Check out this article at MovieTickets.com that discusses some of the current and upcoming major IMAX-3D releases.
I could care less. No offense, but I always have been, and always will be a FILM man, and have no interest in this digital 3-D crap.
Maybe if they bring back film 3-d (last major movies to be shown in analog 3-d was spy kids 3-d and sharkboy and lavagirl 3-d)…digital 3d is easier on the eyes than old 3-d.
Digital 3-D uses polarization, the same as the ‘old analog 3-D’ did, which includes all of the 1950s 3D films and the early 80s films. Spy Kids and Sharkboy weren’t in polarized 3D, thedy were in comic book anaglyph 3D. ‘Old 3D’ is just as impressive as digital 3D is shown properly.
I tip my hat off to movie534. I’ve stated this before: FILM is for the theatres; VIDEO is for television. Why can’t these studio and theatre chain executives figure this out? Imagine LAWRENCE OF ARABIA shot on video. They claim that digital will save money. Oh my, are film studios strapped for cash after a record-breaking 2009? Yeah, they’ll save money alright, but the moviegoers will be paying exactly the same, if not more.
No Tree of Life?
Thank you and Happy New Year timoneill. One of my biggest problems is this. The theatre I work at, where the owner (an independant) spent upwards of $450,000.00 in March ‘09 to put in this crap, then tells me last week, they already stopped making it and are making a different model and version. As he stated to me, his film projectors have been around forever, with only the occasional gear going bad. Maybe the only thing that changed was the color of the paint. He hasn’t even had this stuff for 1 year, and already changes. Maybe the film companies will save money. But the theatres sure won’t.
Oh, and just to add, it was for 3 screens, and he said the new model cannot interchange with the old model, meaning that if something goes wrong with his, he will have to buy all new.
I tend to side with movie534 somewhat on this one. While I occasionally welcome a new movie, I tend to agree with the idea that movie films are for theatres, and good movies don’t need 3-D added to them to make them worth seeing.
What I don’t understand are the real FILMmakers. Why don’t they get involved and speak out against digital projection? Quentin Tarantino told Roger Ebert in an interview that he will never shoot on digital. Steven Spielberg once said that he will shoot on film until they shut down the last film lab. Oliver Stone supposedly told George Lucas that he will be remembered as the man who destroyed cinema. Most movies that come out of Hollywood are still shot on 35mm film. Heck, there are still some movies shot on 16mm. Why does this world we live in want to give up on one of the great art forms of all time?
Although I am not a film purist I think you should try this test:
Watch “BEN-HUR” followed by “GLADIATOR”.
After a couple of weeks think back at the two films.
What I found was that the “BEN-HUR” footage registered as if it was historical footage while the “GLADIATOR” images appear in recollection like they were from some second rate video game.
I think that is the effect of film vs digital. This example also highlights how CGI effects fail to pack the wallop of even the cheesiest “BEN-HUR” special effects.
given all these movies are being also shown on standard 3D equipped theatres (sans Eclipse)why bother??
When I saw The Dark Knight a year and a half ago, when it first came out, I saw it in a regular theatre, with no 3D added to it. I enjoyed the film immensely, and I thought that “Dark Knight” was
well enough done so that 3D wasn’t necessary.
Typical gloom and doom. I enjoy watching films in 3-D, 2-D, film, and digital.
MPol: uh, ‘The Dark Knight’ was not shot or projected in 3D – it was though shot in IMAX for select scenes but I assume you know that fact