Martin Scorsese says even Precious should be in 3D | Movie News

Martin Scorsese says even Precious should be in 3D
Comments: 29
terometer
31%
Strike Back below!
by: Mike Sampson Mar. 3, 2010

If Martin Scorsese wasn't a genius filmmaker, this is about the time we'd usher him to an easy chair in the corner of the room saying, "Shhh grandpa, why don't you just sit, relax and watch 'Jeopardy'..." while running to the other room to get Shady Oaks rest home on the line. Turns out Scorsese says that even movies like PRECIOUS should be in 3D. Can I get an instant replay? Turns out Scorsese says that even movies like PRECIOUS should be in 3D.

OK Marty, you got yourself into this mess, dig yourself out. "We see in depth, for the most part. We go to the theater — it's in depth. Why couldn't a film like PRECIOUS be in 3-D? It should be." I see his point, to a certain degree, but I think as a society we're waaaay off from this line of thinking. 3D is still something audiences perceive as a gimmick reserved for specific kinds of movies. It's also something movie studios see as a gimmick that will bring them lots of extra money. I think the biggest part is that shooting in 3D is much more difficult than traditional filmmaking and, currently, near impossible for indie filmmakers.

So is Scorsese ready to put his money where his mouth is? To his credit he says he'd "love to do one" adding that, "It just seems natural that we'd be going in that direction...It's going to be something to look forward to."

Add to MFC Profile

Extra Tidbit: Rumors are that Scorsese is filming HUGO CABRET in 3D, which may explain his tubthumping.

29 discussions Expand all
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Morphy
5:51AM on 03/04/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Fuck Avatar and fuck 3D.
Fuck Avatar and fuck 3D.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Derrida
2:46AM on 03/04/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
No no no
3D is fine for dumbass blockbusters. 2d is perfectly adequate for most films, no need to fuck it up in yet another dimension.
3D is fine for dumbass blockbusters. 2d is perfectly adequate for most films, no need to fuck it up in yet another dimension.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Shosanna
6:55PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Et Tu Marty
I know the studios love 3D cause they get to charge twice as much for a ticket, but I haven't seen any movie that looks better in 3D - am I the only one that think the colors in Avatar would have looked better out of this format? If the 3D trend continues I'm going back to reading books!
I know the studios love 3D cause they get to charge twice as much for a ticket, but I haven't seen any movie that looks better in 3D - am I the only one that think the colors in Avatar would have looked better out of this format? If the 3D trend continues I'm going back to reading books!
 
+2
Vote Up Vote Down
Justinvsky1
6:33PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I don't wanna wear glasses every fucking time I go to the movies!!!!!!!! This very well be the one and only time I disagree with lil Marty.
I don't wanna wear glasses every fucking time I go to the movies!!!!!!!! This very well be the one and only time I disagree with lil Marty.
 
+2
Vote Up Vote Down
SuperMarcey
5:43PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Could you imagine those pigfeet in 3D ... NASTY!



Get yo fat ass to the welfare!!!
Could you imagine those pigfeet in 3D ... NASTY!



Get yo fat ass to the welfare!!!
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Kilar
3:54PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I think he's right. there's no reason why a small intimate drama couldn't work in 3D, we just haven't seen one yet, I think it would totally suit the 3D medium if the story was right. Not every film needs to be 3D, but it does add alot to the emmersion of the audience into the world of the film. There's no reason that should change becuase it's a small budget drama.

And this latest 3D...
I think he's right. there's no reason why a small intimate drama couldn't work in 3D, we just haven't seen one yet, I think it would totally suit the 3D medium if the story was right. Not every film needs to be 3D, but it does add alot to the emmersion of the audience into the world of the film. There's no reason that should change becuase it's a small budget drama.

