tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6648851613509486338.post5731912988498434221..comments2023-07-27T13:50:05.697+01:00Comments on Dr Keith M Johnston: Disagreeing with Roger Ebert about 3-DKeith M. Johnstonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09486936538577641893noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6648851613509486338.post-43265142417557339802010-07-21T22:53:14.349+01:002010-07-21T22:53:14.349+01:00This is why I'm against films in color. B&...This is why I'm against films in color. B&W films have something to say, and don't need technical color trickery to say it. <br /><br />Back to the scotch...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03547741654900334176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6648851613509486338.post-23726028405941152672010-07-20T23:01:11.759+01:002010-07-20T23:01:11.759+01:00I will admit that my examples are all films that h...I will admit that my examples are all films that have been 'composed' for 3-D, rather than converted afterwards - but I don't think the 'exploding helicopter' metaphor works here, because 3-D films feature depth photography throughout, not just at specific moments in the film (although the CG cucumber I mention in Streetdance is an example of that tendency).<br /><br />I don't think 3-D works for every movie, but it doesn't have to be an 'exploding helicopter'-esque gimmick. I'm not ready to dismiss it just because there have been some bad movies. You're right that many blockbuster films are now discussing 3-D in their pre-prod stages (and some post-prod), but that could be seen as a sign that someone will find better ways to compose FOR the 3-D process.Keith M. Johnstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09486936538577641893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6648851613509486338.post-13973413702930448032010-07-20T21:13:56.143+01:002010-07-20T21:13:56.143+01:00I think there are a few, probably very few, occasi...I think there are a few, probably very few, occasions where 3D adds something to a film. It's a bit like an exploding helicopter. For those films where an exploding helicopter seems appropriate, go ahead and add one. But what worries me is that most of the studios seem to be planning for 3D, certainly in the bulk of its summer blockbuster output. On those occasions where a big movie is not presented in 3D, interviews with the production crew seem to indicate that 3D was at least considered. (http://www.collider.com/2010/06/12/christopher-nolan-inception-3d-batman-3-hero-complex-film-festival/) (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/09/01/marvel-tinkering-with-iron-man-2-3d-conversion/). It's as though 3D is now the default, and one has to justify NOT using it.<br /><br />Not every film is improved by the addition of an exploding helicopter. I don't want to see Toy Story 3 in 3D. I never saw Up in 3D, and can't imagine that it was improved at all by the process.Steve Pagethttp://www.pagetworld.co.uknoreply@blogger.com