Now In Papervision!
Well here it is, Jeffrey Katzenberg announced today that he wants ALL movies, not just animated films to be 3-D in the next five to seven years. WTF !!! Katzenberg explains, “3-D is how we see, how we take things in. Its natural. This is not a gimmick, its an opportunity to immerse the audience, to heighten the experience.” He added that the migration to 3-D will happen on all screens, including mobile phones and laptops. Katzenberg was joined by (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Group President) Mark Zoradi, and others stressing the industry’s commitment to 3-D as the future of film.
This is very disturbing news as it seems the movie industry (led by Disney) is going to force us to watch films in 3-D no matter what. They’re obviously partnering up with technology manufacturers to reap the profits from this ground floor theatrical investment.
Zoradi, (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Group President) goes on to say that, “moviegoers’ early response is clear” citing the success of “Chicken Little” and “Hannah Montana’s Best of Both Worlds concert.”
Well excuse me Mark Zoradi, (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Group President) I think your full of shit!!! Both Chicken Little and the horrific Hannah Montana film, would unfortunately been hits regardless of 3-D. The way that Disney and Pixar are slowly immersing 3-D into childrens films is a strategic tactic to (cook the books) in support of 3-D. Of course kids are gonna love it, they don’t know any better. What a subtle way for these greed infested corporations led by their imperious leader “Disney” to slowly but surely get all the theaters to go along with this 3-D crap! Studio execs like Katzenberg and Zoradi, are only looking to maximize there profits, as they insist the public accept 3-D.
Zoradi (Walt Disneys Motion Picture Group President) goes onto say that, “Consumers clearly prefer 3-D if they have a choice, and that 3-D films could bring in two to three times the business of a 2-D release.”
Oh yeah right, ALL consumers had a choice to see Chicken Little in 2-D or 3-D? Bullshit, the theaters that didn’t have 3-D for whatever reasons still sold tickets. This is classic (double-speak)! Oh and what’s all this about bringing in more business, I thought you guys were just trying to “heighten the experience?”. Lies, Lies, Lies. This Disney Scumbag reminds me of the car salesmen that will tell you anything to make a sale.
Zoradi’s (Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Group President) presentation Wednesday included the first public screening of 3-D footage from Beauty and the Beast (1991). Disney is re-rendering the film for a 2010 release. The addition of Beauty and the Beast brings Disney’s number of Digital 3-D releases for 2009-10 to a total of eleven, with six more on the way for 2011. This would give Disney more than 50% of all 3-D movies during the next three years, eleven of those would be animated.
So its clear, Disney is re-releasing films in 3-D for a profit. That directly goes against what Jeff Katzenberg said up top, “this is not a gimmick”. Sure it is, Its a marketing gimmick for re-releasing old films, a wow factor for kids, and a new avenue for (glasses included) dvd profits. I love the way these “execs” double-speak. Its just so, right in your face. Double dipping with the same product seems to be what consumers are seeing lots of at Best Buy and Walmart these days. Repackaging is all the rage with Bluray and Directors cuts. Even George Lucas plans to once again redo Star Wars in 3-D. (For the love of money)
Katzenberg predicts that 35 to 40% of admissions for the March release of “Monsters vs Aliens” will be for 3-D. He later predicts in 15 months these figures will be in the 80 to 85% range, and also see’s the next Shrek film to be 3-D. Stressing the technical advances that made the latest incarnations of 3-D, different from past efforts, Katzenberg said the technology “will bring people back to the movies who have stopped going.” All aGREED that 3-D’s ability to immerse audiences in the film is key.
This is sad news indeed if I have to have 3-D forced down my eyeballs in the future, so that Disney can make a few more bucks. Watching movies is a 2-D experience, 3-D will only ruin that experience for me. Films will be produced differently, and more in a way to sell the viewer on eye candy and products in the film. This will be abused as well with subliminal subterfuge as the visual senses will be overloaded with so much image that the overall film experience will turn into a big mess. Unfortunately they’re conditioning the kids to accept this, so that a whole new generation won’t even know what a 2-D film experience is or was. As the studio scumbags claim this is a “natural step”, I say they’re full of shit !!!!!!!
Loading ...
November 21, 2008
#1
I am surprised that you didnt mention Pirates of the Caribbean 4! If I am not mistaken it is supposed to be one of Disney’s biggest films of the 3-D conversion.
November 21, 2008
#2
I can’t see in 3-D because it requires eyes to pull inward as if very slightly being “cross eyed,” and my eye muscles don’t do that…so I’ve never enjoyed a 3-D movie or even those posters that were popular…25 years ago…that looked like visual gibberish until you focused a certain way.
November 21, 2008
#3
Pirates 4 in 3-D,,, man that sounds horrible… The last Pirates was a CGI crapfest…
^
Yeah Untamed One, a lot of people have problems with 3-D, I personally hope this backfires on Disney !!!
