I realize it is a subjective thing but, having seen all of the 50’s films mentioned above in 2D, (except perhaps the Martin-Lewis title), I can thinks they are among the 50’s worst films with KISS ME KATE and CEASE FIRE! rating in the unbearable category.
HOUSE OF WAX and BLACK LAGOON are in the “so bad they are funny” category, and MISS SADIE THOMPSON being one of the worst remakes of all time. The best of the lot, DIAL M FOR MURDER, was mediocre for Hitchcock.
The press of today have not maligned 50’s 3D films. The press at the time, including Variety, stated that bad films killed the gimmick. By the end of the cycle the films were not even advertising when they were in 3D for fear of the stigma and in many cases opened nationwide in 2D after failing in 3D in some major markets. The distributors for KISS ME KATE didn’t even open it 3D in New York City.
Here is the current slate for 2009 in 3-D:
Coraline (tomorrow)
Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience (Feb. 27)
Monsters vs. Aliens (Mar. 27)
Battle For Terra (May 1)
Up (May 29)
Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs (Jul. 1)
G-Force (Jul. 24)
Final Destination: Death Trap (Aug. 28)
Toy Story (reissue, Oct. 2)
A Christmas Carol (Nov. 6)
Avatar (Dec. 18)
The Princess and The Frog (Dec. 25)
As a coda, I’m rather surprised that HOUSE OF WAX was listed as “headache inducing.” Technically speaking, it’s a very well photographed picture, and presented properly, is heralded by stereoscopic photographers as one of the best.
Having seen most of the ‘50s (and even '30s and '40s) titles, I must agree with Bob F. that the reputation of the 1950s 3-D films is grossly maligned by the press of today. As mentioned, a cross-section of the '50s titles is actually a far better representation of ANY films made in 1953, as opposed to today’s fare, which is mainly oriented towards kids (animated children’s films) or teenagers (your MY BLOODY VALENTINES, and so on). Whether you like films from 1953 or not, you cannot deny that films such as KISS ME KATE, DIAL ’M’ FOR MURDER, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, MONEY FROM HOME, CEASE FIRE and I, THE JURY were all prestigious pictures in their day.
Mr. Furmanek is also correct in that the image of modern 3-D is technically lower than the standards of the ‘50s 3-D, which utilized the full film resolution on two prints, rather than the digital files on the single-projector systems that have less-than-HD resolution, and surprisingly low light output.
The biggest obstacle that modern 3-D films have to overcome is for the producers to learn the rules of stereoscopic photography. FLY ME TO THE MOON 3D was a perfect example of “breaking the rules,” leading to headache and eye strain.
The lack of product, however, is what will doom the modern 3-D to failure. There is simply not enough product coming from studios to make a successful business model. A film a month isn’t going to cut it.
When they showed their adaptation of the Gene Kelly song scene from SINGIN' IN THE RAIN I was impressed. When I saw scenes from the new films, I was underwhelmed. That should tell you what the problem is.
Digital is fine and I have no problem with it. It does eliminate the human factor/skill of presenting a quality 3-D presentation on 35mm film.
But don’t try to sell it as better than what was done 55 years ago. It’s not. The resolution is far less; the image is considerably dimmer, and the cinematography leaves much to be desired.
Bob I think you have lost your mind.Digital 3d is amazing!Anyone that bashes todays 3d is stuck in the past and probably hates all digital…Sorry it is what it is………..
Don’t believe all the hype and spin from Katzenberg, Cameron and the folks at Real D.
When projected properly, 3-D movies of the 1950’s have greater depth, higher resolution and are generally much better quality than any stereoscopic productions of the past 40 years.
Of the 50 English language Polaroid 3-D features produced in the 1950’s, only 20% could be considered gimmicky with an excessive amount of objects thrown at the camera. That trend didn’t become prevalent until the 1970’s and 1980’s with films such as “Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein,†Comin' at Ya†and “Treasure of the Four Crowns.â€
During the Golden Age of 3-D, talented directors and cinematographers such as John Alton, Raoul Walsh, Douglas Sirk, Roy Baker, George Sidney, William Cameron Menzies, Jack Arnold, Budd Boetticher, Charles Roscher, Hal Wallis, and Alfred Hitchcock utilized the stereo cinematography to create a dimensional window to the action on screen. This is not a new concept in motion pictures.
