 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1  Previous Next
|
|
Roger Ebert does not like todays Hollywood |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,494 |
| | Posted: | | | | and for good reason.. He makes some compelling excellant points in this article from Newsweek. Makes for a good read and good debate... | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry | | | | Last edited: by widescreenforever |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ebert's become a curmudgeon.
He's correct in doing so.
3D is a tool, and like all tools, will be used poorly by the hacks, and perhaps well by the artists. Unfortunately, there are very few artists making films in the world today. I suspect that the artful directors Ebert mentions will have many experiences like Hitchcock's on Dial M for Murder, and will abandon a technology (the tool) which detracts, rarther than adds, to the works of art they are trying to create.
They are still trying to create as beautiful a color film as many which were made in black and white. Adding color often distracts from the composition, and is best done by a handful of cinematographers and directors. 3D is, like Ebert states, a huge distraction, and in the wrong hands (nearly every director and cinematographer working today), it will result in popular films which survive as well as every 3D film made in the 1950s. How many have you watched this month? Bwana Devil? Cat Women of the Moon? Creature fom the Black Lagoon? Dangerous Mission? Devil's Canyon? Dial M for Murder? The French Line? It Came from Outer Space? Kiss Me Kate? The Mask? (sorry, that was 1961) Outlaw Territory? Pardon My Backfire? Robot Monster? Spooks? I've seen every one of these in 3D, in my life. Not one was a better film for it. A few were good, most were below average.
Write an amazingly good script. Be unable to make the film half as good as it could be without the 3D tool. THEN make it in 3D.
Other than that, it's a gimmick to get you to pay $5 to $10 more per ticket, with a nickel's worth of return. | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff | | | | Last edited: by VibroCount |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,136 |
| | Posted: | | | | It is for this reason that I will only see a 3D film, if it was something I would of watched in 2D - and, this has happened only once... with Disney/Pixar's Up - The 3D effects in that were subtle, mostly, and did not detract from the story, but to be honest, were not really needed. It was nice, but by the end of the film, I kinda forgot about the 3D, and didn't really notice it any more. Add to that, the extra costs involved, and my trips to the cinema (now very few and far between) would become even less - since it is almost getting to cost for 1 person the price of the BluRay release. I certainly will not be buying a 3D HD TV at this time - nor can I yet see a compelling reason to ever do so. I really cannot see the point of watching sports in 3D  (Mind you, I am not a huge sports watcher anyway) The best use of 3D is usually in specially commissioned films at places such as Disneyland, etc. | | | Signature? We don't need no stinking... hang on, this has been done... blast [oooh now in Widescreen]
Ah... well you see.... I thought I'd say something more interesting... but cannot think of anything..... oh well
And to those of you who have disabled viewing of these signature files "hello" (or not) Registered: July 27, 2004 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,804 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting FunkyLA: Quote:
[...] I certainly will not be buying a 3D HD TV at this time - nor can I yet see a compelling reason to ever do so. I really cannot see the point of watching sports in 3D (Mind you, I am not a huge sports watcher anyway)[...] Same here! I'll skip the upcoming 3D hype and wait for holographic movies!  | | | | Thorsten |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | No offense, but why should I care if Robert Ebert likes today's films  Of course Avatar is acting and scriptwise a total failure, but it is perfect eye candy for Blu-ray enthusiasts. I enjoyed watching the film for that, of course I know that I was watching trash and not a Jim Jarmusch or Scorsese movie But this does not mean that today's hollywood isn't producing masterpieces or good films. Each decade has its great movies which reflect the times in what they have been made in. Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting FunkyLA: Quote:
The best use of 3D is usually in specially commissioned films at places such as Disneyland, etc. Meet you at the revived Captain Eo! | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,685 |
| | Posted: | | | | Donnie, Despite what the topic says, Ebert did not say that he dislikes everything that Hollywood produces today. That's just the OP's interpretation. Ebert says he hates 3D, which is another thing altogether. And while I do not personally hate 3D, I'm very skeptical. Hollywood has tried to foist 3D on us in the 50's and in the 80's. Maybe they think they are third time lucky. I'm not convinced. Sure the technology is better, but it still seems like a gimmick to me. I certainly won't be first in line to buy home 3D equipment...  | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hey there,
I also have zero love for 3D, first it gives you headaches, second it desocializes film watching as the room needs to be very, very dark and you need to wear those ridiculous glasses.
And a major point against is, that first rumours say it might be bad for the health, that new 3D technology.
But on this we will have to wait some more, until medical studies are completed.
Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | I like the new 3-D in theaters, when it's done right (My Bloody Valentine, Avatar). Saw Clash of the Titans in 3-D and was just annoyed and outraged. It wasn't supposed to 3-D and it was beyond ddistracting, even more distracting than the teens with their 3 hour text marathons during the movie (in front of me so that happy funtimeing light neevr stops), and the retarded couple behind me who couldn't shut up for more than 15 seconds at any time! |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |