Latest Entertainment News Headlines

C'mon Hollywood: Stop force feeding us gimmicks!

12.11.2012

This week many of us will venture back to Middle Earth with Peter Jackson’s THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY and a large percentage will see it all unfold in 48 frames-per-second, the now infamous “technique” that has swayed critics in a very negative way. While there are some who have championed the new frame rate, most seem disappointed and baffled with its quality. For many, the biggest gripe is simply…why?

Peter Jackson is a phenomenal filmmaker and deserves his accolades. However, the new frame rate push seems to come off as more of a “because we can” more so than a “because we should.” It’s not a format that audiences have been begging for, anymore than the advent of 3D or IMAX, which has taken the industry by storm. In fact, audiences don’t seem to be clamoring for anything more than a good show, but are now inundated with the traveling medicine show of gimmicks and cures in the form of new technology that is “the way of the future.”

With more and more people staying home to watch movies and TV it’s becoming harder and harder to get people into the theater. With obnoxious patrons, overpriced concessions, and a weakened economy, the prospects of heading to your local multiplex can be a daunting and expensive task, rather than a pleasurable and worthwhile experience. Hollywood has recognized this, but instead of putting the quality into the stories themselves, they’re slowly falling back on smoke and mirrors (almost literally) to trick audiences into theaters.

The problem? Well, it’s kind of working. Despite what many of the hardcore movie fans may feel about it, 3D is still bringing in big bucks at the box office, especially in foreign markets (China currently has more 3D theaters than any other nation) with the number of 3D films being released steadily increasing in 2013 and beyond. In short, it’s here to stay.

Not only has 3D solidified its place in theaters, but IMAX, the larger-than-life cinematic experience that seeks to give you more screen for your buck, has as well. And, for the most part, they do, but only when shot with actual IMAX cameras. Things get tricky when Hollywood screens movies that weren’t shot on IMAX cameras on IMAX screens, essentially selling you a Ferrari with no wheels. In the words of Admiral Ackbar, “It’s a trap!”

Personally, I think IMAX is a terrific venue when it uses the right equipment. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, and SKYFALL all make ample use of the format, providing a bigger and better cinematic experience, but not one that cheapens the overall film when viewed in non-IMAX. However, like up-converted 3D, IMAX can up-convert non-IMAX films to play on their screens, essentially stretching the film to fool audiences into thinking they’re getting more, when all they’re really getting is a zoomed-in screen. That, my friends, is called a cash grab.

Fortunately, nobody is trying to bring back smell-o-vision, right? Wrong. Yes, that’s right, there is a tremendous momentum to create a full-on, five senses experience at the movies, with industry “pioneers” attempting to turn the movies into a theme park ride, complete with swaying and vibrating seats, “butt-and-back ticklers,” water jets, air jets, wind fans, scent effects and more. I wish I was joking, but I’m not. And while I can see how some of that could be interesting or fun, it gets to the point of asking just what exactly IS a cinematic experience? Is it watching a story or becoming part of it?

I remember experiencing the TERMINATOR 2 3D experience at Universal Studios a few years ago, complete with pretty much everything outlined above and it was a decent enough “ride,” but in the end it felt like a cheap gimmick that I easily would’ve traded for a third full-length feature directed by James Cameron, rather than a lame theme park attraction that hinted at it. It ultimately separated the experience and made it something else. If I want to ride a rollercoaster, I’ll do so. However, that experience doesn’t have to be initiated into every experience of my life to a literal degree.

The important thing to keep in mind about the impending (?) evolution of 48fps is that, like the use of slow motion or varying film stock, it’s more of a filmmaking tool than a revolutionary step in the art of film. In fact, so is 3D, IMAX, and everything else that the “road-show doctors” are trying to sell us. Trying to convince us that it’s the future just feels like a con. It’s not “the” future. It’s just another new gimmick we have to contend with. Maybe it’ll take hold, maybe not, but it’s still a gimmick, just like HD, which happened to work out. I can’t watch a movie any other way now.

I haven’t seen THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY yet and am on the fence about seeing it in 48fps. I feel like I should see it in that format, as the conmen have done a fine job of selling it like the latest and greatest, but I have an awful hunch that I’ll leave the theater feeling duped. And that’s the rub. I love the art of film and love seeing it in all its splendor, but at what point is enough, enough?

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should, nor does it mean that it’s the future. It just means that you’ve got more options, which don’t necessarily trump the one to simply make a good movie without bells, whistles, smoke, and mirrors. I’m fine with innovation, but at the speed it’s happening the process is becoming asinine and bordering dangerously close to blurring the lines of what watching a movie is all about.