All this current ballyhoo that digital 3-D is “better than ever†is a lot of nonsense being spouted by people that have never seen a 3-D movie from the 1950’s properly presented. They should have gone to the two World 3-D Expo’s in Hollywood!
But seriously, I can see 3-D sticking around this time. They just need to keep up with the product flow and make more good 3-D films and reissue a few others in 3-D (the first two Toy Story films, Beauty and The Beast and the Star Wars films are also coming in 3-D).
However, we could use a little less of films like My Bloody Valentine in 3-D in which the 3-D was given more attention that the plot, acting, script or directing. I mean, even a five year old could have come up with a better ending!
I actually remember those 3-D porns, The Stewarsesses I believe was one. As far as the whole 3-D thing, those who want to pay will pay, those who dont care will go to a traditional 2-D theatre. Myself, I agree with CinemarkFan, and he knows this, give me 70MM anytime, anyday, and it will stack up against the best. Check out those 2 screens he posted above. Now THAT’S how to watch a movie.
Digital 3d is far better than any other 3d.Bolt was a good kids movie that did not need 3d but was far better with it.3d this time is here to stay …..like it or not……
AlAlvarez wrote:
“In 1953 and 1954, 3-D was used for some very good films- including House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, Inferno, Dial M for Murder, The Glass Web, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Hondo, Miss Sadie Thompson, etc.” Which one of those films are you accusing of being good?"
Actually most of those flicks were pretty good and can still stand up pretty well today in flat 2-D! You could say the same of several others. However there was also “Robot Monster”, “Cat Women of the Moon”, “Bwana Devil” (which got the 50’s 3-D boom started), “The Maze”, “Fort Ti”, “Drums of Tahiti” and way too many others that would have been turkeys in any format. They helped kill the 3-D boom just as much as imperfect (out of synch, out of frame, etc.) projection and the requirement that the audience wear those 3-D glasses. I still loved it back then, still do in fact!
I’m a fan of 3-D, have been since the 1950’s when contrary to popular opinion when presented in the right way (dual projector polaroid with perfect projection) it was pretty damn good…and downright amazing for 1950’s technology. I’ve attended both of the more recent 3-D Festivals in Hollywood (where it was also presented in the right way) and thoroughly enjoyed re-visiting those 50’s 3-D classics and not so classics (who can forget “Robot Monster” and “Cat Women of the Moon”?) I’ve even seen a few of the recent animated 3-D digital productions as well as the live action “Journey to the Center of the Earth” and enjoyed them too. However for me 3-D remains a novelty to be experienced just once in a while. No way I would want to see every new flick, even the majority of new flicks in that process. If the industry goes bonkers with their 3-D mania I predict it will die just as quick death as the 1950’s version and the 1980’s version. People still don’t like to wear those damn glasses! If they are selective in what films are shot in 3-D and don’t go overboard well it may be around for a while. Only time will tell.
The last I heard it cost Universal over 10 million dollars to do ten minutes of JAWS before they abandoned the project.
“Gimick or not, Digital 3D is the future.”
How many times have we heard that one before! Here’s COMIN' AT YA,
WINGS OF COURAGE, CHICKEN LITTLE.
“In 1953 and 1954, 3-D was used for some very good films- including House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, Inferno, Dial M for Murder, The Glass Web, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Hondo, Miss Sadie Thompson, etc.”
Which one of those films are you accusing of being good?
What are the chances of some of the great, golden oldie-but-goody film classics, such as West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago and others being played in digital 3D? Just curious.
