Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Avatar proved the revoultion of 3D no more than Titanic proved the revolution of boat movies.
Your desire to argue with it looks strange. After Avatar they started shooting lots of 3D movies. After Titanic they didn't start shooting tons of boat movies. Can you see the difference? So that's the influence, that's the revolution Cameron made with the modern-day entertainment industry. If you personally don't like modern 3D, it of course doesn't mean it was not a revolutionary turn in the filmmaking course of history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
A revolution completely changes the way movies are made.
And the directors speaking out against it aren't a bunch of old-fashioned fogies screamin at the young'uns to git off their lawn. They are the filmmakers making the hit movies today, guys like J.J. Abrams and Christopher Nolan.
No matter how old or popular they are, you can always encounter the grumbling ones.
After Avatar? Now way. 3D was a revolution. Now we have more and more 3D theaters and 3D films day after day. Further, now we have 3D TV sets. So whether you like it or not you have to deal with it - 3D is a future when it comes to movies and video games. Nobody cares what some old-fashioned directors or critics think.... What studios, producers and movie-goers think is the key think. Avatar proved that tons of movie-goers love 3D.
problem is, while Avatar may have been revolutionary when it first came out, the 3-D movies that's been coming out after it have been horrible. look at reviews for Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender. most of them complain about the bad 3-D effects. movies that have no business being in 3-D are being converted into it. Hollywood, in it's quest for more money, has been converting movies into 3-D w/ horrible results. they may end up killing 3-D all by themselves if they continue to do so. movie goers hate the extra price, poor effects, and limited choices for non-3-D fare. movie makers are saying the technology isn't up to par yet (and these are not even the "old fashioned" directors you claim them to be. these are our current generation's top movie makers for the most part). the only people so gung-ho about 3-D are the ones looking at it as a box office cash cow
it also didn't help much that, despite its success, Avatar wasn't the best movie plot-wise. a movie like Inception may never gross as much as Avatar (mainly b/c it's not gaining revenue from more expensive 3-D showings), but plot-wise, it was a better movie. showy gimmicks will only get you so far (maybe why The Hurt Locker won the Oscar over Avatar). dumb movie goers may make a 3-D movie like Step Up 3D a hit, but the smart ones will always choose story over glitz (now, give me a 3-D movie w/ beautiful effects AND a superb plot, them I'll cough up the extra $$ to go see it in theater n 3-D)
Millions of people all over the world who saw Avatar in IMAX or Real3D and enjoyed 3D that much definitely don't agree with you.
Avatar is ONE example. not even a good one, given Cameron's reputation and the long, on-going hype that went into the movie (movie buffs were talking about how Cameron had developed new technology for Avatar years before the movie came out). most of the 3-D movies that have come out after Avatar had dismal or forgettable 3-D effects.
Your desire to argue with it looks strange. After Avatar they started shooting lots of 3D movies. After Titanic they didn't start shooting tons of boat movies. Can you see the difference? So that's the influence, that's the revolution Cameron made with the modern-day entertainment industry. If you personally don't like modern 3D, it of course doesn't mean it was not a revolutionary turn in the filmmaking course of history.
A couple of examples please?
and I repeat, most of those movies had dismal or forgettable effects. can you name one movie that came out after Avatar that had effects on par w/ Avatar, effects that wholly changed and enhanced the viewing experience? I'll wait
again, the success of Avatar isn't going to start a revolution and, if anything, any attempts at a revolution has been halted by the horrific 3-D effects of some most recent movies
again, the success of Avatar isn't going to start a revolution and, if anything, any attempts at a revolution has been halted by the horrific 3-D effects of some most recent movies
Let's wait and see. I still believe every movie will be 3D soon.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was a revolution. Color film was a revolution. Method acting was a revolution. CGI was a revolution. They were revolutions because they changed the way films were made, they made audiences see with new eyes, and they excited filmmakers who wanted to use them.
3D is a gimmick. It's a gimmick being forced on us by studio executives in order to make more money. All the really talented filmmakers hate it and are resisting its use.
Studios are desperate for more ticket sales, and that is the only thing behind the current emphasis on 3D. Between the DVD revolution, the internet, and piracy, ticket sales aren't what they used to be. But because studios are run by accountants and lawyers, they fail to see the real cause: People have stopped going to the movies in great numbers for only two reasons:
1.) Movie tickets are too freakin' expensive.