CLICK IMAGE TO OPEN GALLERY & SEE MORE PICS...

Extra Tidbit: How do you feel about so many different types of technologies being thrown at us? Is it technological innovation or a cash-grab gimmick?
Source: JoBlo.com

RECOMMENDED MOVIE NEWS

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

6:59PM on 12/12/2012

IMAX wasted

Have to agree that Imax is great when used correctly but gets wasted on some of the films shown in the process.
I mean we had the last Paranormal Activity film showing at our local one.
Have to agree that Imax is great when used correctly but gets wasted on some of the films shown in the process.
I mean we had the last Paranormal Activity film showing at our local one.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
2:41PM on 12/12/2012
I don't know why Hollywood feels like they alway need to spend more to make more. 3D could work but it seems like I always have to sacrifice story to get the benefit (see Avatar and Prometheus). Conversely I have never ever thought a great movie needs to be in 3D. I never think ; oh 'Drive' was great too bad it wasn't in 3D. It just seems like filmmakers who are focused on the story aren't so pre-occupied with changing the way everyone makes movies.
I don't know why Hollywood feels like they alway need to spend more to make more. 3D could work but it seems like I always have to sacrifice story to get the benefit (see Avatar and Prometheus). Conversely I have never ever thought a great movie needs to be in 3D. I never think ; oh 'Drive' was great too bad it wasn't in 3D. It just seems like filmmakers who are focused on the story aren't so pre-occupied with changing the way everyone makes movies.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:34PM on 12/12/2012
The only good one is IMAX
The only good one is IMAX
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:30PM on 12/12/2012
My only gripe with 3D is the glasses. That said, anything new that comes out and enhances my viewing experience and doesn't provide me with discomfort, I'm for!
My only gripe with 3D is the glasses. That said, anything new that comes out and enhances my viewing experience and doesn't provide me with discomfort, I'm for!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:53PM on 12/12/2012

It's a gimmick until it's not.

Cinema itself was a gimmick at one point. As long as I have the choice to go to a non-IMAX or 2D version of major-release films, I don't really care. In the meantime, we'll periodically get something new or measurably better - like surround sound and other advancements. The bad ideas will get market-corrected and disappear. I actually have more of a problem with the film distributors strong-arming to only distribute films in digital format next year, essentially forcing all theaters, chain and
Cinema itself was a gimmick at one point. As long as I have the choice to go to a non-IMAX or 2D version of major-release films, I don't really care. In the meantime, we'll periodically get something new or measurably better - like surround sound and other advancements. The bad ideas will get market-corrected and disappear. I actually have more of a problem with the film distributors strong-arming to only distribute films in digital format next year, essentially forcing all theaters, chain and independent, to upgrade or perish. No demonstrable improvement to the viewer, but part of a cost-savings measure that stands to put a lot of independent theaters out of business. And unlike the big theaters that we wail and gnash our teeth about these small film houses actually care about patrons who are educated consumers.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:38AM on 12/12/2012

The way I feel about it?

Advancements in technology are always met with opposition by those that fear change. These "gimmicks" may not yet be sliced bread, but hopefully they continue to be building blocks to a greater movie going experience.
Advancements in technology are always met with opposition by those that fear change. These "gimmicks" may not yet be sliced bread, but hopefully they continue to be building blocks to a greater movie going experience.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:24AM on 12/12/2012

Truly face palm worthy moment

Truly facepalm worthy dude. Terminator 3d ride of course seemed cheap cause its insanely DATED! That ride is almost at least 15 years old and despite some minor repairs it is still older than many 3d theaters out there. Using that as an example of 5 senses theater experience is just plain stupid. I do get that once again this is yet another anti movie technology evolution rant just like articles that were written over a hundred years ago by silent movie critics that were unhappy to see color
Truly facepalm worthy dude. Terminator 3d ride of course seemed cheap cause its insanely DATED! That ride is almost at least 15 years old and despite some minor repairs it is still older than many 3d theaters out there. Using that as an example of 5 senses theater experience is just plain stupid. I do get that once again this is yet another anti movie technology evolution rant just like articles that were written over a hundred years ago by silent movie critics that were unhappy to see color or hear the voices of the actors. The least you can do is at least use a relevant example without resorting to using a ride example that is in itself incredibly dated. If you want a truly interesting 5 senses movie experience I recommend some day going on the newly revamped spiderman ride. That ride uses some truly bad ass 3d, great sound, insanely clear clean graphics, and even has a few new tweaks that I seem to notice with each time I ride it.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:05PM on 12/12/2012
You'll also notice that I put the 4D cinema concept video up, which is EXACTLY what is being constructed now, which builds off the same concepts of the Terminator "ride," minus the live actors. So, there's your relevant example. As for the Spider-Man ride...I don't WANT a ride when I go to see a movie. If I want a ride I'll go to a theme park.