Like everything else it takes money …….. See attached from the London Financial Times
Theaters Halting Switch To Digital, Says IMAX Chief
3 February 2009 1:41 AM, PST
The conversion of movie theaters from film to digital projection “has virtually come to a halt,” IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond has told the London Financial Times. While studios and exhibitors have reached an agreement under which the theater owners would receive a “virtual print fee” for every film they run from digital media to cover the costs of the equipment, the economic slowdown has made it difficult for the exhibitors to borrow money. Gelfond, however, said IMAX plans to open 100 digital 3-D screens worldwide in 2009. The FT said that by next month, there will only be a total of 1,500 digital 3-D screens in the U.S., far fewer than the 5,000 that DreamWorks Animation had counted on for the release of Monsters vs. Aliens. Gelfond said that the movie will appear on 200 IMAX screens.
That’s my main problem with Digital 3D too. Since they talk about it being the future, they should try and come up with a process of projecting it on screens like these View link View link
Project ‘em on those screens, then you have a fantastic expereince. If not, then the novelity will wear off.
Gimick or not, Digital 3D is the future. My only complaint is that the auditoriums they have are about 40' tops, not including your IMAX-lite installs at the AMCs. If you don’t have the bigger screen, you’re not really immersed into the movie. While many of the Digital 3D releases may have lacked somewhat, I think James Cameron’s Avatar will change people’s minds about the format. :) Who knows, it may be another Titanic-hit.
In 1953 and 1954, 3-D was used for some very good films – including House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, Inferno, Dial M for Murder, The Glass Web, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Hondo, Miss Sadie Thompson, etc.
For some accurate information on the Golden Age of 3-D, check out:
No matter how good the 3D process, it is still a gimmick when it is attached only to bad films that stand no chance otherwise.
JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, BOLT, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, CORALINE, THE JONAS BROTHERS, ICE AGE 3, FINAL DESTINATION IV, CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS.
I agree. Pretty soon my local 16 plex will have one screen devoted to the 3-D thing and the cost of installing one is more expensive than a dlp and a 35mm installation, although it’s a bit cheaper than the Dietmax conversion.
I realize it is a subjective thing but, having seen all of the 50’s films mentioned above in 2D, (except perhaps the Martin-Lewis title), I can thinks they are among the 50’s worst films with KISS ME KATE and CEASE FIRE! rating in the unbearable category.
HOUSE OF WAX and BLACK LAGOON are in the “so bad they are funny” category, and MISS SADIE THOMPSON being one of the worst remakes of all time. The best of the lot, DIAL M FOR MURDER, was mediocre for Hitchcock.
The press of today have not maligned 50’s 3D films. The press at the time, including Variety, stated that bad films killed the gimmick. By the end of the cycle the films were not even advertising when they were in 3D for fear of the stigma and in many cases opened nationwide in 2D after failing in 3D in some major markets. The distributors for KISS ME KATE didn’t even open it 3D in New York City.
Here is the current slate for 2009 in 3-D:
Coraline (tomorrow)
Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience (Feb. 27)
Monsters vs. Aliens (Mar. 27)
Battle For Terra (May 1)
Up (May 29)
Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs (Jul. 1)
G-Force (Jul. 24)
Final Destination: Death Trap (Aug. 28)
Toy Story (reissue, Oct. 2)
A Christmas Carol (Nov. 6)
Avatar (Dec. 18)
The Princess and The Frog (Dec. 25)
As a coda, I’m rather surprised that HOUSE OF WAX was listed as “headache inducing.” Technically speaking, it’s a very well photographed picture, and presented properly, is heralded by stereoscopic photographers as one of the best.
Having seen most of the ‘50s (and even '30s and '40s) titles, I must agree with Bob F. that the reputation of the 1950s 3-D films is grossly maligned by the press of today. As mentioned, a cross-section of the '50s titles is actually a far better representation of ANY films made in 1953, as opposed to today’s fare, which is mainly oriented towards kids (animated children’s films) or teenagers (your MY BLOODY VALENTINES, and so on). Whether you like films from 1953 or not, you cannot deny that films such as KISS ME KATE, DIAL ’M’ FOR MURDER, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, MONEY FROM HOME, CEASE FIRE and I, THE JURY were all prestigious pictures in their day.
Mr. Furmanek is also correct in that the image of modern 3-D is technically lower than the standards of the ‘50s 3-D, which utilized the full film resolution on two prints, rather than the digital files on the single-projector systems that have less-than-HD resolution, and surprisingly low light output.