2.) Too many movies suck.
If studios really wanted to put bottoms in seats, they would lower ticket prices and start putting out a quality product. The problem is that studio execs wouldn't know a quality product if it swam up and bit them in whoosit.
"People have stopped going to the movies in great numbers for only two reasons:
1.) Movie tickets are too freakin' expensive.
2.) Too many movies suck."
While the above is an easy sound-bite, it is factually incorrect on a number of levels.
The PERCENTAGE of people going to movies is down from the golden age of the 1930s for a number of reasons. The primary one is that there are many more choices vying for the entertainment dollar and time. In the 1930s, radio was just coming into full flower. TV was experimental. If you wanted to do something other than read a book or listen to the radio, you went to the movies, or dancing, or to some group activity. Movies were a relatively inexpensive option, and there were theatres in most towns.
To have people coming to movies, you have to have theatres for them. Thirty years ago, the rule of thumb was that in rural America, the county seat or a town with a population of over 15,000 could support one sub-run theatre, that didn't play the first week of national releases, but rented the films AFTER the high percentage rentals had been reduced. In cities, the movie page of the paper was usually filled with ads from the little theatres and the major releases took out their own double truck ads. The number of failed theatres from then to now is amazing, and that obviously cannot be from the effects of bad 3-D films.
Economics drives the movie industry, just like it drives every other industry. The economics of getting numbers of people together for entertainment rarely make sense anymore. How much vaudeville do you see? How many live-action play venues are still around that are not heavily subsidized? How well-attended are the minor-league baseball games compared to the past? How many people still go to the horse or dog track?
What currently "works" are the mega-events and the mega-theatres. Successful major leagues can pack stadiums (the losers lose big bucks). Successful mega-theatres that can also package in restaurant services and wine and liquor are holding their own. Small theatres continue to fail. People are busy with TV, the internet, video games, hometown sports, and not interested in following every movie that a star makes, or every film that a good director makes, as was the case in the past.
Quality product does not put bottoms in seats. The relation of quality to revenues just isn't there. Few audience members even have an inkling of what "quality" is. Plot lines that are easy, even childlike, and that follow familiar paths are loved. Sequels make money. When presented with a movie like "Landscape in the Mist" or even "2001, A Space audacity" 99% of the audience scratches there collective head or other body part and goes "HUH??? What was that all about?"
What brought people to 2001 was the pretty colors, and to a lesser extent, some really cool space scenes. What brings people to movies is a reflection of current interests or archetypes. Vampire movies do great now, Agatha Christie movies did great in the 1970s. Star Wars clicked from 1975 for about ten years. Quality product? How do you explain the success of "Blair Witch Project?"
The reality of movies today is that the people ages twenty-five and up largely abandoned movies long ago in favor of HBO and videotapes. The prime audience is now rug-rats, pre-teens, and teens. The movies are designed to appeal to them for simple economic reasons. They come in flocks and spend money. In many cases, they don't even care about the movie, they just want to be seen and see others, and get a chance of hooking up.
3-D itself is NOT a gimmick. The Keystone company and Viewmaster did quite well. Matthew Brady was not promoting a gimmick in the way he recorded the Civil War.
I have to keep repeating myself on this because nobody seems to get it. 3-D movie-making is a different medium than 2-D movies. The use of 2-D cinematography conventions does not work. Movie theatres are not the proper venue for 3-D movies. The angles are wrong. The dimensions are wrong. I could detail technical reasons, but the bottom line is that there is a POTENTIAL for 3-D tv, shot properly, and viewed in a properly constructed room, to be KNOCK YOUR SOCKS OFF GREAT! I know. I've done the experiments. I've done some rear-projection stills that make you think you are IN the scene.
Now, about the cost of movies. Movies historically have matinees priced at an equivalent price to that of one hour's work at minimum wage. Evening pricing is typically somewhere around double that. It has been so for over a century, and will likely be so until the media disappears entirely. The "too expensive" has been a winge for over one-hundred years. Deal with it.
3D is over rated, i don`t like to see all the movies on 3D and second i Hate Avatar, to much computer, i like some real action some all fashion action.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
