|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 21, 2018 16:42:26 GMT
Well when I said: You replied: From that, it seems you are saying the only use of 3D is storytelling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 16:45:44 GMT
48% is less than half, that is far from "whopping". & also it isn't specifically stating that 48% of the films revenue came from 3D screenings only "its domestic opening weekend receipts" which isn't the same thing. Those reviews are by amateur critics, & are for home release so not really relevant when discussing 3D on the big screen. 48% is a massive number. That's nearly half of cinemagoers. Again, you're forgetting about differing views - you're never going to get 60-100% of people all deciding to do the same thing. I wouldn't call them amateurs, they are quite well-known. I'm not forgetting differing views, actually if anyone is I would suggest you are. It is less than half & as the article states, it is only for the opening weekend. Are they paid film critics? Is it their only job? If not they are amateurs regardless of how well known they are. & as I said their views are about the home release version, nothing to do with cinema. |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 16:53:03 GMT
Well when I said:You replied:From that, it seems you are saying the only use of 3D is storytelling. I meant to say its best used as a storytelling device, and sport can't benefit from it in that way. |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 16:56:25 GMT
I'm not forgetting differing views, actually if anyone is I would suggest you are. It is less than half & as the article states, it is only for the opening weekend. It's only 2% less than half. It's nearly half. Considering the number of factors like the additional cost of 3D and people who experience side-effects as a result of 3D, I don't see how that can be seen as anything less than impressive. I remember posters on other forums remarking how amazing a figure it was. The home release is the same 3D as the cinema release. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 17:57:13 GMT
I'm not forgetting differing views, actually if anyone is I would suggest you are. It is less than half & as the article states, it is only for the opening weekend. It's only 2% less than half. It's nearly half. Considering the number of factors like the additional cost of 3D and people who experience side-effects as a result of 3D, I don't see how that can be seen as anything less than impressive. I remember posters on other forums remarking how amazing a figure it was. But there are no figures about availablity of both formats for the public (as I have already said). This is one factor you don't appear to have considered. What if 3D is the only option for people, & the 2D version was not available for people to see so they are in fact forced to watch the 3D version? This is especially true of the opening weekend which is what the magic figure of 48% refers to & must not be forgotten in all this. Most cinemas do more 3D screenings than 2D. Probably because the movie companies own the cinemas & want to promote this format because it costs more for the consumer & therefore increases the cinemas profits. Only when all these factors are taken into consideration an a true assesment be made. The home release is the same 3D as the cinema release. Correct. But how does this impact on critical acclaim of 3D films in respect of cinema? It doesn't because this is a review of the home release which obviously comes out months after the big screen so their acclaim will have minimal impact on cinemagoers impression of 3D format. |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 18:00:26 GMT
It's only 2% less than half. It's nearly half. Considering the number of factors like the additional cost of 3D and people who experience side-effects as a result of 3D, I don't see how that can be seen as anything less than impressive. I remember posters on other forums remarking how amazing a figure it was. The home release is the same 3D as the cinema release. Correct. But how does this impact on critical acclaim of 3D films in respect of cinema? It doesn't because this is a review of the home release which obviously comes out months after the big screen so their acclaim will have minimal impact on cinemagoers impression of 3D format. It's the same 3D film. It's hard to find something specifically for the cinema release. If this was a university assessment I would dig deep to find the sources I know exist as I remember seeing them at the time of both releases. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 18:01:53 GMT
Correct. But how does this impact on critical acclaim of 3D films in respect of cinema? It doesn't because this is a review of the home release which obviously comes out months after the big screen so their acclaim will have minimal impact on cinemagoers impression of 3D format. It's the same 3D film. It's hard to find something specifically for the cinema release. If this was a university assessment I would dig deep to find the sources I know exist as I remember seeing them at the time of both releases. Eh? Surely there are reviews for these 3D films when they come out at the cinema? Most mainstream newspapers do them as do dedicated film magazines? |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 18:11:06 GMT
It's the same 3D film. It's hard to find something specifically for the cinema release. If this was a university assessment I would dig deep to find the sources I know exist as I remember seeing them at the time of both releases. Eh? Surely there are reviews for these 3D films when they come out at the cinema? Most mainstream newspapers do them as do dedicated film magazines? Problem is most of them never mention 3D as part of their review process. But I do remember the 3D being critically appraised by those who do mention it when it requires mentioning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 18:15:28 GMT
Eh? Surely there are reviews for these 3D films when they come out at the cinema? Most mainstream newspapers do them as do dedicated film magazines? Problem is most of them never mention 3D as part of their review process. But I do remember the 3D being critically appraised by those who do mention it when it requires mentioning. Well then, as these are the most mainstream critics that filmgoers take heed of, the case for 3D is made. It is not important to critics so where is this critical acclaim? Certainly not in the mainstream film reviewing process! Which is what counts! |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 21, 2018 18:16:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Jan 22, 2018 1:09:39 GMT
I keep reading that somehow 3D serves the narrative of a film. This is news to me. How can a film that I can watch in 2D not serve the narrative, in what way by me seeing the same film using the 3D gimmick make it different in sequence and plot?
