Archive for 3D Movies

Friday Night Knife Fights – 2D Vs. 3D – Conclusion

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Deformed Freaks!, Gimmicks with tags , , , , on April 8, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  3D MOVIES VS. 2D MOVIES – Part 3 (Conclusion)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Dan Keohane

MA:  Welcome back to the third and final segment  of our Great 3D Debate. Once again L.L. and I are joined by Dan Keohane.

(Dan is seen making a cigarette disappear up his nose.)

LS:  I love that trick!

(Dan pulls it out of his ear.)

MA:  We’re discussing 3D movies vs. 2D movies, and so far, 2D movies have had the upper hand in this duel.  We all love 3D effects, but we seem to be in agreement that on their own, they don’t make a movie better, and nowadays with all these new 3D movies, it costs more to buy a ticket.

LS: Scam!

MA:  And that’s exactly the topic we’re leading off with tonight:  the extra cost of the 3D ticket, which begs the question, are these new 3D movies worth the extra ticket prices the theaters charge?  Or is it a scam by the film companies and theaters?

LS:  I sound like a broken record, but except for AVATAR, 3D movies are not worth the extra ticket price at all. It really does feel like a scam. Plus you still have to wear annoying glasses – they’re just sturdier now. I find it ludicrous, by the way, that you have to pay extra for those glasses and then afterwards the theaters ask you to donate them back so they can be recycled. How about refunding my $5 surcharge if I return the glasses?

MA:  Good point.

I don’t think the new 3D movies are worth the extra ticket prices either.

Is it a scam?  I don’t know.  I’d like to think it’s not a scam, but the more I think about it, the more upset I become.  Why?  I can understand a film like AVATAR which spent so much money on top-of-the-line best-of-the-best 3D effects, but the rest of these movies?  The effects aren’t as good, supposedly because they weren’t as expensive, yet they charge the same extra fee.  What’s up with that?  I smell a rat, and it doesn’t smell good!

If 3D movies cost the same as 2D movies, I’d be all for them because the effects are fun and sometimes they do add something to the movie, but factor in the extra cost, and that takes the fun away.  In other words, if you’re going to charge me extra because of 3D effects, then those effects had better be damn good and the main reason I’m seeing this movie!

What’s next?  Pay more for certain directors?  Actors?  Steven Spielberg directed this movie, so it costs $3.00 more.  What’s that?  This movie stars BOTH Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino?  $3.00 co-actor fee.

I don’t like the 3D fee.  Sure, the argument is that the equipment needed at the theater to show these films in 3D costs more, but that argument only goes so far.  Gas prices keep going up, so it costs me more each week to drive to the theater, so we’re in the same boat.  I don’t get to request lower ticket prices because it costs more to drive there.  I just suck it up.  The theaters should too.

LS:  Michael —since you and I rarely have access to preview screenings for films—we just about always have to pay for movie tickets out of our own pockets. Sometimes, I bitch about this. But truth is, it keeps us honest. If I go see a movie for free and it has gimmicky 3D effects, I’ll be more forgiving. But if I just paid $15 for a movie where the 3D effects add nothing, I am going to be pissed off. Just like our readers.

DK:  Now here’s an idea—.

MA:  Are you through doing magic tricks?

DK:  Maybe.  Actually, it’s the only one I know, so I have no choice (laughs).  What was I saying?

LS (to MA):  Stop interrupting our guest!  You’re the host.  You’re not supposed to be rude.  This isn’t Fox News!

MA:  I wasn’t being rude.  I just wanted to find out if he was going to do something else, like pull a rabbit out of his jacket.

DK:  No, no rabbits.

MA:  You were saying something about an idea.

DK:  Yes— if Hollywood is going to insist on using this new toy of theirs… how about trying out this conversion (from 2D to 3D) trick on some classic sci-fi movies, or classic movies which have enough effects that would lend themselves to the effect. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) in 3D? That would be very cool. STAR WARS (been redone so often no year fits anymore, lol) in 3D? Oh yea. BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S (1961)? Probably not.

