[The News Bot]

The home media tastemakers forums, a small private group of academics, technology experts, bloggers and early adopter families in the US have just voted for the top 5 classic films they would like to see in 3-D. The groups* members are vetted and screened and they are picked by the industry to experience new technology products [...]

More...

[Pecker]

Did they also ask them which b&w films they'd like to see 'colorized'?

The participants should be taken out and flogged through the streets for even taking part in the poll.

I note that one person refused, saying:

“I really don’t want to see any movies in 3-D. If a filmmaker cannot make a watchable movie in 2-D, then 3-D isn’t going to make it better…….3-D is a visual gimmick"

Well said that man!

Steve W

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Well said that man!

There were also those who said television would never catch on who were proved wrong so i'll reserve judgement.

I have to question how this group were apparently "vetted" though as the term "classic" is stretched to breaking point.

My 2p - 3D will probably end up working well for sci-fi and fantasy but i'm not sure i want to watch, say, Schindler's List in that manner.

[Pecker]

There are two issues.

Firstly, will 'new' 3-D work as anything more than a gimmick. I suppose that, whilst I have my own thoughts on the matter, we'll have to wait and see.

Secondly, and most importantly here, should this be done retrospectively.

All 3-D will, by necessity, draw the viewer's gaze to the part of the film 'pulled forward' by the 3-D effect. Unless the director works on the 3-D-ing of the film himself/herself, then you have no guarantee that the director wants that part of the image (or, for that matter, any one part of the image) to be the focal point.

Whether 3-D works or not, I object to this sort of retrospective tampering without reservation.

Steve W

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Whether 3-D works or not, I object to this sort of retrospective tampering without reservation.

Normally i would as well but having seen the colourised versions of Harryhausen's classics on Blu-ray, i'll reserve judgement as this could in theory be done correctly as that was.

[Badger Mushroom]

Why is Coraline on the list, when it's already out in 3D? Is there another film called Coraline that I'm not aware of?

[Louis Mazzini]

I pretty much agree with the argument that attempting to turn a regular film into a stereoscopic one is on a par with "colorization" which, on the whole, is a bad thing.

What I disagree with is this quote:

“I really don’t want to see any movies in 3-D. If a filmmaker cannot make a watchable movie in 2-D, then 3-D isn’t going to make it better…….3-D is a visual gimmick”.

Of course a film that's bad in 2D isn't going to be improved by 3D, but that's a totally spurious point. I'm confident that any talented filmaker, if forced by the studio financing his film to shoot it in 3D, could find a way of utilizing the process in a creative and compelling way (in a not disimilar way to directors who found themselves having to use ultra wide canvases back in the '50s).

I'm sure that supporters of stereoscopic cinema/photography have made this joke before, but what the hell: Next time I hear someone say 3D is a gimmick, I'm going to poke out one of their eyes!

To those who continue to believe it's a gimmick, see if you can force yourself to go and watch one of the current offerings. Personally, I had a lot of fun with Ice Age and would happily recommend it. During the film, try closing one eye from time to time to see how it looks in 2D. I tried this with Ice Age and, once you've become accustomed to the natural look of 3D, suddenly jumping to 2D looks unnatural and a little but ridiculous.