick that doesn't add anything positive. (Possible exception being animation). Then again, ever since Avatar I've been avoiding 3D as if it were the plague.

I've personally gotten to the point where I might read or hear something about a movie & think it's gonna interesting. Only to later find out it's in glorious 3D & my interest fades away faster than you can say "George Lucas is an artist of great integrity".
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
I think it's a gimmick that doesn't add anything positive. (Possible exception being animation). Then again, ever since Avatar I've been avoiding 3D as if it were the plague.

I've personally gotten to the point where I might read or hear something about a movie & think it's gonna interesting. Only to later find out it's in glorious 3D & my interest fades away faster than you can say "George Lucas is an artist of great integrity".
I have only seen one 3D movie but I do believe it can contribute a lot to cinema. Here's (parts of) an interesting point of view on 3D by Wim Wenders. He's talking about his personal experience with 3D while making his 2011 film, Pina.

+ There was a person in front of the camera, and in front of me, but also eventually in front of the audience! A real body. Not just a shape, a cutout, like in a hundred years of cinema before. There was “volume”. Roundness, No longer a flat surface, like in any close-up I had ever seen before, but a true “presence”. There was the aura that you only see when you are confronting somebody and really RECOGNIZE him, or her. When you can reach out and TOUCH, not only with your hands. You can also touch somebody with your eyes, when he (or she) is there. When there is a YOU and a ME. I and THE OTHER. We have SPACE around us. That is what our perception needs to give us a sense of reality. The flat screen only has an illusionary space, an emotional space (in a good movie) we can immerse in it for two hours, but it is essentially the same space a painting has, or a photograph. This sheer presence of a person, without choreography, without sound, without story, almost without purpose, was… mind-blowing.


+ The most outrageous, though, was, or is: the present perception of 3D is going in the opposite direction. It is all taking place in the realm of fantasy, and the actors on the screen are more devoid of reality than any actor in any old black and white movie. Johnny Depp and Penelope Cruz in “Pirates of the Caribbean” for instance
are not “there”…they do not exist, with all the gimmickry around them they are strange, human-like creatures, “body snatchers” like in that film by Phil Kaufman. And that goes for everything that comes packaged in the 3D envelope of the Major Studios. They have taken this language, this amazing new medium, and … kidnapped it, stolen it, mutilated it beyond recognition, so none of their audiences could possibly conceive of it as a tool to represent … reality. Human reality. Our planet. Our existence. Our concerns.


+ All I am saying is: the very same thing is happening with 3D. It got out of bed on the wrong foot. People think it is strictly a fantasy tool, owned by the Big Studios. And the studios have no interest whatsoever in proving the opposite. They have no interest in developing 3D as a “language”. They just don’t take it that seriously! As long as it rakes in the money, they are happy to not explore it in any other way than as an attraction in itself. But 3D can do/can be so much more! 3D deserves so much better. It deserves to be taken seriously! It should/it will/it must become the very language of future reality-based movies. Documentaries as well as fictional films. It is so absurd that the notion of a “fictional film” means, for more and more people today, that it is not related to any reality. That is a cultural disaster, a tsunami wiping out our imagination. Stories are rooted in myth, and myth is distilled from human experience, from life. Stories are not recycled versions of other stories that are already formulated from previous stories. That is the present state of the blockbuster cinema. I am getting carried away.


+ 3D has a totally unexplored affinity to … reality. But my deepest desire, my urgent request, is that you have an interest in the act of seeing, in the physiology and psychology of what our eyes and our brains do together, in unison in the most amazing perfection, to create space, depth, volume and presence.


+ Every day, now, “in life”, when you go outside of this beautiful theatre into King Street, when you go home and see your friends, or kids, or neighbors. Your eyes and your spatial perception are miracles. That is what 3D tries to imitate and could become:
a miraculous new perception of life. There is still a long way to go, this is an adventurous road and territory that is still largely unknown. Go for it!

http://www.wim-wenders.com/archives/2011-06-Toronto-Keynote-Speech/toronto-keynote-speech.htm
 

Buck Fuddy

Lara Chedraoui fanboy
May 22, 2009
10,630
He's basically making the same arguments as everyone else (studio or independent), isn't he? It always comes down to "more realism".

I'm not sure why he's talking about an amazing new medium either. It's been around for decades now.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,238
What's wrong with 3D?
Nothing really. No one uses it properly and shitty 3D ends up taking away from the viewing experience. So I tend to avoid 3D films all together.

- - - Updated - - -

He's basically making the same arguments as everyone else (studio or independent), isn't he? It always comes down to "more realism".

I'm not sure why he's talking about an amazing new medium either. It's been around for decades now.
There is newer technology with 3D imaging that could really be a benefit to film. The problem and I think he addresses this is that virtually none of the studios have interest in making really good 3D movies. They'd just rather make a movie and then retrofit it for 3D later. Which ends up being cheesy and distracting.

- - - Updated - - -

I went to Star Trek, I strictly was going for non 3D regular viewing (by now I know loooong in advance which ones will be worth seeing in 3D, like Hobbit, which is an extreme rarity these days), but the pesky motherfuckers are smart, they made me wait like 2-3 days after I wanted to see it simply because it was all 3D showings. And the day its non 3D, its in the smallest and most obsecure theatre I barely gone to before, and only 1 or 2 showings, rest of day in 3D. Talk about trying to force it on ppl, I didnt care when the price difference was so minimal, but now like a regular viewing is 100 krs (like 10 euros) while a 3D one is 155 krs (15 euros). Yeah, just fucking pass on that.


But I will see Man of steel in 3D, simply because I just have to see it on its premiere, and it looks like it will use the visual style of 3D decently enough, since its Snyder doing it.
Only see it if it's actually shot in 3D, otherwise is not worth it.
 

radekas

( ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)
Aug 26, 2009
19,205
Iron Man 3 was dissapointing. Too much Lethal Weapon, too little Iron Man. Also way to ruin one of the best villains in Marvel :( (even though it was quite funny, but ffs it's Mandarin :sergio:). It's like ruining the Joker or Magneto. Sigh.
 

ALC

Ohaulick
Oct 28, 2010
45,965
Some movies look way better on 3D. Most aren't worth the premium. But yeah, I only paid 4 bucks for my ticket so no sweat off my back :D


And it's so annoying when everyone complains about an action movie not being "meaningful" or w.e. the fuck it is. It's an action movie, it's supposed to be exiting and fun.

- - - Updated - - -

PS. Lethal Weapon is a badass movie.
 

Nzoric

Grazie Mirko
Jan 16, 2011
37,748
And you say you're not a hipster :howler:
I'm not following the correlation here. Those movies are simply shit. An action movie can be good, i.e. The Raid: Redemption, Matrix I, Training Day, Brotherhood of the Wolf etc. or they can be bad, i.e. Fast and the Furious, Matrix 2-3, Iron Man 1-3 etc.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 34)