MA:  I’d like to see the 1953 version of WAR OF THE WORLDS in 3D.  That’d be cool.

Well, gentlemen,—.

LS:  Who walked in?

MA: Ha, ha!  We’ve reached the moment our readers have been waiting for.  It’s time to make our decision, to declare a winner of this bout.  3D vs. 2D.  Are 3D movies the future of motion pictures, and do we want to see more of them?

Or, have we had enough of 3D already and want to go back to just 2D movies, saving 3D for once in a blue moon?

So, what will it be?  3D, or 2D?  Dan?

DK:  When the 3D floodwaters have settled, we’ll be left with a select few movies in 3D which should be in 3D, and the rest will come back to roost in 2D, simply because people will stop paying for it, and the extra cost to produce/convert these movies will become unprofitable. Hopefully more theaters will convert to digital “projection”, and when that happens, 2D will be even more brilliant to watch. That is, if the movie itself is brilliant. Don’t forget, you still need to make a good movie. That’s what will bring people in to the theaters. If they want 3D, they’ll have plenty of it when they walk outside into the real world.  So, it’s 2D for me.

LS:  A 3D movie once in a while would be just fine. Something like the next PIRAHNA movie.

MA:  Or better yet, something else.  The world doesn’t need another PIRANHA 3D movie.

LS:  Well, it’s going to get it because they’re already working on the sequel!

MA:  I know, I know.  You don’t have to remind me.

LS:  A horror flick once in a while, and some cartoons, but not all of them. Once in a blue moon is perfect. But this push to try to make every single movie that comes out a 3D extravaganza is just a con game to separate us from our money for shoddy merchandise.

Part of the problem is, too, that they’re coming out with 3D televisions now, and they have to create content to make the more expensive TVs worth buying. This is probably a big part of the push to make more movies in 3D. But once again, it’s just another way to take our hard-earned money. I don’t care about 3D movies, and I don’t care about 3D TV. I refuse to get sucked in by these things. I wish they would just go away. Once in a while is fine. But 3D 24/7—every time we go to the movies or turn on a television set—is overkill.

Look, what makes for a great movie is the story, the acting, the direction. Without these things, no gimmick in the world is going to improve your work. Unless you wield billions of dollars l don’t think it’s worth it.  2D, damn it!

MA:  Since I loved AVATAR so much, I really wanted 3D to be the future of motion pictures, but as long as they’re charging extra for it, I’m not into it.  Get rid of the extra charge, and I’m all in.

As is stands now, we have to pay extra for 3D, so as long as this stands, I’m against it.  It’s 2D movies for me!

Well, there you have it!  It’s unanimous!  2D movies win out.  I mean, we all love 3D, but it costs more to see them, and really doesn’t add a whole lot to the quality of the movie.  Thanks, guys for chiming in on this.

DK:  No problem.  I just remembered another trick I know how to do.  Do you guys mind if I try something new?

LS:  Go for it.  We’ve seen your other trick so many times, it’d be good to see something new.

MA:  Go right ahead.

DK:  I’m not sure if this will work.  It’s been a while.   I’ll say the magic words and snap my fingers— (utters what seems to be a foreign language and snaps his fingers— in a poof of smoke, MA & LS suddenly disappear.)  Hmm.  That wasn’t supposed to happen.    Guys?  You still here somewhere?  This has never happened before.  I’m sure they’ll be back in time for their next column— won’ t they?

This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS—-good night everybody!

—-END—

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights – Round 2 – 2D VS. 3D MOVIES

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Friday Night Knife Fights with tags , , , , on April 1, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  3D MOVIES VS. 2D MOVIES – Part 2
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Dan Keohane

MA:  Welcome to Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  Tonight, L.L. and I are once again joined by Dan Keohane, and we’re continuing our discussion of 3D MOVIES vs. 2D MOVIES, or as we’ve been calling it, the great 3D debate.

