Yeah, and there are some definite cool things about seeing the world on the big screen the way it is in real life. I suspect we'll have to undergo this paradigm shift, though, over time. Like I said, many films just don't really justify the usage of 3D. A whole new set of filming and directorial skills will be needed to take advantage of it. For example, i can see directors getting drunk with moving around actors in 360, lots of overhead shots, etc. I can see the hacks who make so many crappy hyperactive movies going too far with 3D as well. So I can see some folks like me thinking that a lot of 3D is just superfluous or not well done. At the same time, young kids might get used to it and see it as the standard.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mr. Worf" <hellomahog...@gmail.com> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:19:45 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Battle of the Movie Screens: scarce space for 3-D movies I saw an interview with the guys that own THX and they were saying that most of the theaters will be 3d in the next 3-5 years. There is a huge push in that direction right now. Even Nintendo has announced that the next handheld will be 3d, and other companies have announced 3d netbooks and laptops by next year. I think we're close to becoming the Jetsons. All you need is that 175 inch flatscreen in 3d. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Keith Johnson < keithbjohn...@comcast.net > wrote: I'm not typically a Dreamworks fan (Pixar has it all over them in fun, writing, and looks) but I'm looking forward to "Dragon". "Clash of the Titans" I hope to see, if the action is good enough for a decent time waster. My only problem is, i'm not really sure which 3D movies are necessary to see in 3D. "Avatar" was necessary--in 2D it'd be fairly pedestrian. and I give Cameron credit that he used 3D to enhance the effect and make it more realistic, not to bludgeon us over the head with stuff coming at us. But there are so many movies where 3D is added after the fact, i'm not sure which must be seen in 3D, and which are gimmicky and may be just as good if not better in 2D. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelwyn" < ravena...@yahoo.com > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:03:30 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [scifinoir2] Battle of the Movie Screens: scarce space for 3-D movies http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/03/dragon-books-nearly-2200-3d-locations-leaving-fewer-for-titans.html In the battle between major studios for 3-D screens, the dragon came in a little behind "Alice," with the "Titans" still looming. Although exact numbers are still being worked out, people familiar with the situation said that DreamWorks Animation's "How to Train Your Dragon," which is being distributed by Paramount Pictures, will play in about 2,150 theaters in the U.S. and Canada with a 3-D screen this weekend. Disney had 2,250 theaters for "Alice in Wonderland" when it opened March 5, with "Avatar" still playing in 661. "Alice" is expected to continue playing in several hundred 3-D theaters this weekend; "Avatar" has virtually finished its 3-D run. There are a little more than 2,300 theaters in the U.S. capable of projecting 3-D movies, the majority of which have multiple 3-D screens. -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
