Francis Ford Coppola: 3D is ‘Tiresome’

cepro.com ^ | May 11, 2010 | Jason Knott

[Las Vegas Dave]

Pinging the HDTV list.. HDTV pings.

Interested in the HDTV ping list?
Please Freepmail me (freepmail works best) if you would like your name added to the HDTV ping list, ( approximately 375 freepers are currently on the HDTV ping list ).
The pinged subjects can be HDTV technology, satellite, cable, and OTA HD reception (Over The Air with roof top or indoor antennas), Broadcast specials, Sports, Blu-ray/HDDVD, and any and all subjects relating to HDTV.
Note: if you search Freerepublic using the keyword "“HDTV”, you will find most of the past HDTV postings.

[BigCinBigD]

“I feel that until you can watch 3D without glasses, it’s the same thing we know,” he says. “I personally do not want to watch a movie with glasses. It’s tiresome.”

100% correct...

[Dallas59]

Agreed.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“He says his opinion of 3D is in sync with recent comments by Roger Ebert”

then it must be wrong, sorry. ebert is incapable of facts. 3D wins by ebert.

[Las Vegas Dave]

http://www.explore3dtv.com/blog/entry/14085/Roger-Ebert-Hates-3D/

Usually we like what Roger Ebert has to say — especially on his extremely entertaining Twitter account. However, the infamous film critic does not have very nice things to say about 3D.

In fact, he just wrote a piece for Newsweek titled, “Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too).” Wow, Roger; tell us how you really feel.

He wastes no time laying into the technology. Here is the commentary’s opener:

“3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.”

Ebert definitely has a few good points. We agree that Up in the Air probably wouldn’t have made a great 3D outing. Of course, we don’t need 3D to tell a story. In the case of Clash of the Titans, however, it probably helped the film’s box-office take.

Bottom line: Why spoil the fun for everyone? You don’t have to pay the premium. Alice in Wonderland and every other 3D movie is available in 2D for all. No one is forcing you to go — unless you are an infamous movie critic, anyway.

[Pravious]

Agreed.

They need a dumb gimmick because they’ve forgotten how to write scripts.

[Clock King]

You are so right. I can’t believe Hollyweird is remaking C and D class movies over again. Piranha 3D? Come on! Give us something original.

[raybbr]

Bottom line: Why spoil the fun for everyone? You don’t have to pay the premium. Alice in Wonderland and every other 3D movie is available in 2D for all. No one is forcing you to go — unless you are an infamous movie critic, anyway.

That's not true. When "How to Train Your Dragon" came out it was only shown in 3D. I really hated forking over $45 for the four of us to go see it.

[RayChuang88]

The big problem with 3-D movies comes to this: you need a BIG screen to take full advantage of what it's capable of. It just doesn't work well on even a 55" flat panel TV with suitable glasses.

What we really need now--especially with the technology getting a lot cheaper--is digital projection everywhere. A single two-hour movie at 2000-line resolution (the resolution used by most digital projectors in theaters) easily fits on a single 1 TB hard drive, and as such the shipping weight of a movie in digital format is three pounds versus six 35-pound reels of 35 mm film. And a movie in digital format will never suffer from the physical degradation of film and can accommodate DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD lossless audio formats for the highest-quality surround sound.

[Dr. Sivana]

Coppolla has a giant plasma screen ... in California? I thought they were made illegal. The environmental police will be knocking on his door.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Not only that, but the man with enough money to BUY California bought a plasma to save energy?? Right. Want to buy a bridge?

[Caipirabob]

True about the glasses. It’s a novelty at best until it’s presentable without them.

[Sans-Culotte]

I already wear glasses all the time and am not too keen on adding a pair on top of them.

I bought wasted money on the Blu-ray of Avatar and watched it last week. It was not in 3D, but I thought it was banal and tedious in spite of its much vaunted visuals. 3D just adds a "wow" factor to undistinguished movies.

[gymbeau]

I saw Avatar in 3D IMAX and the 3D was nothing but a distraction, and hard on the eyes. I watched the 2D Blu-ray on my 106 inch screen with a 1080p Epson projector and Oppo Blu-ray player and it was far more enjoyable. Well, as long as I had my brain turned off.
The point is, I didn’t miss the 3D at all.

cheers
Jim

[PapaBear3625]

The big problem with 3-D movies comes to this: you need a BIG screen to take full advantage of what it's capable of. It just doesn't work well on even a 55" flat panel TV with suitable glasses.

And that's why it's pushed. More and more people are foregoing the movie theater "experience" and just renting the DVD for home viewing on their nice big HDTV screen.

So the movie makers need a movie format that NEEDS the wide screen.

[TexasNative2000]

3D is psychologically confusing.

We are trying to trick our mind into thinking we are watching something in a live third dimension when it knows we are not. It creates a sensory imbalance that significantly reduces our ability to process what is being presented.

What a friend of mine recently said about the iPad applies to 3D in movies; it is a great solution to a problem that doesn't exist. (I disagree with the assessment as it pertains to the iPad, but it's still a great line).

[Paleo Conservative]

The 71-year-old director has similar thoughts about 3D home theater, saying TV manufacturers are pushing 3D because they want consumers to buy new flat panels at higher prices, even though it “only costs them $75 more to make 3D TV.

That may be the difference in manufacturing cost, but it doesn't pay back the cost of R&D to develop the system.

[Paleo Conservative]

It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.”

But what about X rated films?

[Ken H]

"When we shot a scene with 40 helicopters flying in the air, there were really 40 helicopters flying in the air," adding how much less expensive it would be to re-create that digitally today.

I disagree. I think computer generated special effects mostly suck. Forbidden Planet (1956) had better special effects than any modern sci-fi film that I'm familiar with. (and a better story line)