The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

All non-Nolan related entertainment discussion. Join the fun!
Posts: 3473
Joined: May 2010
Location: Canada
MW715 wrote:I hate 3D :facepalm:
Join the club....

Posts: 6272
Joined: December 2010
Location: Space Truckin'
Steven Spielberg & Peter Jackson Rant About 3D Ticket Prices
Peter Jackson: “With the right movie, 3D can enhance the experience. Absolutely it can make a good film a great film and a great film a really amazing film to see and that’s what I hang on to. But certainly the projection brightness issue needs to be addressed.”

Peter Jackson: “The audiences have now come to realize that there are bad movies that can be in 3D as well and on top of that you being charged an extra $5 to see a movie that was as bad as one you saw in 2D. [The increased ticket prices] are starting to backfire a little bit.”

Spielberg: “Not every movie in my opinion should be shot in 3D. Little love stories I wouldn’t shoot in 3D. But there are movies that are a perfect for 3D. I think the last great 3D movie I saw that enhanced the experience for me was the last Transformers.”

Steven Spielberg: “I am certainly hoping that 3D gets to a point where people do not notice it. Because once they stop noticing it, it just becomes another tool and helps tell a story. Then maybe they can make ticket prices comparable to a 2D movie and not charge such exorbitant prices just to gain entry into a 3D one, with the exception of IMAX – we are getting a premium experience in a premium environment. But to show a 3D movie in a similar theater in a multiplex next to another similar theater showing a 2D movie, hopefully someday there will be so many 3D movies, prices will come down – which I think will be fair to the consumer.”
http://screenrant.com/steven-spielberg- ... ee-125010/

Posts: 18542
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
oracle86 wrote:Steven Spielberg & Peter Jackson Rant About 3D Ticket Prices
Peter Jackson: “With the right movie, 3D can enhance the experience. Absolutely it can make a good film a great film and a great film a really amazing film to see and that’s what I hang on to. But certainly the projection brightness issue needs to be addressed.”

Peter Jackson: “The audiences have now come to realize that there are bad movies that can be in 3D as well and on top of that you being charged an extra $5 to see a movie that was as bad as one you saw in 2D. [The increased ticket prices] are starting to backfire a little bit.”

Spielberg: “Not every movie in my opinion should be shot in 3D. Little love stories I wouldn’t shoot in 3D. But there are movies that are a perfect for 3D. I think the last great 3D movie I saw that enhanced the experience for me was the last Transformers.”

Steven Spielberg: “I am certainly hoping that 3D gets to a point where people do not notice it. Because once they stop noticing it, it just becomes another tool and helps tell a story. Then maybe they can make ticket prices comparable to a 2D movie and not charge such exorbitant prices just to gain entry into a 3D one, with the exception of IMAX – we are getting a premium experience in a premium environment. But to show a 3D movie in a similar theater in a multiplex next to another similar theater showing a 2D movie, hopefully someday there will be so many 3D movies, prices will come down – which I think will be fair to the consumer.”
http://screenrant.com/steven-spielberg- ... ee-125010/
Wonderfully put in all cases. Completely agree.

-Vader

Posts: 3473
Joined: May 2010
Location: Canada
Well the first step to solving the solution is addressing it. But the audience has a right to be turned off by 3D, other than avatar and transformers there hasn't been a decent 3D film. And most of the a-list filmmakers are jumping on board and saying this is the future. They haven't experience what we have, their so excluded from the real world that they forget what 10 bucks at the cinema means anymore. 3D films use to be a treat but now it over saturated, 3D is a gimmick and doesn't enhance the quality of the film, that's the story. I like that steven admitted that 3D isn't for every film, wish he could tell that to his buddy cameron, who fucking won't stop with 3D should be with every film.

Harry Potter 8 in IMAX 3D, 16.50$. I know it's IMAX but that's fucking ridiculous.

Posts: 18542
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
cooldued wrote:Well the first step to solving the solution is addressing it. But the audience has a right to be turned off by 3D, other than avatar and transformers there hasn't been a decent 3D film.
Tron: Legacy.
cooldued wrote: And most of the a-list filmmakers are jumping on board and saying this is the future. They haven't experience what we have, their so excluded from the real world that they forget what 10 bucks at the cinema means anymore. 3D films use to be a treat but now it over saturated, 3D is a gimmick and doesn't enhance the quality of the film, that's the story.


What do you mean? What A-listers? So far, the only real director's who've used it are James Cameron and Micheal Bay. Spielberg/Scott/Scorsese/Peter Jackson are all using it strictly to enhance the experience of the film. Strictly. They aren't using it as a gimmick, only films pushed by studios add it to raise ticket sales, which is quite different from creatively driven people shooting the film in a format they believe will, again, enhance the experience. You have backwords logic here. If 3D sucks, how could it ever have been a treat? They're treating it with care and respect.
cooldued wrote:I like that steven admitted that 3D isn't for every film, wish he could tell that to his buddy cameron, who fucking won't stop with 3D should be with every film.
Why such extreme animosity? I mean, that's just one filmmakers opinion, and a bunch of major ones who listened haven't even had their films come out yet. Why don't we wait and see Tintin, Prometheus, The Hobbit, Hugo, and many others before we make absolute judgements like that.

-Vader

Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
solo2001 wrote:Harry Potter 8 in IMAX 3D, 16.50$. I know it's IMAX but that's fucking ridiculous.
IMAX typically doesn't charge extra for 3D... if that's a digital IMAX then that pricing sucks, but if it's a 65mm theater, consider yourself lucky.

Crazy Eight wrote:
solo2001 wrote:Harry Potter 8 in IMAX 3D, 16.50$. I know it's IMAX but that's fucking ridiculous.
IMAX typically doesn't charge extra for 3D... if that's a digital IMAX then that pricing sucks, but if it's a 65mm theater, consider yourself lucky.
Our theater JUST went digital. :cry:

Posts: 499
Joined: December 2010
Location: Limbo
Pricing rising to accomadate an effect I really don't want :facepalm: :cry:

Posts: 50
Joined: April 2010
oracle86 wrote:Steven Spielberg & Peter Jackson Rant About 3D Ticket Prices
Peter Jackson: “With the right movie, 3D can enhance the experience. Absolutely it can make a good film a great film and a great film a really amazing film to see and that’s what I hang on to. But certainly the projection brightness issue needs to be addressed.”

Peter Jackson: “The audiences have now come to realize that there are bad movies that can be in 3D as well and on top of that you being charged an extra $5 to see a movie that was as bad as one you saw in 2D. [The increased ticket prices] are starting to backfire a little bit.”

Spielberg: “Not every movie in my opinion should be shot in 3D. Little love stories I wouldn’t shoot in 3D. But there are movies that are a perfect for 3D. I think the last great 3D movie I saw that enhanced the experience for me was the last Transformers.”
I think these quotes just about say it all for me. I have no problem with 3D in and of itself. It worked great with Avatar. My complaints lie with how it's been used thus far. Firstly, the horrendous post-conversion jobs that seem so common these days. Furthermore, too many of these films are still addicted to that annoying "pointing sharp things at the viewer" style of 3D. I also think that WB's insistence on making so many of its tentpoles 3D is off-putting. 3D can be a useful tool, but overkill can easily sour people on the whole concept. Lastly, as Spielberg said, I understand charging more for IMAX, but why charge more for 3D in a multiplex when the same film is showing for $5 less a few feet away?

Post Reply