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 22, 2018 10:00:26 GMT
I keep reading that somehow 3D serves the narrative of a film. This is news to me. How can a film that I can watch in 2D not serve the narrative, in what way by me seeing the same film using the 3D gimmick make it different in sequence and plot? It can enhance the narrative where you can feel like you are in the world of the film, a way that immerses you into the narrative beyond what a 2D film can achieve. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 10:03:11 GMT
I keep reading that somehow 3D serves the narrative of a film. This is news to me. How can a film that I can watch in 2D not serve the narrative, in what way by me seeing the same film using the 3D gimmick make it different in sequence and plot? It can enhance the narrative where you can feel like you are in the world of the film, a way that immerses you into the narrative beyond what a 2D film can achieve. Fair enough, for you I guess. This has never happened to me. A rubbish boring film is still a rubbish boring film if made in 3D. |
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Jan 22, 2018 17:21:51 GMT
I keep reading that somehow 3D serves the narrative of a film. This is news to me. How can a film that I can watch in 2D not serve the narrative, in what way by me seeing the same film using the 3D gimmick make it different in sequence and plot? It can enhance the narrative where you can feel like you are in the world of the film, a way that immerses you into the narrative beyond what a 2D film can achieve. No, 3D may enhance the picture and experience but it does not serve to drive the narrative and storytelling. I can watch the same film in 2D and the same sequence of scenes presented to me will give me the same narrative outcome. Now if the plot made mention to the 3D I was watching, then it would serve the narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 22, 2018 17:25:25 GMT
It can enhance the narrative where you can feel like you are in the world of the film, a way that immerses you into the narrative beyond what a 2D film can achieve. No, 3D may enhance the picture and experience but it does not serve to drive the narrative and storytelling. I can watch the same film in 2D and the same sequence of scenes presented to me will give me the same narrative outcome. Now if the plot made mention to the 3D I was watching, then it would serve the narrative. Clearly you haven't seen Jurassic World or Doctor Who: The Day of the Doctor in 3D. Both examples where the 3D absolutely enhances the narrative, and watching either in 2D loses an added dimension to the story. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 22, 2018 17:37:49 GMT
I have to agree with DalekBuster that 3D could enhance the story telling. Directors occasionally opt for filming in Black and White because of how it effects the viewers perception of the story.
When it works well, the impact is basically unobserved by the viewer, no mater how many times I've seen Schindlers list, after the opening moments there is only one scene where I notice that it is black and white, and that was deliberate on part of the director. But I suspect had Schindlers been filmed in colour, it would still have been a great film, but Without that certain something that black and white gave it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 22, 2018 17:40:12 GMT
I have to agree with DalekBuster that 3D could enhance the story telling. Directors occasionally opt for filming in Black and White because of how it effects the viewers perception of the story. When it works well, the impact is basically unobserved by the viewer, no mater how many times I've seen Schindlers list, after the opening moments there is only one scene where I notice that it is black and white, and that was deliberate on part of the director. But I suspect had Schindlers been filmed in colour, it would still have been a great film, but Without that certain something that black and white gave it. Or indeed the original Psycho, which wouldn't have been the same in colour. |
|
|
|
Post by chrism1999 on Jan 22, 2018 17:49:03 GMT
I have to agree with DalekBuster that 3D could enhance the story telling. Directors occasionally opt for filming in Black and White because of how it effects the viewers perception of the story. When it works well, the impact is basically unobserved by the viewer, no mater how many times I've seen Schindlers list, after the opening moments there is only one scene where I notice that it is black and white, and that was deliberate on part of the director. But I suspect had Schindlers been filmed in colour, it would still have been a great film, but Without that certain something that black and white gave it. Or indeed the original Psycho, which wouldn't have been the same in colour. Narrative wasn't the primary reason for filming Psycho in black and white though. Hitchcock was trying to control the budget, and filming in black and white was significantly cheaper, plus there were concerns about how the shower scene would appear if filmed in colour. |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 22, 2018 17:52:12 GMT
Or indeed the original Psycho, which wouldn't have been the same in colour. Narrative wasn't the primary reason for filming Psycho in black and white though. Hitchcock was trying to control the budget, and filming in black and white was significantly cheaper, plus there were concerns about how the shower scene would appear if filmed in colour. True, but it wouldn't be the same in colour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 19:44:01 GMT
I have to agree with DalekBuster Wow! That's not a comment we get to see here often...  |
|