If you are clamoring for a 15-minute ADHD-induced thrill ride for your movie-going experience then have at it. There are plenty of venues coming
You'll also notice that I put the 4D cinema concept video up, which is EXACTLY what is being constructed now, which builds off the same concepts of the Terminator "ride," minus the live actors. So, there's your relevant example. As for the Spider-Man ride...I don't WANT a ride when I go to see a movie. If I want a ride I'll go to a theme park.

If you are clamoring for a 15-minute ADHD-induced thrill ride for your movie-going experience then have at it. There are plenty of venues coming your way for that.

All that aside, my argument is against the onslaught of new tactics, one after another, to "trick" audiences into theaters. Innovation can be great and I welcome anything that enhances the art form, but not tactics that cheapen it or turn it into something it never was (or should be).

IMAX and 3D, as stated in the article, are just fine when shot in that format. I can dig it. When its up-converted it comes off as half-assed bullshit. 48fps is the future? It's possible, I suppose, but it isn't exactly winning over hearts and minds just yet.

For me, there is a line you don't cross. For others, there is no line. The second that I have to wear a seatbelt, can't eat or drink, and run the risk of vomiting from being yanked around in mechanized chairs and being induced with smell-o-vision for two hours is the second that film ceases to be film. Think that's ridiculous? Yeah, me too. But guess what? That's where it's headed.

Time will sort this all out, so fret not.
7:54PM on 12/11/2012
Well IMAX is always cool but once 3D started coming back again is when i threw up the caution flag. It will ALWAYS be a gimmick & it's a travesty that we are charged even more to watch 3D. I have never seen a movie in 3D because i simply can't since i wear glasses. From what I have been reading about the 48fps with The Hobbit then yes I agree that the public is being forced into these gimmicks, we go to the movies to escape reality not to be put back into it for $12.

EDIT - as for the whole
Well IMAX is always cool but once 3D started coming back again is when i threw up the caution flag. It will ALWAYS be a gimmick & it's a travesty that we are charged even more to watch 3D. I have never seen a movie in 3D because i simply can't since i wear glasses. From what I have been reading about the 48fps with The Hobbit then yes I agree that the public is being forced into these gimmicks, we go to the movies to escape reality not to be put back into it for $12.

EDIT - as for the whole 4D thing? I think that is going a bit overboard & what lil kid will sit thru a whole movie or people who get motion sickness, ya there's gonna be smell-o-vision but not in a good way if ya catch my drift
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
7:35PM on 12/11/2012

No thanks

I don't do IMAX unless its true IMAX. Guess what? That's not at the neighborhood cineplex. Go to your local Museum or Aquarium and you'll understand immediately. 3D is crap. I go to a decent digital theater and I'm perfectly happy with that. They wanna charge the same amount for "IMAX"? Fine. But until then, they can shove that crap up their asses.
I don't do IMAX unless its true IMAX. Guess what? That's not at the neighborhood cineplex. Go to your local Museum or Aquarium and you'll understand immediately. 3D is crap. I go to a decent digital theater and I'm perfectly happy with that. They wanna charge the same amount for "IMAX"? Fine. But until then, they can shove that crap up their asses.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:03PM on 12/11/2012
I'm not sure if you've seen this but Harry Knowles (love him or hate him) sat down with Douglas Trumbull and talked to him about his HFR experiments in the 70's and 80's. While there are bean counters in suits thinking of the next gimmick to get people in seats, Trumbull is a true believer in quality cinematic experience. His HFR ideals are there to fly in the face of the established norm. Getting rid of as much motion blur as possible and increasing perceived light through the use of curved
I'm not sure if you've seen this but Harry Knowles (love him or hate him) sat down with Douglas Trumbull and talked to him about his HFR experiments in the 70's and 80's. While there are bean counters in suits thinking of the next gimmick to get people in seats, Trumbull is a true believer in quality cinematic experience. His HFR ideals are there to fly in the face of the established norm. Getting rid of as much motion blur as possible and increasing perceived light through the use of curved screens and brighter projection can't be a bad thing in the long run.
[link]t=75s

