And the actor cast to play Beorn might have blown his chances to get a NZ visa by being apprehended by the police with some white stuff around his nose. According to Swedish media he had asked the policemen to let him go as an arrest might be bad for his career. :dubious:
Well, I’ll clarify for everyone else, then.
The Wizard of Oz could be said to use color as a gimmick in the sense of a quirky special feature that was designed to attract attention, but not in the sense of something being added to a film that is completely unnecessary. And definitely not in the more modern sense of something added to a film for its own sake.
Both films used color to highlight the wonder and beauty of certain parts of the movie.* Using 3D for this purpose would not bother me, and I believe it has been done. When I talk about using 3D as a gimmick, I’m talking about sticking your hand out/throwing things at the audience, or otherwise adding things that are totally unnecessary, and doing so in lieu of a good film.
The closest analog in color would actually be in the Wizard of Oz–the horse of many colors. But it did have a purpose–the aforementioned wonderment. It’s a lot better than following the book and making everything green since they were wearing green goggles. (Seriously, they couldn’t tell that all the friends faces turned green?)
*It could be said that Oz actually used sepia/black-and-white parts for that purpose, as Kansas is described in the book as being rather gray, ordinary, and uneventful, similar to the way Pleasantville was originally portrayed in the movie of the same name.
Seems a bit subjective whether something adds to “wonderment” or is a “gimmick”.
Can we please declare a moratorium on this particularly lame comparison? It is NOT a case where people cannot “get the full impact”, it is a case where people are being asked to spend more to have a much worse experience. The colorblind have exactly the same experience in a color film as they do in the world outside of a movie theater. The deaf have exactly the same experience in a sound film as they do in the world outside of a movie theater. And, and this is the most important point, the deaf and colorblind are not being forced to pay more to have a worse experience.
I’ve pointed this out several times, and this inane canard keeps getting trotted out. Can one of the 3D boosters please admit that 3D is not comparable to color or sound?
You think 3D doesn’t? Being one-eyed I don’t think I could get the full experience out of a 3D film.
No, like a significant percentage of the population, I can see out of both eyes, but cannot see a “stereo” image. Which means, if all films go 3D, I’ll have to wear an eye patch, under my regular glasses and the cheesy plastic glasses. And be forced to pay $3 to $5 more for the experience.
you are right that thing is annoying and i hope to get rid of these in near future. that will enhance the viewing experience remarkably
I have a hard time taking complaints about 3D seriously until 2D versions of the same film at lower prices are no longer shown. Every theater around here has shown 2D versions alongside the 3D versions, which is how I saw Up and Enchanted.
None of the theaters I can get to showed The Green Hornet in 2D. According to reviews, I didn’t miss much, but I am a big fan of the director and really wanted to see it. But not enough to wear an eye patch and two pairs of glasses and pay an extra $3 for the privilege.
BEST IDEA EVAAAAAAAAH!!
I’m beyond excited for The Hobbit. I don’t think I will see it in 3D though. Every time I go to see a movie with some special…effect placed on it (3D, Omnimax, etc) I just end up feeling nauseous.
Ironically LOTR was just laden with effects. It’s just that most of it was done so “well” that it was difficult to tell if it was “good” special effects or just bad real world stuff – I’m talking statuary and stone and rock, in particular. That didn’t prevent them from being the best 2-D movies ever made. And of course some of the effects rocked. (Or maybe those were the times when they were using real stone instead of CG)
So, while I am a big fan of 3-D, The Hobbit, even if done poorly in 3-D, can succeed despite it if the rest of it holds up as well as the LOTR movies.
I don’t think it’s as subjective as you indicate. The point of both of those films is that the color is actually conveying something about the worlds we are seeing. The films would not work if they were in black and white. The horse of many colors, while silly, does fit with the overall motif of seeing a bunch of fantastical things no one had ever seen before. Had it been thrown into a film without that motif, it would have been a gimmick.
But even if you conclude that the horse was a gimmick, that’s one. 3D started as a gimmick. The current generation is the first time any films have not used it as such. My point is that any analogy that says the color is the same as 3D fails way too quickly to be useful.
Heck, were there people who whined about color in movies? I never heard of them having to have black and white versions for people who didn’t want to deal with color. I do know there was whining about not adding color to black and white movies, and that actually meant that many movies weren’t colorized.
My contention is that 3D is not the new color. It’s a different beast, and we can’t use color to determine how this is going to shake out. Color didn’t have nearly the number of problems that 3D did.
BTW, I’m not the type who really cares too much about whether it becomes truly ubiquitous as long as the stereoblind or people who get sick on it are still accommodated. Heck, the more normal it becomes, the less likely it will be used as a gimmick.
What? Since when are 2D tickets more expensive than 3D tickets for the same movie? If you can’t see 3D (or just don’t want to), you pay less, not more.
No no I meant like they put the movie in 3D or I saw it in an Omnimax theatre. I used the word ‘effects’ because I couldn’t think of a better word ooo ‘format’ would’ve been a better word. I like the traditional 2D simply because my lame body doesn’t deal well with the other formats. I totally and completely understand that lots and lots of effects were used for LOTR. I watched all the special features on the extended edition DVDs. OOO I just thought of how awesome it would be to own it in Blu-Ray. Why have I never thought of this before?!
What the hell are you talking about?
I go to the theater. All the movies cost (this is Chicago) $12.50. The one film in 3D has an extra $3 3D surcharge. $12.50 + $3 equals $15.50.
If you cannot grasp this, you may have great potential for a career in politics.
I suspect Tanbarkie has not yet run into the situation where a theatre chooses to offer a film only in 3D.
Hmm, OK. Well, I’ve seen theaters where the same film is available in both 2D and 3D, and the 3D costs more. And when 3D is the only option, you still have to pay the 3D surcharge.
I think Tanbarkie may have simply misunderstood what gaffa was saying and interpreted “a worse experience” to mean the 2D version.
Ah. Hopefully this is more clear:
I, as a person who cannot see a forced stereo perspective, would have a vastly less pleasant experience sitting in a 3D film, wearing an eye patch to cover one eye, covered by my regular glasses, with a shitty pair of plastic sun glasses over those.
And I’d be forced to pay an additional $3 for the privilege.
What irks me isn’t the 3D, it’s this splitting the story into two movies which seems to be a growing trend (Harry Potter, Twilight saga). I understand it’s…well, no, actually I don’t really understand it. I’m pretty sure The Hobbit could be a perfectly workable 2-hour movie. Not every detail of a story needs to be in a movie. Having the story come out in two parts strikes me more as “let’s make more money from Tolkien fanboys” than “let’s bring something more into this experience”.