Dan, thanks again for joining us.

DK:  No problem.

LS:  It took you long enough.  I was wondering when you were going to show up for one of these panels.

DK:  I was waiting for the right topic to come along.

MA:  So, last time, we were talking about AVATAR (2009) and we all agreed that of the recent 3D movies, AVATAR had the best 3D effects.

The 3D in AVATAR was so good, as I watched the movie, I definitely thought “This is how I want to see all movies, in 3D.”  Which brings me to my next question, and the answer is probably AVATAR, but I’ll ask the question anyway:  does anyone have a favorite recent 3D movie?  And was it your favorite because of the 3D effects?

I’ll start us off by answering my own question.

For me, my favorite is AVATAR, and it’s my favorite by far.  I’d never seen anything like it on the big screen before.  Depth, clarity, it was the next best thing to virtual reality.  I felt in such close proximity with the characters that I felt I could reach out and touch them.

But, as much as I liked it, without the 3D effects, it wouldn’t have been as good a movie.  I mean, the story it tells is average at best, and it certainly isn’t original.  So, yeah, without the 3D effects, it wouldn’t have been anywhere near as good.

LS:  Yeah, AVATAR is obviously the best of the bunch.

DK:  Great movie.

LS:  It succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Usually, 3D effects are just tacked on, and the story is the main thing (you hope). In AVATAR’s case, the story was kind of weak and I think that without its visual splendor, AVATAR would have actually been a worse movie. It’s one of the rare cases of a gimmick IMPROVING  a movie.

MA:  I agree.

LS:  It’s the benchmark against which all future 3D movies will be compared. But it’s not a fair playing field. Few filmmakers will get the budget and the technical experts James Cameron has access to. So it’s a waste of time in most cases.

DK:  AVATAR is a clear case where the 3D is so integral to the film that watching it in that way is a must. Not too many films have been this way.  In fact, AVATAR is the only example I can think of right now—that was truly filmed in 3D and was a great movie.

LS:  As for other 3D movies I liked, the best ones have been those that don’t take themselves too seriously and use 3D in fun ways. Like PIRANHA 3D (2010), which I thought was a boatload of fun, using 3D for both the monster fish and nude women swimming underwater. The 3D remake of MY BLOODY VALENTINE (2009) wasn’t too bad, either. Then you have something like RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE (2010), which is such a simplistic plot – the plot was never the point anyway – that 3D just helps a movie like that become more like the live-action video game it wants to be.

DK:  The recent SANCTUM (2011) was also filmed in 3D, but the story itself, though not bad, wasn’t worth the premium we paid for the tickets.

I was happy that the producers of the final HARRY POTTER film, Part 1 at least, decided going 3D was just dumb. The plot, the story, was too important to somehow work in a yo-yo flying towards the screen to justify viewers hacking up a few extra bucks. Besides, everyone was going to pay to see the film, why make it any more expensive? Of course, PART 2 is going to be in 3D supposedly. That’s too bad.

MA:  Speaking of bad, how about the worst 3D movie you’ve seen recently?

DK:  If you remember my THE LAST AIRBENDER (2010) review, the 3D looked good in parts, but overall it didn’t help the movie, and I’d heard that the 2D version had much clearer, brighter imaging. The 3D seemed to actually darken the movie.

LS:  The worst examples of 3D movies are the ones where the technology has been added after the fact. Movies like CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010). It results in a muddy, crappy looking 3D that doesn’t really work (except for one or two scenes then made specifically for 3D).

Another example of this is maybe the worst of the bunch, Wes Craven’s MY SOUL TO TAKE (2010). Which I didn’t realize was in 3D until AFTER I LEFT THE THEATER. It added absolutely nothing to the movie. And it just pissed me off to know I’d just spent $15 on a complete turd of a film.