Also, one thing we should remember is the industry standard of 24fps was established as a cost cutting measure. It was the fewest frames per second that the audience would accept as " looking real". Film stock cost money so why not use as little of it as possible while keeping the audience happy. So, in a way, that too was a gimmick to get people in seats. Just a thought.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:04PM on 12/11/2012
Oh skip ahead to a 1:15ish to get to the interview
Oh skip ahead to a 1:15ish to get to the interview
4:05PM on 12/11/2012

meh

I just don't understand why people feel the need to complain about this. If you don't LIKE 3D, don't go see a movie in 3D. I LIKE that we have all these new options. At the end of the day, isn't more choices a GOOD thing? I understand if you live in the middle of nowhere and that's your ONLY option. but that is an exception, not the rule. Some.movies I truly ENJOY and some I just do 2D. Why do we keep having to hear people whine about it? if you don't like it, don't go to it. It
I just don't understand why people feel the need to complain about this. If you don't LIKE 3D, don't go see a movie in 3D. I LIKE that we have all these new options. At the end of the day, isn't more choices a GOOD thing? I understand if you live in the middle of nowhere and that's your ONLY option. but that is an exception, not the rule. Some.movies I truly ENJOY and some I just do 2D. Why do we keep having to hear people whine about it? if you don't like it, don't go to it. It
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:10PM on 12/11/2012
Some films are not released in all formats - really the only thing I can complain about is the service charge. Actually more of price of the charge - I can see $1 more, but in some places $5-$7 extra?!?!?!?! No F*CKIN WAY.
Some films are not released in all formats - really the only thing I can complain about is the service charge. Actually more of price of the charge - I can see $1 more, but in some places $5-$7 extra?!?!?!?! No F*CKIN WAY.
6:56PM on 12/11/2012
@ved - I have yet to see a film that hasn't been released in 2D as well as 3D.
@ved - I have yet to see a film that hasn't been released in 2D as well as 3D.
7:09PM on 12/11/2012
Work at a movie theaterand you will.
Work at a movie theaterand you will.
12:45AM on 12/12/2012
@ved - I think you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that I do not recall any movie in recent memory that has not been released in 2D as well as 3D. The option is always there, it is usually the theatre chain who decides not to order any 2D copies, but the movie is still released and available in 2D.
@ved - I think you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that I do not recall any movie in recent memory that has not been released in 2D as well as 3D. The option is always there, it is usually the theatre chain who decides not to order any 2D copies, but the movie is still released and available in 2D.
1:39AM on 12/12/2012
I wanted to go see TinTin at my local theatre, but it was ONLY playing in 3D, which meant I had to drive more than 30 minutes out of my city to see it in 2D. The option is not always there for convenience. You're either paying the extra money for the 3D ticket, or the extra money for gas to get to a 2D showing. Either way, we as the audience wanting to enjoy ourselves, loses money.
I wanted to go see TinTin at my local theatre, but it was ONLY playing in 3D, which meant I had to drive more than 30 minutes out of my city to see it in 2D. The option is not always there for convenience. You're either paying the extra money for the 3D ticket, or the extra money for gas to get to a 2D showing. Either way, we as the audience wanting to enjoy ourselves, loses money.
1:45PM on 12/11/2012

Love IMAX but hate 3D

I only disagree with IMAX. I love IMAX and it is great, I just love having a big screen and better sound system. I don't normally care about quality unless I actually notice the difference and like it. And I like IMAX. As for 3D I cannot stand it, I don't think I can put into words how much I don't like it. It's a gimmick in the truest sense of the word. But what I really hate is that now there's no option of a 2D IMAX film. I really want to enjoy the Hobbit and would love to see it in IMAX and
I only disagree with IMAX. I love IMAX and it is great, I just love having a big screen and better sound system. I don't normally care about quality unless I actually notice the difference and like it. And I like IMAX. As for 3D I cannot stand it, I don't think I can put into words how much I don't like it. It's a gimmick in the truest sense of the word. But what I really hate is that now there's no option of a 2D IMAX film. I really want to enjoy the Hobbit and would love to see it in IMAX and I would also like to give 48fps a chance but I cannot see it in 3D because I know that will just make the whole experience unpleasant and a waste of money. And it really pisses me off that I can't see it in IMAX a format that I love and thoroughly enjoy.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:40AM on 12/11/2012

