More on the coming wave of 3D movies
Apr. 16th, 2008 12:24 amIt gets into the technical process a bit. Sounds interesting, it's not the red/blue or prismatic glasses process, I'm intrigued to see what the end product looks like.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2008/04/3d_movies
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2008/04/3d_movies
no subject
Date: 2008-04-16 06:47 am (UTC)In a discussion about hos it's difficult to sell this thing because it's a gimmick, they give you this...
"To the people who continue to say it's a gimmick I would simply say, 'You're going to be the one left saying the Earth is flat,'" says Jim Dorey, a 3-D obsessive and writer of the Marketsaw blog, which is sponsored by several 3-D companies, including RealD.
Okay, the guy is paid by 3D companies, and 3D IS a gimmick. It's a trick to make people more interested in going to see this version instead of that version. That is very nearly the definition of a gimmick. I'd be interested if they had a way for me to watch without having to wear a second pair of glasses over my own glasses., but I'm not thrilled with the idea of wearing 2 pairs of glasses for 100 minutes, I get a head ache with them for 10.
Also, a lot of the movies aren't really 3D, they were shot 2D and this company is switch them ala Colorization and don't we all remember how well that went?
I just can't see it working for me.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-16 06:52 am (UTC)And there's one basic underlying truth that going to 3D doesn't address -- Hollywood can't make good movies in 2D right now, how will 3D improve this? ;-)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-16 07:00 am (UTC)Also, yeah, crap movies are still crap even when they're in 3D
no subject
Date: 2008-04-16 12:06 pm (UTC)