And this latest 3D resergence is a little more than a fad. Never in the past has a 3D film been the biggest grossing movie, never. It has been a fad in the past, it's moved on now. I can understand why some people don't like it or find it distracting. You think people unilaterally loved sound or colour the firs time they saw it, hell no. we accept it becuase we've always had it, we grew up on sound and colour, it's standard for us. When you introduce a new element it takes some time to get used to. Obviously audiences, for the most part, have no issue with 3D and in fact really like it.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Paganidolatry
2:30PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Every 30 years
This perception that 3D film is this new and exciting thing is ridiculous. 3D has been around for a long time. This isn't some new technology. It was a big deal in the 1950's but the fad died out and then in the 1980's it came back and now it's 30 years later it we are seeing a resurgence again. In a few years everybody will right t off as just a gimmick and you will have to wait another 30...
This perception that 3D film is this new and exciting thing is ridiculous. 3D has been around for a long time. This isn't some new technology. It was a big deal in the 1950's but the fad died out and then in the 1980's it came back and now it's 30 years later it we are seeing a resurgence again. In a few years everybody will right t off as just a gimmick and you will have to wait another 30 years for everyone to forget about 3D and allow it to be popular again.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
C.K. Dexter Haven
1:26PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
3D is not The New Color
There has never in history been a cinematic story that suffered in telling due to being in 2D because 2D still projects a clear sense of depth which it is up to the director to helm in an immersive way. It is never a distraction to the viewer as 3D can be, with dim picture, blurred edges and a sense of items in the screen world being tangible - that's not necessary. If directors want to try...
There has never in history been a cinematic story that suffered in telling due to being in 2D because 2D still projects a clear sense of depth which it is up to the director to helm in an immersive way. It is never a distraction to the viewer as 3D can be, with dim picture, blurred edges and a sense of items in the screen world being tangible - that's not necessary. If directors want to try it for particular kinds of stories, neat, but it does not universally improve cinematic story telling. Oh, and the glasses are a pain to wear.
 
+2
Vote Up Vote Down
BiffMcfly
1:18PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
nice
I'd love to see what Marty could do with 3D.. It's only a gimmick when used by hack directors throwing yoyo's off the screen.. Obviously a guy like Marty would use it for shot composition purposes where as a guy like kevin Smith would use it shit on our faces or throw a load off the screen.. The only thing 3D needs is better more comfortable glasses and allow us to buy our own and bring em so...
I'd love to see what Marty could do with 3D.. It's only a gimmick when used by hack directors throwing yoyo's off the screen.. Obviously a guy like Marty would use it for shot composition purposes where as a guy like kevin Smith would use it shit on our faces or throw a load off the screen.. The only thing 3D needs is better more comfortable glasses and allow us to buy our own and bring em so we dont have to pay extra each effin time!
 
-2
Vote Up Vote Down
gameslave
12:57PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I AGREE WITH HIM 100%

I AGREE WITH HIM 100%

 
+9
Vote Up Vote Down
prefuse
12:35PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I'm just going to pretend I never read this article and continue to think he's the best American director working today.
I'm just going to pretend I never read this article and continue to think he's the best American director working today.
 
-1
Vote Up Vote Down
SuperRO
12:33PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Yeah right...
Tell you what Marty.. take Goodfellas and Taxi Driver to the 3D wave and see how bad that turns out...



The problem with 3D IMO is that when a director goes into that direction he/she forgets about the more important facts of a movie... STORY & CHARACTERS



This is why indie films will always be better.. because with less re$ource$, the people behind a movie put more...
Tell you what Marty.. take Goodfellas and Taxi Driver to the 3D wave and see how bad that turns out...



The problem with 3D IMO is that when a director goes into that direction he/she forgets about the more important facts of a movie... STORY & CHARACTERS



This is why indie films will always be better.. because with less re$ource$, the people behind a movie put more effort (and more heart) into those areas.



To make my point.. watch "The Empire Strikes Back" in an old 20 inch B&W tv with mono-speakers and tell me if that stops it from being the SciFi classic that has always been...



Technology is good.. but only if it helps to improve an already good story.
 
+5
Vote Up Vote Down
TAE K
11:35AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
what was it like when technicolor first came out? did people think that color in movies were a gimmick as well? i dunno, but it's an interesting thought. I mean, when color technicolor first came out (before it was perfected), everything was overly bright and weird looking. i can totally see people back then thinking "this is such a gimmick. it makes everything look like a children's movie....
what was it like when technicolor first came out? did people think that color in movies were a gimmick as well? i dunno, but it's an interesting thought. I mean, when color technicolor first came out (before it was perfected), everything was overly bright and weird looking. i can totally see people back then thinking "this is such a gimmick. it makes everything look like a children's movie. this will only work for certain types of movies"
 
+9
Vote Up Vote Down
razgriz21
11:26AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Monique in 3D is a BAD idea.
Monique in 3D is a BAD idea.
 