HAHAHAHA

I've worked in the theater business for a while...it is all a gimmick to get asses in the seats!!! We were told that the sur-charge on 3D isn't for the glasses, but in fact it is for the "TECHNOLOGY." Well after Avatar and other hit movies, the technology has long been paid for, yet patrons still pay out the ass for 3D. It is all a joke!! Every movie that breaks any sort of box office record needs to have * by it's name - meaning it ripped people off just to earn more $$$. Kinda like MLB
I've worked in the theater business for a while...it is all a gimmick to get asses in the seats!!! We were told that the sur-charge on 3D isn't for the glasses, but in fact it is for the "TECHNOLOGY." Well after Avatar and other hit movies, the technology has long been paid for, yet patrons still pay out the ass for 3D. It is all a joke!! Every movie that breaks any sort of box office record needs to have * by it's name - meaning it ripped people off just to earn more $$$. Kinda like MLB players on steriods...just a thought.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:47AM on 12/11/2012
u say its been long since paid for

u do realize that it isnt a click of the button "convert to 3d"
there is actual time and costs involved in making each movie in 3d format
u say its been long since paid for

u do realize that it isnt a click of the button "convert to 3d"
there is actual time and costs involved in making each movie in 3d format
12:16PM on 12/11/2012
And the studios don't have the money to pay for that already?? Paramount doesn't have the money to convert Avengers??
Plus it is the technology in the theater I was referring too. I should have made that clearer.
And the studios don't have the money to pay for that already?? Paramount doesn't have the money to convert Avengers??
Plus it is the technology in the theater I was referring too. I should have made that clearer.
12:22PM on 12/11/2012
"And the studios don't have the money to pay for that already?? Paramount doesn't have the money to convert Avengers?? "

movie studios are a for profit company
any expenses they incur
they move it to the consumer

u think any business eats their costs?

so ur saying that it should be the studios responsibility to make and produce 3d movies in terms of cost, and not charge a surcharge for it to the consumers who enjoy it?

i have no idea, what studios charge theaters to show the
"And the studios don't have the money to pay for that already?? Paramount doesn't have the money to convert Avengers?? "

movie studios are a for profit company
any expenses they incur
they move it to the consumer

u think any business eats their costs?

so ur saying that it should be the studios responsibility to make and produce 3d movies in terms of cost, and not charge a surcharge for it to the consumers who enjoy it?

i have no idea, what studios charge theaters to show the "3d" film, so i cant comment on that.
12:35PM on 12/11/2012
Some companies (Sony) have actually paid for some movie theater chains to upgrade their projectors. Other companies like Christie who provide most digital projectors actually foot the bill w/ studios and leave chains out of it. Films like "Alice in Wonderland" and "Clash of the Titans" add on the 3D charge just to get more $$ with the viewer being punished for high prices and low quality in conversion. I have also seen it where films were released in 3D only...giving the viewer only one option
Some companies (Sony) have actually paid for some movie theater chains to upgrade their projectors. Other companies like Christie who provide most digital projectors actually foot the bill w/ studios and leave chains out of it. Films like "Alice in Wonderland" and "Clash of the Titans" add on the 3D charge just to get more $$ with the viewer being punished for high prices and low quality in conversion. I have also seen it where films were released in 3D only...giving the viewer only one option - pay out the ass for a ticket.
12:38PM on 12/11/2012
Studios control everything in Hollywood!!! They even control what theater chains can play and not play. It is a sick world that Hollywood has created. It is sad really.
Studios control everything in Hollywood!!! They even control what theater chains can play and not play. It is a sick world that Hollywood has created. It is sad really.
11:23AM on 12/11/2012

Interesting, watch much SD movies anymore at home?

To the folks who think it is a gimmick. Do you guys watch many movies in SD and with Mono soundtracks at home when you want to enjoy a film. I'm not talking about some classic you're revisiting, I'm talking about the new stuff. No you don't I'm betting you guys want surround sound and HD. Both were percieved as gimmicks when they came out, and I wouldn't go back. Let's give 48fps a chance before shitting all over it before actually having screened any footage.
To the folks who think it is a gimmick. Do you guys watch many movies in SD and with Mono soundtracks at home when you want to enjoy a film. I'm not talking about some classic you're revisiting, I'm talking about the new stuff. No you don't I'm betting you guys want surround sound and HD. Both were percieved as gimmicks when they came out, and I wouldn't go back. Let's give 48fps a chance before shitting all over it before actually having screened any footage.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:17AM on 12/11/2012

We can agree to disagree....

