Just an other Opinion ;)
Edit: Far from the truth might I add..
He makes some valid (and well-known) points from a technical POV. But from a box office perspective, let's face it audiences are eating up 3D. And at the end of the day that's the thing that matters to career filmmakers.
Isn't the problem lessened through the use of (mostly) positive convergence (ie. behind the screen)?
I know that the green hornet was shot 2d and converted to 3d, saw it last night (not in 3d though, will only see a movie in 3d if it's shot in 3d) and noticed that at the end. So when he talks about a review of the green hornet in 3d that might be throwing some of the issues there. I would have to say though, after seeing 3D work in the field, especially with the guys from OH, I could see a difference in the quality of 3D when it is shot 3D as opposed to making it an after thought. if any of that made sense haha
Could you please tell me where in his letter Mr. Murch is saying something false?Edit: Far from the truth might I add..
I believe what matters to filmmakers is to tell their stories the best way they can and possibly make a living out of it, not just to make huge amounts of money (besides, I don't think it's the filmmakers who benefit economically from 3D, it's the studios).And at the end of the day that's the thing that matters to career filmmakers.
disagreed on his entire opinion on 3D, no matter how great of an Editor He is BIAS, what it is in concern?
The need to re-learn the art?
Just saying, don't pay too much attention to me, I'm just expressing my Opinion as well and I'm really a NO body ;)
But the Love for the Arts in my point is that I love everything about it, and I love every single tool at my Disposal to
express it, 3D is yet and other, POWERFUL tool i the Bag, some see it some don't some love it some hate it, but it is
in there and it will not be thrown away any time soon no matter how much some oppose to it, they need to get over it!!
3D today, is in the same place as Sound, Color, HD, and many other Technological advancements that we
will see in the near or far feature, HOLOGRAM CINEMA??
Thing is that all that is new takes time to adjust to, some more the others, but adjust we will, especially when the
Economics derived form far out pass those of other technologies available, and 3D now does surpass more then 3 to 1
any and all its 2D Monoscopic sales per each individual Title, despite of the large difference in lower numbers of Cinema
were 3D can be currently showed in, vs. 2D Monoscopic.
You see, I asked that question because I like to hear everyone's opinion, Murch, Rossi, everyone, even more so from people who have a different point of view from mine :-)Just saying, don't pay too much attention to me, I'm just expressing my Opinion as well and I'm really a NO body ;)
As for 3D being another tool, I do agree with you, although I don't like it at all and won't see another movie in 3D no matter what, but that's me, a matter of personal preference, I guess. As I've written many times before here and elsewhere, I'm sure it's perfect for some things, and wrong for others, and in the end it's always great to have different tools to choose from.
And I agree with him, sorry Ketch. I experience exactly what he says and even if I didn't, the eluding "Brechtian" element of 3D movies is exactly the opposite of what made the art-form "film" successful. Otherwise, we'd still rather go and see a play (that is real 3D by the way). :)
Sure, some movies take you on a ride; a setting like the new TRON movie is perfekt for 3D. I wouldn't want to have 3D in a drama or lovestory though. Not even a thriller or a comedy film.
Still, this is also coming from a nobody, much more "no" then Ketch is for sure, the humble man!
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|