MA:  MY SOUL TO TAKE was so bad I’d forgotten it was in 3D!

For me, CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010) probably had the worst 3D effects.  They were the most underwhelming, that’s for sure.  Truth is, as most of the world knows by now, it was shot as a 2D movie, and the 3D effects were added later, and it shows.

So, would any of these 3D movies have been just as good in 2D?  Would any have been better in 2D?

LS:  Just about every 3D movie would be just as good – if not better – in 2D, except for AVATAR. Unless 3D is part of the movie’s DNA from beginning to end, it’s just a dumb gimmick. And a way to rob us out of more money for ticket prices!

As far back as HOUSE OF WAX (1953), if you cut out the scenes that were specifically made for 3D, it would not affect the movie at all.

DK:  2D movies are just as good. Like I said, unless the effects are so integral to the film that it would be less without it, almost every case I’ve seen could have stayed 2D with no issues. I mean, making THE KING’S SPEECH (2010) as 3D wouldn’t have made it any more brilliant. In fact it would have been stupid.

One exception, on a purely marketing basis: kids movies, especially CG-animated films, would do well as 3D for some time, mostly BECAUSE it’s a gimmicky fad, and children love gimmicky fads. Besides, CG-animated films look GREAT in 3D by virtue of how they’re “filmed.” it

MA:  I would agree.  I thought TOY STORY 3D (2010) looked terrific.

DK:  The question is, which force is stronger, children’s insistence on seeing the next great 3D animated film, or parents’ reluctance to pay the price for tickets? I’m a parent, so I can tell you the answer. I’m not paying.

MA:  I agree with both you guys, that these movies would have been just as good in 2D as they were in 3D, with the exception of AVATAR.  In the case of CLASH OF THE TITANS, which was not that good of a movie to begin with, the lack of unimpressive 3D effects would actually have made the film better, so there’s a movie that probably would have been better in 2D.

All right, that about wraps things up for Part 2.  Once more, it looks like 2D is faring better than 3D.  We’ll conclude this debate next Friday, and see if perhaps 3D can make a comeback, but the way things are going, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

DK:  3D is just too expensive, and it doesn’t make a movie better.

LS:  It’s a scam and a rip-off!

MA:  Like I said, it’s not looking too good for 3D.  That’s it for this week’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  See you next Friday.  Good night everybody!

—END PART 2

Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – Round 1 – 3D vs. 2D Movies

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Friday Night Knife Fights, Gimmicks with tags , , , , , , on March 25, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  3D MOVIES VS. 2D MOVIES – Round 1
Featuring: Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Dan Keohane

Filmmakers have been experimenting with 3D for decades.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome everyone to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Tonight, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Dan Keohane.  Dan, thanks for coming.

DAN KEOHANE: Wanna watch me make a cigarette disappear up my nose?

MA:  Er—maybe after the show.  For those of you out there who don’t know, that’s one of Dan’s talents.  He’s a pro when it comes to sleight of hand.

L.L. SOARES: I want to see Dan’s cigarette trick!

MA:  We will, after the show, but right now we’ve got a fight to get to.

LS:  You’re no fun.

MA:  And proud of it!

Anyway, tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, we’ll be having the great 3D debate.  That’s right, it’s 3D MOVIES  vs. 2D MOVIES.  Where do you weigh in on the recent onslaught of 3D movies?  Do you love ‘em, or do you hate ‘em?

Dan, we’ll start with you.  Are these new 3D movies the best things you’ve ever seen?  Are they the future of motion pictures?

DK:  The future?

No, not really, not if we still have to wear glasses and pay extra money to see the films, because if this were the case, then I wouldn’t want every movie to be filmed in 3-D. We’re only beginning to see digital movies shown in theaters anyway, and once they’re all digital then the picture quality on the big screen will be so much clearer.

Besides, I seriously don’t want to be putting on those clunky glasses every time I sit down in the movie theater. They make my eyes water.