When I play a game on my PC (Sleeping dogs recently), I keep on meddling with the system settings to get the perfect specs for my PC. As technology improves the way films are made, newer technologies should be tested. But if it bothers one he can stick with the what he likes. Look at Chris Bumbray for instance he constantly says how 3D annoys him and chooses to see it in 2D
When I play a game on my PC (Sleeping dogs recently), I keep on meddling with the system settings to get the perfect specs for my PC. As technology improves the way films are made, newer technologies should be tested. But if it bothers one he can stick with the what he likes. Look at Chris Bumbray for instance he constantly says how 3D annoys him and chooses to see it in 2D
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+4
11:05AM on 12/11/2012

actually no

the most impressive thing about IMAX is the DMR conversion I believe, which is done to all hollywood movies released in the format regardless if they had any scenes shot on IMAX cameras or not. It is not a trap and is in fact worth it. It makes the image so much more clear and vivid it's truly remarkable and honestly I couldn't care less if a movie had 4 scenes shot with IMAX cameras or not, besides it suddenly switching aspect ratios I really can't notice very much of a difference. It looks
the most impressive thing about IMAX is the DMR conversion I believe, which is done to all hollywood movies released in the format regardless if they had any scenes shot on IMAX cameras or not. It is not a trap and is in fact worth it. It makes the image so much more clear and vivid it's truly remarkable and honestly I couldn't care less if a movie had 4 scenes shot with IMAX cameras or not, besides it suddenly switching aspect ratios I really can't notice very much of a difference. It looks good yes, but the DMR conversion looks about just as good and is well worth it, far from a cash grab. If anything the whole 'some scenes shot with IMAX cameras' is a cash grab more than the DMR conversion is. I love IMAX and hope to see a hollywood production fully shot on IMAX cameras one day but right now the best IMAX films are still the IMAX original nature (usually) docs, aside from that though the DMR conversion is a fantastic way, and my preferred way to experience a movie -- totally regardless if there are some aspect jumping IMAX camera scenes or not. Also I'm pretty sure Skyfall did not have any scenes shot with IMAX cameras, it was just upconverted. And, like all IMAX upconversions, it looked fantastic.

Gimmicks? Please.

3D is not a gimmick, nor is 48FPS. You may not like these things but they are not gimmicks anymore than colour in film is a gimmick. Sure, people way back when probably said the same thing about 'talkies' or when colour finally came in (I know my grandfather talked about a lot of people complaining that true film artistry was only present in black and white pictures) but that's the same old same old, some people get upset by change. But, as it has been proven with 3D, most people like it and it continues to grow.

Now 48fps may suck, I haven't seen it yet, but it may also be awesome. Like everything it's all a personal preference and as long as there is an option there should be no reason to complain. That OPTION though should not be blamed on the movie studio (most of the time) but rather on your theatre for not giving you that option when all the formats are made available by the studio.

Personally I'm open to change, I'm open to new experiences, I'm open to different movie experiences. I love movies, and the more ways to experience them the better I say.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:40AM on 12/11/2012
A gimmick is defined as "something designed to attract extra attention, interest, or publicity." 3D, IMAX, and 48fps all fit that description perfectly. So, actually, yes, they are. Could they become the norm someday? Sure. But for now, it's a tacked on five bucks or more to see "the big show." Otherwise, the ticket prices would all be the same. As it is, they aren't.

Now, if you like that gimmick, then more power to ya. However, I hear more complaints than praise for the likes of 3D
A gimmick is defined as "something designed to attract extra attention, interest, or publicity." 3D, IMAX, and 48fps all fit that description perfectly. So, actually, yes, they are. Could they become the norm someday? Sure. But for now, it's a tacked on five bucks or more to see "the big show." Otherwise, the ticket prices would all be the same. As it is, they aren't.

Now, if you like that gimmick, then more power to ya. However, I hear more complaints than praise for the likes of 3D and IMAX, although much less for IMAX. And I'll agree that 3D can be cool, but only when it's shot for the format. This upconverted shit is exactly that, in my opinion. If it serves the story and the overall scope of the film, then I'm fine with it. Do I need/want to see EVERY. SINGLE. MOVIE in 3D/IMAX/48FPS? No. I don't.

It's too early to call 48fps. After writing this and digging into it, I need to see it in 48fps just to judge for myself. Personally, I don't watch anything that isn't in at least 720p. And, at first sight, I thought HD looked odd, but it was a very quick transition. It didn't take much convincing to watch a movie in that format, as it greatly enhanced the visual experience without taking me out of the movie.

The overall point is how much is too much? Watch that 4D video above. Could that be fun for one movie? Maybe. Do you want to see every movie like that? Not this guy. Not a fucking chance in hell.

