Francis Ford Coppola: 3D is ‘Tiresome’

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

[Las Vegas Dave]

Don’t count Francis Ford Coppola as a fan of 3D ... at least not yet.

The Academy Award-winning director of “The Godfather,” “The Godfather II,” and “Apocalypse Now” says 3D does not enhance movies and cites the need to wear glasses as a major drawback.

While admitting digital technology is well suited for 3D filmmaking and that the new technology has improved, Coppola believes 3D today is “no different from the 1950s” because of the need for glasses.

“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.”

Coppola says he even removed his 3D glasses to watch portions of “Avatar,” even though it meant he was watching out of focus. He says his opinion of 3D is in sync with recent comments by Roger Ebert.

“I don’t see why a movie is better in 3D,” he says, while at the same time making sure not to demean any efforts by James Cameron by calling “Avatar” a “fantastic” film. “I would rather make a movie in regular 2D and move to larger format for some big scenes much like Abel Gance did with ‘Napoleon.’”

Gance’s 1927 silent masterpiece introduced a “Polyvision” technique using three side-by-side projectors in certain dramatic scenes that created a triptych.

Coppola made the remarks to a handful of guests at his private winery in a 1,650-acre Rubicon Estate in Rutherford, Calif. The group had gathered as part of Coppola’s engagement with SIM2, a manufacturer of digital projection systems for home theaters.

His opinion on the technology is well founded, since he directed the 1986 3D film "Captain Eo" starring Michael Jackson.

Why the 3D Hype Now?

Coppola believes one reason 3D is being hyped is because it is so much easier to make a 3D movie today in digital vs. the 1950s when the technology was first introduced on photochemical processed film. However, he mentioned that Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid actually made 3D on traditional film years ago using two emulsions on a single strip of film.

The film, called a vectograph, required the use of passive glasses. Coppola says Polaroid only made one film, an experimental Disney cartoon, using the process. “I saw it and sure enough it was 3D,” he says.

Coppola adds that the marketing being done by the Hollywood studios about 3D movies is just a way “to make you pay more money for a ticket.”

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.

Loves Digital Cinema, SIM2

Coppola’s disdain for 3D does not carry over to digital moviemaking. Indeed, he is a big fan.

He refers to digital cinema as being "the genie unleashed from the bottle." He referenced how helpful digital moviemaking would have been for him when he was making "Apocalypse Now."

"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.

“When I hear that my movies are being shown on digital projectors, I am relieved,” he says, calling digital cinema “breathtaking.” “The electronic image is equal or superior to photochemical film,” he adds. Moreover, he says that digital moviemaking exponentially reduces the cost of editing.

That enthusiasm for digital technology is one reason Coppola is collaborating with SIM2. Coppola says he researched all the digital projectors on the market and sought out a relationship with SIM2.

Coppola has used SIM2 projectors in his post-production facility for the past two years. Together with his engineering team, Coppola assisted SIM2 in developing solutions that bring together the specific technologies needed by Hollywood producers - SIM2 projectors now reproduce all the essential frame rates used in production and post-production processes.

“This [SIM2] is the one I wanted. I say this about SIM2 because I believe it. I have sincere admiration for the company and the projector. The bright, crisp image is ideal for working on digital films and for really beautiful projection,” he says. “SIM2 paid me nothing. There were no agents [used to establish the relationship]. I sought them out. I flew to Pordenone, Italy (SIM2’s headquarters location).”

Coppola pinpoints the Texas Instruments DLP chip as the “basis for the digital revolution in filmmaking. It emulates the powerful beam of light that goes through a piece of photochemical film.”

SIM2 has announced a marketing campaign that includes advertisements, point of sale materials and brochures using Coppola.

“SIM2 is committed to achieving a sustainable society, continuously striving to reduce the effects on the environment by developing environmentally-compatible products and processes,” says Maurizio Cini, president of SIM2 Multimedia. “It was very important to us that, in such a monumental campaign, we stayed true to these values.”

OLED is the Future

Coppola believes OLED technology is the wave of the future for flat panel displays. Meanwhile, he favors plasma over LCD. In his Napa home, he has a large Panasonic plasma.

"For the last few years, I always thought that plasma TVs were more beautiful than LCD displays," he says. "I recently bought an LCD because plasma has difficulties and eats a lot of power, but I don’t feel that the new LCDs look as good as a plasma does."

"The technology that everyone is interested in is OLED. Right now you can see small versions and the picture looks amazing. I heard that the 20-inch ones will soon be out and people are talking about 30+ inch units. I don’t know. But it looks like OLED is going to be the way its going to be, for iPhones and other devices. I know the screen on the iPad is amazing and that is not even OLED," he adds.

[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)