Yeah!!!!!!!! 3D is beginning to tank.
- Thread starter Pookie
- Start date
. 3D is of course here to stay but hopefully 3-D dies a painful death :violent5:.
The studios, and exhibitors by extension, have been using 3D as a way to finally get digital projection into theatres. NATO affiliated owners balked at the cost of integrating digital projection when the first wave of 2k solutions hit the market. Obviously, in the age of fully digital post, a digital finish really makes more sense than film-outs.
I like 3D and hope that there will be good stories told in the 3D world. With very short first-run windows, a movie can die as quickly as a network series nowadays. There is no second-run theatrical market anymore - the second window is PPV or direct to home video / premium pay cable. With few consumers owning 3D at home (yet), the studios need to recoup a great deal of that extra 40% that goes into a stereoscopic pic's below-the-line details. They can't afford to miss. When they do miss, it will likely be a spectacular miss as with the Disney film.
I like 3D and hope that there will be good stories told in the 3D world. With very short first-run windows, a movie can die as quickly as a network series nowadays. There is no second-run theatrical market anymore - the second window is PPV or direct to home video / premium pay cable. With few consumers owning 3D at home (yet), the studios need to recoup a great deal of that extra 40% that goes into a stereoscopic pic's below-the-line details. They can't afford to miss. When they do miss, it will likely be a spectacular miss as with the Disney film.
The idea that there was a time when the majority of movies were "cinema" as has been described -- artistic films, as opposed to product churned out to make money -- is simply wrong. Schlock has been with us as long as movies have. And it used to be a lot worse in many ways.
(MST3K is a valuable resource in preserving classic badness.)
(MST3K is a valuable resource in preserving classic badness.)
Batutta
Major Contributor
True, although in the past, the studios knew it was shlock and promoted it as such. Today's shlock is pushed on us like it's filet mignon, when it's low grade sausage at best.
Oh, I don't think they did. It was often presented as The Greatest! Thing! Ever! With Anne Francis!
Casablanca was literally classified as so much filler when it was made. The studios don't know. They heavily promote what they can wrap themselves around and effectively hide what they can't. It has been a money-making machine since the first commercial exhibitions in the late 19th century and it was, and continues to be, marketed with sideshow-barker-level enthusiasm. Motion pictures have never been a noble business, but there are many great stories that have come along almost in spite of the industry itself.
I strongly suspect Michael Curtiz didn't think he was making art, any more than he did when shooting White Christmas.
vcassel
Veteran
Making pictures move (historically) ain't cheap. For that reason alone it has always been more business than art by simple necessity. That may be set to change, though, as the gear is getting cheaper and people are starting to challenge distribution methods. Won't necessarily make that art good.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Maybe I was confused about what you thought of as shlock. When I think MST3K level shlock, I'm thinking of, you know, this--
Gord.T
Still "Senior Member"
I like a bit of shclock. Growing up as a kid in the 60's/70's horror era, those clips could be considered shlock couldn't they, or no?
Nothing wrong with a good B movie imo. A lot of that stuff is considered classics now. Not Shakespere classics but cultural classics.
This one I can almost bet a years salary, if I had such a thing, that it will give a kid between the ages of 6 and 9 nightmares for days.
(I know, I found out the hard way.)
Remember the old Monster bubble gum cards we used to get in the early 70's?
Remember the 'now illegal' comic books we used to read as kids in the late 60's and 70's depicting horror at it's best with blood bursting decapitations and other such now illegal images? Weird Magazine and Creep and mags like that? Don't look online for them. The ones you find are all sanitized now, such was our demented youth.
Okay, sliding off topic, but that's where my memories of greatness are, even Vincent Price was great horror back then. 'The Pit and the Pendulum' gave me nightmares for years and I loved it.
Shlock though. But there's a place for schlock. Well, let's put it this way, the music business has no problem with it, haha.
I still miss it. I still like Godzilla.
[/babble]
//edit: Weird Mag sanitized. This isn't the good old B&W stuff we used to get as kids.That stuff's illlegal now, haha. But here's a couple later sanitized grabs off google. Ahhhh, I wish I kept those old comics. Classic horror.
Nothing wrong with a good B movie imo. A lot of that stuff is considered classics now. Not Shakespere classics but cultural classics.
This one I can almost bet a years salary, if I had such a thing, that it will give a kid between the ages of 6 and 9 nightmares for days.
(I know, I found out the hard way.)
Remember the old Monster bubble gum cards we used to get in the early 70's?
Remember the 'now illegal' comic books we used to read as kids in the late 60's and 70's depicting horror at it's best with blood bursting decapitations and other such now illegal images? Weird Magazine and Creep and mags like that? Don't look online for them. The ones you find are all sanitized now, such was our demented youth.
Okay, sliding off topic, but that's where my memories of greatness are, even Vincent Price was great horror back then. 'The Pit and the Pendulum' gave me nightmares for years and I loved it.
Shlock though. But there's a place for schlock. Well, let's put it this way, the music business has no problem with it, haha.
I still miss it. I still like Godzilla.
