I know we've hashed this out several times before, but here's some interesting fodder for the discussion. Martin Scorsese, in discussing his new film Huge, and shooting it in 3D, says this about it:
We see in 3D, we see in space... most of us do. Space is part of our lives. It means something. I think, for the individual person who has a vision of telling a story through images, how that person uses space -- that extra element, that extra dimension -- to tell a story is very, very important.
I've always been a fan of Scorsese films, and he's one of the last people I would have expected to express this viewpoint. This is the guy who directed Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Color of Money, Gangs of New York... We're not talking about Jerry Bruckheimer or James Cameron here.
I completely disagree with the idea that because we see in 3D and perceive space that way that stereoscopic 3D is the same. It isn't. When I move my head in real space, my perspective changes; it doesn't in stereoscopic 3D projection. I also don't walk through life wearing flickering LCD glasses (or polarized lenses) with everything around on a flat surface made to look like it's in 3D... In my world, things actually are 3D.
So far, I've just been really underwhelmed by stereo projection - and like most of us here, I'm a projection nut!
So, do you think Scorsese could really be embracing 3D as storytelling device?
Another possible explanation is that the studio dictated that 3D would be used on the project, and Scorsese is just putting on a good face, ala "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
What do you guys think these days? Gimmick or legitimate storytelling device? Will it still be popular in 5 years, or is it just a fad that will fade away again like it has in the past?
Link Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:34 pm Post subject:
I want to 'watch' a film that allows me to get some sort of entertainment and maybe a bit of escapism, but I am not looking to jump on stage and be the literal fly on the wall. Sure, some scenes are difficult to project in size and or scope including depth, but that is a challenge of one's mind to fill in those things as part of the entertainment experience. This added dimensional doesn't work in all cases, and even in those that should the apparatus (glasses) can be a buzz kill in many forms that steal you away from said entertainment. _________________ Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 3912 Location: Comedy Central
Link Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:46 pm Post subject:
Well you know my feelings on the subject. If it ever becomes good, then I am all for it. I can't see it ever becoming great as is. I think it will stick around, because there are enough fan boys to keep it going. I think Cedia will be the tell tale on where 3D is. If 4k dominates the convention and 3D is back burner or after thought, then that will speak volumes.
On Martin, I think he probably genuinely wanted to give it a try. Unfortunately, I saw Hugo in 3D. It was my only option. I must have taken my glasses off a dozen times during the movie. Some of the scenes looked ok in 3D and others looked overblown as usual.
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 18055 Location: Langley, BC
Link Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:32 am Post subject:
Oh, but money talks! Suppose the economy killed his investments, 3D as far as I'm concerned hasn't taken off the way I think they expected it to. (no hard stats on that, just my $.02. So suppose some movie studio(s) threw a few $$$ at Scrocese.....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum