Movie magic?

Discussions of new films, books, television shows, and media indirectly related to magic and magicians. For example, there may be a book on mnemonics or theatrical technique we should know or at least know about.

Postby Steve Bryant » 02/06/11 03:12 PM

Here is an interesting article on why 3D movies will always suck:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby Richard Kaufman » 02/06/11 03:43 PM

I disagree. 3D movies don't always suck. While I admire Walter Murch for his work in films (who the hell doesn't?), and I admire Ebert greatly as well, there's no reason 3D films can't have a place along with 2D films in theaters. I have personally never had a headache or problem watching a 3D film, and some films definitely benefit from it. I thought that "The Green Hornet" and "Tron Legacy" were both crap and without the 3D to keep me interested, I would have left the theater. (Ditto for "Avatar," by the way, which had a script just as stupid as the aforementioned two films.)

Good 3D films add a bit of fun to the precedings, and in the hands of a good film maker even more than that. Anyone who's seen [censored]'s "Dial M for Murder" in 3D, and "Kiss Me Kate," will understand immediately what I mean.

What I dislike at the moment is the rush to turn any action/adventure film into 3D, particularly post conversions of films which were not filmed with 3D in mind. And of course the jacked-up ticket price doesn't help, either.

But I don't think that all 3D sucks. Overgeneralizations never make sense.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20375
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby mai-ling » 02/07/11 12:46 AM

The first 3D film I saw was 'The Final Destination.' and I admit that it was awesome and wouldn't want to watch it any other way.
you will remember my name
http://www.mai-ling.net
world's youngest illusionista

User avatar
mai-ling
 
Posts: 740
Joined: 05/10/08 07:25 AM
Location: 60081

Postby Tom Frame » 02/07/11 12:57 PM

Andy Warhol's 3-D Frankenstein is a glorious sexual gorefest, for advanced students only. The (suture) movie poster is part of my collection.
Tom Frame
 
Posts: 838
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: San Francisco

Postby Steve Bryant » 02/07/11 01:20 PM

I go all the way back to The Maze, 1953. It creeped me out at the time.
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby Ryan Matney » 02/07/11 02:05 PM

I've enjoyed some 3D movies but I'm already tired of having to wear the glasses everytime I see something whether I want to or not.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby mai-ling » 02/07/11 02:36 PM

There are some 3D films that don't need glasses.

I know what you mean about the glasses...
I have to wear a pair over my regular glasses.
you will remember my name
http://www.mai-ling.net
world's youngest illusionista

User avatar
mai-ling
 
Posts: 740
Joined: 05/10/08 07:25 AM
Location: 60081

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 02/07/11 02:57 PM

? that don't need glasses - how?

While there are some that get 3d effect by having the viewer use a darkened lens over the dominant eye - if you are going to have 3d you need two perspectives - one for each eye. And lenticular screens are, AFAIK, not practical for theater sized audiences.
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 02/07/11 03:55 PM

* small addendum to the above - here's a link to what might be the state of the art:
http://www.whathifi.com/News/JAPAN-rese ... ses-3D-TV/

if you recall that 3d imax is in a smaller area than the full imax theater you can see their approach as almost feasible.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY


Return to Alternative Media

cron