The biggest obstacle that modern 3-D films have to overcome is for the producers to learn the rules of stereoscopic photography. FLY ME TO THE MOON 3D was a perfect example of “breaking the rules,” leading to headache and eye strain.
The lack of product, however, is what will doom the modern 3-D to failure. There is simply not enough product coming from studios to make a successful business model. A film a month isn’t going to cut it.
When they showed their adaptation of the Gene Kelly song scene from SINGIN' IN THE RAIN I was impressed. When I saw scenes from the new films, I was underwhelmed. That should tell you what the problem is.
Digital is fine and I have no problem with it. It does eliminate the human factor/skill of presenting a quality 3-D presentation on 35mm film.
But don’t try to sell it as better than what was done 55 years ago. It’s not. The resolution is far less; the image is considerably dimmer, and the cinematography leaves much to be desired.
Bob I think you have lost your mind.Digital 3d is amazing!Anyone that bashes todays 3d is stuck in the past and probably hates all digital…Sorry it is what it is………..
Don’t believe all the hype and spin from Katzenberg, Cameron and the folks at Real D.
When projected properly, 3-D movies of the 1950’s have greater depth, higher resolution and are generally much better quality than any stereoscopic productions of the past 40 years.
Of the 50 English language Polaroid 3-D features produced in the 1950’s, only 20% could be considered gimmicky with an excessive amount of objects thrown at the camera. That trend didn’t become prevalent until the 1970’s and 1980’s with films such as “Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein,†Comin' at Ya†and “Treasure of the Four Crowns.â€
During the Golden Age of 3-D, talented directors and cinematographers such as John Alton, Raoul Walsh, Douglas Sirk, Roy Baker, George Sidney, William Cameron Menzies, Jack Arnold, Budd Boetticher, Charles Roscher, Hal Wallis, and Alfred Hitchcock utilized the stereo cinematography to create a dimensional window to the action on screen. This is not a new concept in motion pictures.
All this current ballyhoo that digital 3-D is “better than ever†is a lot of nonsense being spouted by people that have never seen a 3-D movie from the 1950’s properly presented. They should have gone to the two World 3-D Expo’s in Hollywood!
4-D porn?
But seriously, I can see 3-D sticking around this time. They just need to keep up with the product flow and make more good 3-D films and reissue a few others in 3-D (the first two Toy Story films, Beauty and The Beast and the Star Wars films are also coming in 3-D).
However, we could use a little less of films like My Bloody Valentine in 3-D in which the 3-D was given more attention that the plot, acting, script or directing. I mean, even a five year old could have come up with a better ending!
3D porn wow, now just add those squirting chairs from the disney attractions and you got yourself a great night at the movies
I actually remember those 3-D porns, The Stewarsesses I believe was one. As far as the whole 3-D thing, those who want to pay will pay, those who dont care will go to a traditional 2-D theatre. Myself, I agree with CinemarkFan, and he knows this, give me 70MM anytime, anyday, and it will stack up against the best. Check out those 2 screens he posted above. Now THAT’S how to watch a movie.
Lol….Times are a changing mostly for the better…….I dont have 3d in my theater but love to go to those who do…..
If AVATAR fails look for 3D to end up where it did last time. Porn.
Digital 3d is far better than any other 3d.Bolt was a good kids movie that did not need 3d but was far better with it.3d this time is here to stay …..like it or not……
AlAlvarez wrote:
“In 1953 and 1954, 3-D was used for some very good films- including House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, Inferno, Dial M for Murder, The Glass Web, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Hondo, Miss Sadie Thompson, etc.” Which one of those films are you accusing of being good?"
Actually most of those flicks were pretty good and can still stand up pretty well today in flat 2-D! You could say the same of several others. However there was also “Robot Monster”, “Cat Women of the Moon”, “Bwana Devil” (which got the 50’s 3-D boom started), “The Maze”, “Fort Ti”, “Drums of Tahiti” and way too many others that would have been turkeys in any format. They helped kill the 3-D boom just as much as imperfect (out of synch, out of frame, etc.) projection and the requirement that the audience wear those 3-D glasses. I still loved it back then, still do in fact!