-7
Vote Up Vote Down
SpawnofAchilles
11:04AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Why would a movie fan bitch about 3D?
Avatar showed it can be used and NOT be a gimmick AT ALL. It made that film much more immersive and was damn cool to boot. How is 3D a bad thing other then that it adds a few dollars to the price? I don't get the hate. Avatar was the experience it was because of 3D.
Avatar showed it can be used and NOT be a gimmick AT ALL. It made that film much more immersive and was damn cool to boot. How is 3D a bad thing other then that it adds a few dollars to the price? I don't get the hate. Avatar was the experience it was because of 3D.
3 Replies
 
Justinvsky1
8:36PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Because it's annoying as hell to wear those stupid glasses. Every once in a while it's good, like with Avatar.
Because it's annoying as hell to wear those stupid glasses. Every once in a while it's good, like with Avatar.
 
Terminal_83
12:42PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Exactly SuperRo.
Exactly SuperRo.
 
SuperRO
12:13PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Exactly dude.. remove the 3D gimmick and all you get is a remake of other stories.. with bad acting BTW
Exactly dude.. remove the 3D gimmick and all you get is a remake of other stories.. with bad acting BTW
 
+5
Vote Up Vote Down
Jig Saw 123
10:57AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Marty seems to be becoming more and more Hollywood each week.
Marty seems to be becoming more and more Hollywood each week.
 
+9
Vote Up Vote Down
FNDanny
10:38AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Really?
Precious in 3D = scariest movie of all time!
Precious in 3D = scariest movie of all time!
 
+9
Vote Up Vote Down
Hunglowman
10:36AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
This is disappointing coming from someone I admire.
This is disappointing coming from someone I admire.
 
+12
Vote Up Vote Down
Outsider
10:35AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
DUCK!!
Mo'Nique's got a pan!!!!!
Mo'Nique's got a pan!!!!!
 
+10
Vote Up Vote Down
SoundGirl
10:25AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I can see 3D vs. 2D having the same outcome as Colour vs. B&W. Eventually 3D could be the mainstream, but 2D would still exist as a choice for cinematographers.



And 3D is expensive now, but I wouldn't expect that to be the case in another 5-10 years.
I can see 3D vs. 2D having the same outcome as Colour vs. B&W. Eventually 3D could be the mainstream, but 2D would still exist as a choice for cinematographers.



And 3D is expensive now, but I wouldn't expect that to be the case in another 5-10 years.
1 Reply
 
gameslave
12:59PM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I think many cinematographers are seeing the Avatar and their imaginations are running wild now. 3D has the potential to make very dramatic scenes become all the more expressive
I think many cinematographers are seeing the Avatar and their imaginations are running wild now. 3D has the potential to make very dramatic scenes become all the more expressive
 
+6
Vote Up Vote Down
OKMovieFan
10:18AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I think less 3D is the way to go for me. Unless, it's a movie like Avatar or something big like that, I'll stick to the (cheaper) 2D.
I think less 3D is the way to go for me. Unless, it's a movie like Avatar or something big like that, I'll stick to the (cheaper) 2D.
 
-2
Vote Up Vote Down
miguel_montes
10:15AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
3D is obsolete technology
4D is where it's at!! [link]
4D is where it's at!! [link]
 
+3
Vote Up Vote Down
Terminal_83
10:13AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Marty you need some sleep. Seriously.
Marty you need some sleep. Seriously.
 
+5
Vote Up Vote Down
natethegreat2nd
10:06AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Martin...
I really love your movies....but this is stupid. Besides who wouldn't want to see an extremely overweight girl get verbally and physically abused in 3D right?
I really love your movies....but this is stupid. Besides who wouldn't want to see an extremely overweight girl get verbally and physically abused in 3D right?
 
+5
Vote Up Vote Down
The_DUDE_Abides
10:06AM on 03/03/2010 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Let the man do his thing...the only 3D movie I've seen that's actually been worth the extra 4 bucks was Avatar. A Scorsese 3D movie would be just fine in my book.



But as far as every movie being in 3D, sorry Marty, but in the words of Jimmy Conway, "What's a matta' wit you?!?"
Let the man do his thing...the only 3D movie I've seen that's actually been worth the extra 4 bucks was Avatar. A Scorsese 3D movie would be just fine in my book.



But as far as every movie being in 3D, sorry Marty, but in the words of Jimmy Conway, "What's a matta' wit you?!?"