As always, Cochise, good to hear from you. ;)



11:44AM on 12/11/2012
seeing as movies are now being released only in 3d format, i would say its almost a norm
Dredd 3d, only in 3d

Also, last year 1 month there would be a new 3d title DVD release.

now there are 3d titles almost every week for DVD releases
seeing as movies are now being released only in 3d format, i would say its almost a norm
Dredd 3d, only in 3d

Also, last year 1 month there would be a new 3d title DVD release.

now there are 3d titles almost every week for DVD releases
3:59PM on 12/11/2012
@Paul - alright with that definition for sure they are all technically gimmicks. I was just more looking at the word in a the demeaning sense it is often used. That definition doesn't make it seem like a bad thing which many people make out gimmicks to be (though in reality there are gimmicks within every single movie as well, not just the format). But again, colour is -- or was -- a gimmick just as much as any of these things, and same can be said for 'talkies' as they fit that same definition
@Paul - alright with that definition for sure they are all technically gimmicks. I was just more looking at the word in a the demeaning sense it is often used. That definition doesn't make it seem like a bad thing which many people make out gimmicks to be (though in reality there are gimmicks within every single movie as well, not just the format). But again, colour is -- or was -- a gimmick just as much as any of these things, and same can be said for 'talkies' as they fit that same definition of a gimmick. They have become the norm but they are not so different, and I mean they weren't the norm for a long time, and just like with that I believe that these things will become the norm, if audiences continue to take to them like they have already done so far.

As for complaints, of course the internet is filled with complaints, but it is a supply and demand industry and if something works, they give us more. Something must be working because 3D is still coming and same with IMAX. As for upconverted 3D, I had the exact same opinion as you until recently, the post-conversion process has come a really far way in such a short amount of time it is pretty astounding and makes some pictures, when done right with post-conversion, actually worth the 3D price. Of course it is still not at the quality level of 3D cameras though, and the even bigger problem is that while 3D conversions can now be great... they can still be crap. It's not just a program you plug the movie into, it's a long process that the producers, studio, etc. have to go through and to do it well it takes time and money. Studios who just want to save the cash will probably still go through a quick, cheap and low quality 3D conversion unfortunately... but as 3D cameras continue to evolve alongside the conversion process I think we'll soon see the day where post-conversions are a thing of the past all together.

Like you I don't think every single movie needs to be in these formats, but once again I don't think every movie needs to be in colour, yet damn near every one is. As for the 4D thing, well that is obviously a joke but I think that is when it is too far. To me it's plain and simple, movies are a visual experience -- it is a visual medium. Now I love amusement rides and I've been on a few like that that were quite fun, but movies are a visual experience and a visual medium. That is the aspect that can be enhanced (well, along with sound of course) and I think that is where the line is. Once they start making you smell stuff and shaking your seat you are no longer watching a movie but participating in an amusement ride I think. So yeah, personally any improvement, enhancement or change to the visual experience itself I think is totally fine, anything outside the visual factor though is where I think the line is.

Thanks for the reply dude
Cheers
4:01PM on 12/11/2012
@bails1004 - Dredd was available in both 3D and 2D in the theatres and is available in both formats on blu-ray/dvd as well.
@bails1004 - Dredd was available in both 3D and 2D in the theatres and is available in both formats on blu-ray/dvd as well.
4:14PM on 12/11/2012
@cochise

i read on this website in a "C'mon Hollyiwodd about dredd" being near exclusive 3D release

[link]
[link]

so, there was very few releases of 2d version of "Dredd 3d". like so few that is was harder to find a theater with the 2d than 3d

i knew about the 2d and 3d DVD release.
i rememebr my friend saying he hates 3d and was pissed he had to wait for the dvd release of dredd to see it
@cochise

i read on this website in a "C'mon Hollyiwodd about dredd" being near exclusive 3D release

[link]
[link]

so, there was very few releases of 2d version of "Dredd 3d". like so few that is was harder to find a theater with the 2d than 3d