MA:  I don’t like the glasses either.

If these movies all looked like AVATAR (2009), then I’d actually argue that they would  be the future of motion pictures, but they don’t all look like AVATAR.  I’m assuming it’s too expensive for these other 3D movies to have the kind of effects that AVATAR sported.

The 3D effects in AVATAR were the best I’d ever seen.   They totally blew me away!  Problem is, no movie after AVATAR has even come close. TOY STORY 3D came closest, but that one was all animated.

LS:  Throughout its history, beginning in the 1950s with movies like HOUSE OF WAX (1953), up until now, 3D has been a gimmick to bring audiences into the theaters. With the advent of television, the movies lost a chunk of their audience and had to find a way to get people paying for movie tickets again. 3D was one of the biggest gimmicks, created just for this reason.

MA:  Thanks for the history lesson!  Should we take notes?

LS:  I’ll give you notes!  (Throws a notebook at him, and it flies past MA towards audience in perfect 3D fashion.)

DK:  Anyone want to see me jam a Q-tip into one ear and pull it out the other?

MA:  I haven’t seen you do that one.  Is it in 3D?

LS:  Pay attention you two!

While 3D could be fun, most filmmakers who used it had little imagination and the majority of films just had objects coming at you, like the paddleball in HOUSE OF WAX. It really added nothing to the story, and you had to wear annoying glasses. Once in a while it was fun to don the red and green lenses to see a 3D movie, but it was nothing anyone wanted to do on a regular basis. This, combined with the fact that nobody really knew what to do with the technology, led to its demise. 3D has resurfaced several times since; it seems to return every other decade or so.

Don your glasses. It's the notorious "paddle ball" sequence from HOUSE OF WAX (1953)

MA:  I remember a few 3D films popping up in the early 1980s, and at the same time several UHF stations— remember those?—- started the gimmick of showing 3D movies on TV, and you had to get your glasses at your local supermarket or convenience store, or something or other, but neither of these 3D experiences caught on.  It was nothing like it is now.  Of course, the technology and quality are better today.

LS:  With AVATAR (2009), James Cameron proved he was one of the few filmmakers who had enough imagination (and money) to use 3D to its fullest potential, creating a whole 3D world to play around in. And that movie’s success has led to the latest round of 3D movies.

MA:  Would you like to see all movies eventually shot in 3D?

LS:  Nah!

Aside from a rare instance, like AVATAR, I don’t see any reason for movies to be continued to be made in 3D. Occasionally, a movie uses it in an interesting way, like CORALINE (2009), where the 3D was very subtle and just added great depth to everything – throughout the movie. But in most cases it just comes to the forefront for a few “gotcha” scenes and then fades back into the background. And don’t even get me started on movies that were not meant to be 3D, which have the effect added afterwards, and which look just plain awful.

MA:  We’ll talk about that in a little bit.

LS:  I am not a fan of 3D and I am looking forward to its next demise.

MA:  I’m not a fan either, although if they all looked like AVATAR, then I might feel differently.  Moving right along, is this just a fad?  Will 3D movies disappear again, or are they here to stay this time?

DK:  It’s definitely a fad.  Companies are filming, or converting, movies in 3D because people are willing still to pay the extra money for them, but 3D is not making the movies better. That’s still a requirement, regardless of how it’s shown on the screen. Thing is, people are going to stop paying the premium for this.

LS:  We’ve been watching 2D movies for almost a century now. It’s been just fine. 3D is just a distraction. Unless every single movie that comes out has the budget and technical know-how to use to it well, like AVATAR, then its’ a waste of time, and a useless fad.

MA:  I agree.

Okay, folks, we’re out of time.  Looks like Round 1 goes to 2D movies.  Tune in next Friday night to see if 3D movies fare any better, as we continue the great 3D debate with Round 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

See you then!  Good night, everybody!

—END—

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers