If Hollywood isn't dead yet...it better hurry up.

It's making the rounds right now :)

EDIT: He's in several of those videos interviewing people, I recognoze his voice (they don't show his face).
 
Last edited:
ChipG said:
I can't remember where I read it, it was a while ago. And yes, those new 'digital' proectors display 3D. As for the 4th comment down it sounds like he is a pissed off theater owner who got passed by for the big chains, as for the figures they will be published in May.
Click to expand...

 To be fair, the commenter (FTR: I’m not the same guy, nor do I have any idea who he is) plainly declares his potential bias as an independent exhibitor who didn’t receive any benefit from this funding. I think he was just trying to point out the fact that this was Bad Journalism, and that it is old news that has bugger all to do with the recent 3D ‘revolution’.

This ‘news’ – or this spin on it – seems to be confined to a very small number of US entertainment blogs, although it wouldn’t surprise me if the Daily Mail and/or some other UK tabloid were to pick up on it in the next few weeks, and give it the same spin for the sake of a bit of good ol’ fashioned ‘OUTRAGE!’ (preferably accompanied by a photo of Tim Burton looking as much like a smackhead as possible).


As it happens, I do have a lot of criticisms about the way the UK Film Council allocates its funds, particularly when it comes to aiding the major exhibitors, but that's another story!


DP
 
I gotta rant....

The main problem I have with 3D is that it's rarely necessary. And, if they just throw 3D on after the fact it’s not nearly as potent. So my fear is that many screenplays will now be approached with an overzealous need to appease this improved technology. Some films that have no business being in 3D will reek of the stuff and “cheese" up the visual storytelling.

Consider that incredible continuous shot in “Goodfellas” when they walk in the back of the nightclub, through the kitchen then to their table at the front of the house. Does that need 3D? Would 3D help that shot at all? Of course not. In fact, I could make an argument that 3D would be too distracting. A very important tool that a director has is the ability to draw the viewers eye to what he/she wants us to see; whether they do it through blocking, depth of field, or simply where they point the camera lens. But in 3D, everything that seemingly stands apart from the physical screen would take precedence even if it’s just set design and bears no relevance to moving the story forward. But the way that “Goodfellas” scene is currently shot, the focal point is Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco. For the full 3+ minutes you are keenly aware of how important they are, how they have full access to the club and how they receive V.I.P. treatment from the entire staff.

In 3D, you might miss the point of the scene because you would be too busy focusing on the guy Ray Liotta tips, the cooks in the background, the guy walking in front of the camera carrying the tray of glasses, the other patrons in the bar, etc. In fact, if this WAS shot in 3D, a lesser director would intentionally throw in more sight gags just to enhance the 3D experience. So, in effect, he’d be indulging in the technology rather than focusing on plain ol’ good storytelling. I think we can all agree that the scene, as is, kicks major cinematic storytelling ass.

It’s possible that this 3D thing is just a fad but I don’t think so. Hollywood has a lot of clout and they are investing heavily in it. Not to mention that TV manufacturers are now making 3D capable TVs. I hope there doesn’t come a time when all movies are released in 3D. I doubt it will ever come to that but if so, God help us. Then maybe one day we’d all be languishing over the bygone 2D era while sounding like the cast and crew from the silent film days bitching about the advent of the “talkies.”

Rant over...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top