<<<-- Originally posted by Jonathan Jones : Tsk Tsk...
Saucer of milk...table two. -->>>

LMAO!

Peter Jackson's on-board too:

http://newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp...estyle&Topic=0

Ok sure, they don't have a clue!!!

Signing on for a temporary gimmick is a good marketing ploy.

I just wish Lucas would go away. He's really just a tech head who likes to fiddle with a few movies he's made. Hasn't he been doing pretty much Starwars and Indiana Jones versions for the last 20 years? Releasing endless versions of the same thing, again and again, slightly tweaked for some new fandangled things he's into. I'm sick of Starwars. Episode 4 and 5 were OK, 6 just started to lose it with the ewoks, and 1 and 2 were pretty sad. Give it up George.

He's an entrepreneur, he knows how to make more and more money. Simple. He announced no original Star Wars on DVD, I bet in 10 years he'll release it to make another multi-million dollars. He really is boring.

You guys just kill me!! lol!!

<<<-- Originally posted by Christopher C. Murphy : Peter Jackson's on-board too:
Ok sure, they don't have a clue!!! -->>>

It's good that these major directors are working to advance the state of the art and make new films in new formats. The assertions I'm challenging aren't that directors who make new films in 3D don't know what they're doing, or even that old 2D films shouldn't be given the 3D treatment (although the proposed "repurposing" of back catalogues of films smacks of the same chintz that inspired the spate of colorization of old black & whites, which Lucas himself testified was unfaithful to the works' intentions). What I'm saying is that we shouldn't expect to see every movie theater in America looking like something out of a J.R. Eyerman photograph ten years from now, the type of image evoked by words like "change filmmaking forever."

3D won't catch on today (beyond novelty exhibition like IMAX 3D) any more than it caught on in the '50s because people don't like wearing claptrap and 3D never adds anything to a story.

Want to revolutionize cinema? Make a great movie, 3D, 2D, black & white, or even silent.

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : 3D won't catch on today (beyond novelty exhibition like IMAX 3D) any more than it caught on in the '50s because people don't like wearing claptrap and 3D never adds anything to a story. -->>>

Neither does color or big fancy effects shots. Sometimes sound does, often it doesn't. If history has proven anything, it's proven that adding to a story, or a story at all, has little to do with what will change cinema forever, or what audiences are willing to see.

What those things do do is add to the visceral experience of a film, which is what most people go to the movies for.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joshua Starnes : What those things do do is add to the visceral experience of a film, which is what most people go to the movies for. -->>>

For "visceral" experiences--those that affect the viscera--people ride roller coasters. Movies are are enduringly popular because they tell stories.

If people really attended movies to get a good gut-wrench, then the fabric of cinema would be different indeed. Shot sequences, rather than aiding such cinematic staples as continuity of character, setting, and plot, would be engineered around the simple thrills of flights and falls and twists and turns. Which is not to say a market for such films doesn't exist--it clearly does, in some IMAX films and all shaker-table rides like STAR TOURS--but it is deservedly small, because on the whole it becomes rapidly tedious and is finally psychologically meaningless.

Joshua, I always enjoy your posts.

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : <<<-- Originally posted by Joshua Starnes : What those things do do is add to the visceral experience of a film, which is what most people go to the movies for. -->>>

For "visceral" experiences--those that affect the viscera--people ride roller coasters. Movies are are enduringly popular because they tell stories.

If people really attended movies to get a good gut-wrench, then the fabric of cinema would be different indeed. Shot sequences, rather than aiding such cinematic staples as continuity of character, setting, and plot, would be engineered around the simple thrills of flights and falls and twists and turns. Which is not to say a market for such films doesn't exist--it clearly does, in some IMAX films and all shaker-table rides like STAR TOURS--but it is deservedly small, because on the whole it becomes rapidly tedious and is finally psychologically meaningless.

Joshua, I always enjoy your posts. -->>>


I would say one of the things that have made movies enduringly popular is that they tell stories. But there are lots of mediums that tell stories, but movies have trumped them as the most mass appeal because they deliver not just a story, but an 'experience' which I think is what audiences go for. Yes, story as well - but there's a reason we get so many of these huge effects movies and action movies each year, and there's a reason those films are successful. Sometimes that has to do with the story.

Story is certainly everything in making a good movie. But it often has nothing to do with making a popular movie, or a movie that changes filmmaking. Star Wars is a classic, it remains so because of it's story, but it didn't change filmmaking with it's story but with how its story was told and the 'experience' that went along with it.

About the only enjoyable bit I got out of the Oscar's this year was Rock asking normal people what movies they'd seen or heard of and which were their actual favorites. Granted, responses are picked for comedic effect, but I don't think it changes the truth of it either.

I prefer my films to have great stories, and it definitely determines what films are classics (though there are certainly some 'classics' that I think are awful, but that's another discussion) but I think we also have to admit there's more to what people will go to see than just the story. Well - when you're working on Hollywood budgets, anyway.

I always enjoy your posts to Robert.

I see your point and it's a good one. Just try explaining the big rolling rock chasing down Indiana Jones to anyone without actually showing them the movie.

"I just wish Lucas would go away. He's really just a tech head who likes to fiddle with a few movies he's made"

Go away??
It sounds like he should be posting on here with us! He'd fit right in.

:)



by the way,
Robert and Joshua, great points on both sides.
Thanks for those posts.

How about this idea for 3d viewing. Something in the future that is more holographic projection than the simple 3d systems of today. Imagine staring at a 'virtual set' as though you were watching a play. Perhaps it can even be advanced enough for the viewer to place themselves anywhere in or around the scene as they desire. Now, that's something I'd go see and be enveloped in.

-gb-

Like the 'family video' Tom Cruise was looking at in 'Minority Report'.


<<<-- Originally posted by Greg Boston : How about this idea for 3d viewing. Something in the future that is more holographic projection than the simple 3d systems of today. Imagine staring at a 'virtual set' as though you were watching a play. Perhaps it can even be advanced enough for the viewer to place themselves anywhere in or around the scene as they desire. Now, that's something I'd go see and be enveloped in.

-gb- -->>>

I don't really buy the experience argument. I don't think the movie "experience" goes any farther than the experiencing a sticky floor, the smell of popcorn, hearing the pops of sound in the film and watching the dust and scratches.

People go for stories yes, but I'd say more to experience things that they cannot normally in their lives i.e. cool explosions. its a sticky argument because I feel part of your attention is kept by how "cool" whatever you are watching looks, but i'd hardly think the majority of the movie public finds wearing cheesy sunglasses cool. I find that idea as campy as the pick-your-own-ending film idea. But we'll see. People are pretty dumb. I tihnk people watch movies to be immersed in the story but in a strage transcendental way, not literally.

3d (and not added depth)is a good idea but creates a huge problem.
Suppose you are looking a 3d movie. Will you stop every 3 secondes to check another angle ? will you review the movie 360 times to make sure you have seen any angle ?
3D is fine for football or boxing, since you would want to replay some event from a different point of view (this already exists anyway, no need to wait for 2007) but frankly a think the story is 90% of a regular movie and i do not care if it comes from a digital satellite transmission or a plain old 35mm film, as long as my eyes are fooled enough (and that is pretty easy) to believe they see the story and not a wall.