i knew about the 2d and 3d DVD release.
i rememebr my friend saying he hates 3d and was pissed he had to wait for the dvd release of dredd to see it
4:56PM on 12/11/2012
@bails - wow that's the first I've heard of that. A shame. About 3/4 of the screenings here were 3D with the remaining 1/4 being 2D (and when the new movies came in to the 3D theatres Dredd was only left available in 2D). Just read in that first link you posted that the theatre was denied 2D prints of the movie by the distributor? Whoa. Whoever made that call is an idiot and I really don't believe that is how most higher ups of the distributors would act. If a movie is meant to be in 3D then
@bails - wow that's the first I've heard of that. A shame. About 3/4 of the screenings here were 3D with the remaining 1/4 being 2D (and when the new movies came in to the 3D theatres Dredd was only left available in 2D). Just read in that first link you posted that the theatre was denied 2D prints of the movie by the distributor? Whoa. Whoever made that call is an idiot and I really don't believe that is how most higher ups of the distributors would act. If a movie is meant to be in 3D then fine, but I believe that there should be at least one 2D showing per day for those who don't want to see it in 3D. I mean come on, is that really too much to ask, ONE showing per day? A bit ridiculous if you ask me. I feel sorry for you man. I love 3D but even still the theatres/distributors here (maybe Dredd's distributors were run by different people up here?) had both formats showing. Should be like that everywhere, I don't see how they don't realize that would actually make more money even if there aren't as many 2D as 3D -- at least there'd be some...
11:01AM on 12/11/2012
This thing that really scares me is the price of a cinema ticket - with all of these new "advancements" I wonder how much a ticket will cost in the near future. They are already getting/have gotten very expensive.

I have my ticket for for IMAX with 48 FPS. I had no choice in what format I wanted to see it in. I would have chosen 24 FPS. I agree with you right now, but maybe I will have different feelings after seeing The Hobbit. My eyes have always had a problem with the "blur effect"
This thing that really scares me is the price of a cinema ticket - with all of these new "advancements" I wonder how much a ticket will cost in the near future. They are already getting/have gotten very expensive.

I have my ticket for for IMAX with 48 FPS. I had no choice in what format I wanted to see it in. I would have chosen 24 FPS. I agree with you right now, but maybe I will have different feelings after seeing The Hobbit. My eyes have always had a problem with the "blur effect" with 3D during action scenes (many parts of Titanic looked blurry to me even though it was well done), so I am hoping 48 FPS will actually make the 3D experience better/smoother. I'm still not a fan of 3D but it's usually the only choice we have with large films.

I am fine with gimmicks as long as they give us the choice of the standard 2D (especially when there has been a film converted to a specific format) which I worry will not happen, especially on weekends.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:33AM on 12/11/2012

3D MOVIE THEATER DOES NOT EQUAL HOME 3D TV

in terms of visual depth and 3d strength and picture quality
a movie theater is nothing compared to a HOME 3d TV
i will never see a movie theater 3d movie only see them on my home 3d tv
when ppl were talking about hd and the difference between 720 1080p 1080 i, people thought it was just a gimmick in difference,
but thats the thing, ppl who dont value it think its a gimmick , where people who see its potential and can enjoy it see it as innovation

CAMERON showed with TITANIC that post
in terms of visual depth and 3d strength and picture quality
a movie theater is nothing compared to a HOME 3d TV
i will never see a movie theater 3d movie only see them on my home 3d tv
when ppl were talking about hd and the difference between 720 1080p 1080 i, people thought it was just a gimmick in difference,
but thats the thing, ppl who dont value it think its a gimmick , where people who see its potential and can enjoy it see it as innovation

CAMERON showed with TITANIC that post 3D conversion works if u put in the time
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:32AM on 12/11/2012

Tired of it...

...you hit the nail on the head, it's all just a gimmick. I'm actually pretty annoyed that not many theaters near me are playing The Hobbit in regular IMAX, it's only IMAX 3D. And I'm going to avoid seeing it in 48 fps. I can't stand that soap opera look.
...you hit the nail on the head, it's all just a gimmick. I'm actually pretty annoyed that not many theaters near me are playing The Hobbit in regular IMAX, it's only IMAX 3D. And I'm going to avoid seeing it in 48 fps. I can't stand that soap opera look.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:31AM on 12/11/2012

To quote Jurassic Park...

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:30AM on 12/11/2012

What is a Gimmick?

3d can be a gimmick to ppl who only go once in a blue moon to the THEATERS. 3d isnt a gimmick for ppl who own a HOME 3d tv.
there is a big difference theater and home tv
one is a gimmick and one is a piece of techonological innovation

wait till u play batman arkham city on a 50 inch sony ACTIVE 3d tv, u wont think its a gimmick then, u will be jealous
3d can be a gimmick to ppl who only go once in a blue moon to the THEATERS. 3d isnt a gimmick for ppl who own a HOME 3d tv.
there is a big difference theater and home tv
one is a gimmick and one is a piece of techonological innovation

wait till u play batman arkham city on a 50 inch sony ACTIVE 3d tv, u wont think its a gimmick then, u will be jealous
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Entertainment News Headlines


Top
Loading...

Featured Youtube Videos

Views and Counting

Movie Hottie Of The Week

More