I’m a fan of 3-D, have been since the 1950’s when contrary to popular opinion when presented in the right way (dual projector polaroid with perfect projection) it was pretty damn good…and downright amazing for 1950’s technology. I’ve attended both of the more recent 3-D Festivals in Hollywood (where it was also presented in the right way) and thoroughly enjoyed re-visiting those 50’s 3-D classics and not so classics (who can forget “Robot Monster” and “Cat Women of the Moon”?) I’ve even seen a few of the recent animated 3-D digital productions as well as the live action “Journey to the Center of the Earth” and enjoyed them too. However for me 3-D remains a novelty to be experienced just once in a while. No way I would want to see every new flick, even the majority of new flicks in that process. If the industry goes bonkers with their 3-D mania I predict it will die just as quick death as the 1950’s version and the 1980’s version. People still don’t like to wear those damn glasses! If they are selective in what films are shot in 3-D and don’t go overboard well it may be around for a while. Only time will tell.
AlAlvarez, I’ve never seen any of the movies you’ve mentioned, with the exception of “Jaws”.
The last I heard it cost Universal over 10 million dollars to do ten minutes of JAWS before they abandoned the project.
“Gimick or not, Digital 3D is the future.”
How many times have we heard that one before! Here’s COMIN' AT YA,
WINGS OF COURAGE, CHICKEN LITTLE.
“In 1953 and 1954, 3-D was used for some very good films- including House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, Inferno, Dial M for Murder, The Glass Web, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Hondo, Miss Sadie Thompson, etc.”
Which one of those films are you accusing of being good?
What are the chances of some of the great, golden oldie-but-goody film classics, such as West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago and others being played in digital 3D? Just curious.
Like everything else it takes money …….. See attached from the London Financial Times
Theaters Halting Switch To Digital, Says IMAX Chief
3 February 2009 1:41 AM, PST
The conversion of movie theaters from film to digital projection “has virtually come to a halt,” IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond has told the London Financial Times. While studios and exhibitors have reached an agreement under which the theater owners would receive a “virtual print fee” for every film they run from digital media to cover the costs of the equipment, the economic slowdown has made it difficult for the exhibitors to borrow money. Gelfond, however, said IMAX plans to open 100 digital 3-D screens worldwide in 2009. The FT said that by next month, there will only be a total of 1,500 digital 3-D screens in the U.S., far fewer than the 5,000 that DreamWorks Animation had counted on for the release of Monsters vs. Aliens. Gelfond said that the movie will appear on 200 IMAX screens.
That’s my main problem with Digital 3D too. Since they talk about it being the future, they should try and come up with a process of projecting it on screens like these
View link
View link
Project ‘em on those screens, then you have a fantastic expereince. If not, then the novelity will wear off.
Gimick or not, Digital 3D is the future. My only complaint is that the auditoriums they have are about 40' tops, not including your IMAX-lite installs at the AMCs. If you don’t have the bigger screen, you’re not really immersed into the movie. While many of the Digital 3D releases may have lacked somewhat, I think James Cameron’s Avatar will change people’s minds about the format. :) Who knows, it may be another Titanic-hit.
In 1953 and 1954, 3-D was used for some very good films – including House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, Inferno, Dial M for Murder, The Glass Web, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Hondo, Miss Sadie Thompson, etc.
For some accurate information on the Golden Age of 3-D, check out:
http://www.3dfilmpf.org/info-top-10-3D-myths.html
No matter how good the 3D process, it is still a gimmick when it is attached only to bad films that stand no chance otherwise.
JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, BOLT, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, CORALINE, THE JONAS BROTHERS, ICE AGE 3, FINAL DESTINATION IV, CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS.
Audiences can already smell the desperation
I agree. Pretty soon my local 16 plex will have one screen devoted to the 3-D thing and the cost of installing one is more expensive than a dlp and a 35mm installation, although it’s a bit cheaper than the Dietmax conversion.