[/babble]
//edit: Weird Mag sanitized. This isn't the good old B&W stuff we used to get as kids.That stuff's illlegal now, haha. But here's a couple later sanitized grabs off google. Ahhhh, I wish I kept those old comics. Classic horror.
Last edited:
nope, it is not about opposing artists/culture against money makers.
We all know that cinema exist since the earliest ages to make money.
It is not about the goal, it is about how you reach it.
the owner of a restaurant is probably not running it for the sake of art cooking, so on that point, he is not different than Mc Donald making money by selling cheesburgers.
But there is at least a difference on how each one is trying to reach the same goal. One by trying to serve the best that can be done at transforming raw food into a nice meal, the other
one by trying to make an edible product by cutting every corner he can.
And yes, both way can be very successful.
One is obviouslymore "industrial" than the other, and while there is no shame to feed millions of people with fast food, i am sure you would probably better receive an invitation for a good
restaurant than for cheesburger at the closest McDo.
Cinema is the same. They need to earn money, because no business can run for a long time when loosing money. It just that we expect the cinema industry trying to be a good restaurant rather than an efficient fast-food.
We all know that cinema exist since the earliest ages to make money.
It is not about the goal, it is about how you reach it.
the owner of a restaurant is probably not running it for the sake of art cooking, so on that point, he is not different than Mc Donald making money by selling cheesburgers.
But there is at least a difference on how each one is trying to reach the same goal. One by trying to serve the best that can be done at transforming raw food into a nice meal, the other
one by trying to make an edible product by cutting every corner he can.
And yes, both way can be very successful.
One is obviouslymore "industrial" than the other, and while there is no shame to feed millions of people with fast food, i am sure you would probably better receive an invitation for a good
restaurant than for cheesburger at the closest McDo.
Cinema is the same. They need to earn money, because no business can run for a long time when loosing money. It just that we expect the cinema industry trying to be a good restaurant rather than an efficient fast-food.
Last edited:
Batutta
Major Contributor
Oh, I love alot of that stuff. But old school shlock didn't have delusions of grandeur. The filmmakers knew it was shlock and embraced that, had fun with it. Now we get more sophisticated versions that are advertised like the second coming, and are devoid of any fun, but at heart are still shlock. I'd much rather watch Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers than Battle: Los Angeles.
vcassel
Veteran
Great points.
But that doesn't mean that a hungry person who can afford better will choose something else over McDonalds. It's its own flavor that causes a distinct craving. Sometimes people favor big, dumb, trashy cinema. Like, I can't explain my love for the Fast and the Furious films. They go beyond my every critical judgement, yet I still gleefully eat them up. Or see the Battle: Los Angeles thread for more of this.
Gord.T
Still "Senior Member"
Point taken and understood. Friday the 13th comes to mind. Nightmare on elm Street. ect. Freddy Kruger imo is a cultural classic. And your right, there is a sense of funness or let's-not-take-this-too-seriously atmosphere to it. Popcorn movie they call it? I'm not up on the terms but I agree with you. A very good point.
it is not because your run a restaurant that you cannot serve cheesburgers. But if you run an industry tailored to make only cheesburger, there are chance you will be unable to produce anything else.
And when i go to a restaurant, i am pretty sure there will be a lot of stuff on the menu i will dislike, even if this is top food.
And when i go to a restaurant, i am pretty sure there will be a lot of stuff on the menu i will dislike, even if this is top food.
vcassel
Veteran
I feel like I'm alone in thinking that there's plenty to like from the studio film industry recently and that there has been a nicely diverse output. I had a lot of fun being challenged at the movies this past year, but I tend to avoid the glut of spring and summer mindless actioners. It's more of a seasonal thing to me, and indeed it's marketed to be so. But seriously, compared to the 90's when leads were abundantly young, white males and even indie cinema was going glitch edit crazy, nowadays almost feels like a golden age of cinema to me. I mean, c'mon, it doesn't get much more insulting than The Saint, Armageddon, or Godzilla, does it?
Gord.T
Still "Senior Member"
Depends on which version of Godzilla you mean. You mean the Hollyrude version I take it. I'd agree there.
Godzilla 1998 with Mathew Broderick was a disaster for the fans, imo, myself included, although the movie itself was top notch.
Godzilla 2000 I think for the fans of Godzilla it was a success.
vcassel
Veteran
Yeah, the 90's one with the irradiated iguana.
arroway
Well-known member
3D is no more of a gimmick than sound and color were in the beginning and just like sound and color, 3D is the next natural step in bringing the illusion of movies that much closer to reality.
3D can certainly be used as a gimmick, but that's not saying much as everything under the sun can be used as a gimmick. Doesn't change the fact 2D is what's unnatural, not 3D. Once we do away with the glasses, you'll see much broader adoption of the technology.
Twenty years from now 2D films will be like what black and white films are today: an anachronistic curiosity.
Uh...CD sales have TANKED following the advent of Napster. Recording industry profits are down something like 60% and digital sales are a comparative drop in the bucket. Digital streaming royalties are laughable. And of course, piracy is still a wildfire out of control. "Dying" is a very apt word for the situation.
And LP/cassette sales disappeared following the advent of CDs.
Yet there is no shortage of music being recorded, sold, and played on the radio, and there isn't likely to be any time soon.