November 21, 2008
#4
Man, this is some bullshit. Tell it like its is, 790!
November 21, 2008
#5
Some crappy films were better in 3-D (Shark Boy and Lava Girl, Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008), etc..) but mainly I agree with you, 790.
November 22, 2008
#6
With digital contents ability to be available at all possible venues nearly at the same time, I wonder if a healthy dose of fear might be behind 3-D. You have to give them credit about thinking about the bottom line too. Conversion is cheaper than a whole new production. Since most stories are repackaged versions of other stories, it could be argued, that it’s in their best interest to exploit technology first, then shoot something else. It’s “The Eye that Never Blinks” problem, or the more underlying problem that we live in a society that must continue to have output, often in ever greater quantities, so that we can all eat and live. No enduring better system has been devised, so the one we have is being plied. It’s applied in a similar fashion everywhere, and in most, if not all sectors of living. How far that can take us is any bodies guess. Great wars have been fought over resources and their exhaustion in the past, if the future is to be different, a dialog at least is necessary. Cooperation an imperative. The only other choice is to flush and adjust.
Didn’t mean to make this a rant about futurism, as a more germain fact I too have problems perceiving illusions like 3-D. I don’t know why and it has even baffled doctors.
November 22, 2008
#7
That’s a great point Old Man, it is in they’re best interest to test out this (3-D) medium first with proven winners, I totally agree…
My concern and reason I wrote this article with the word “fucking” in it was to get peoples attention.
The prob I had was the tone of Katzenberg saying that he sees ALL MOVIES in (3-D) in 5 to 7 years… I’m not willing to totally give up 2-D just yet… This guys crazy!!!
Hell I watched “Quantum of Solice” today and if that was in 3-D I would have puked ,,,
(Btw), all my reference matrial was in Thursdays Hollywood Reporter.
I agree Kahless, that it works great for childrens films and other films as well but to make all films 3-D is insane…
I have to assume that they must have found a way to sell products more effectively through 3-D, maybe there’s some way they can subliminally insert more product placement,,,
You have to understand when they say that its going to enhance the overall experience that means (there going to make a lot of money) somehow off this technology. There hoping that the children get conditioned to it and then over the course of say 10 years this all changes and its all 3-D,,,
Its too much too fast! ,,, and its very disturbing to see what there exposing to children……
November 22, 2008
#8
Oh I agree you have a point! I’m sorta playing devils advocate, but like a couple others here, I have a physiological problem with the technology as it’s used now. When I was much younger I had an avid interest in holography. No one has come forward with a way to realize a film done with that technology. To do a live action movie in that format would require each set to be a giant laser optical table in addition to functioning as a set. The words Insanely expensive comes to mind as well as horribly limited. Even if a way was found to supplant the photographic plates with something approximating a film strip, no venue exists to show such a master piece. The more practical and possible way this technology could jump is to incorporate the polarizing technology or a shutter technology in commercial products, like corrective glasses that can be worn daily and sunglasses. With a chip embedded in the frames, that could modulate the effect as your sitting in the theater, it would be seamless and always available. That’s probably where they would like the technology to go. I’ve never seen a show that uses the shutter technology and wonder if it wouldn’t be a better option than polarizing light. As far as 2-D being a dying art, if it is it will be a very very slow death. Katzenberg is out of touch, and as soon as the public votes with their feet, people more powerful than him will step in to put a stop to the redonkulessness.
November 22, 2008
#9
I don’t think I’ve ever seen you so mad 790! I don’t think we should worry about this being the future for all films. There are simply too many people who would have problems seeing these films due to their vision issues. I don’t doubt that we will begin seeing a lot of 3D films in the future though. I don’t have any eye issues, but I hate 3D anyway. I think that this is a terrible idea, and I hope people come to their senses and realize that too many people will not be able to enjoy the movies made this way. It’s just a passing fad. Thats all.
November 23, 2008
#10
@Jon,
>>I don’t think I’ve ever seen you so mad 790! <<
Tell him Speed Racer sucks.
November 22, 2008
#11
Old Man,,, the Film Industry is definitely moving forward with new tech… I think what’s disturbing is that the Studios are paying for all of it,,,
After reading Katzenberg’s double-speak on 3-D, I realized that the studios are working another agenda…
The way they’re conditioning kids with heavy 3-D, disturbs me…
The article in last Thursdays “Hollywood Reporter” also mentioned how James Cameron has plans to take the 3-D technology to a new level with his upcoming film “Avatar”…
Its all happening now.
Jon, I hope your right or we could see all theatrical films in 3-D, and only dvds in 2-D, within 7 years…
I hope I’m over reacting…
November 23, 2008
#12
Well, I am not totally against 3D, I did like at the end of Freddy’s Dead, the part where the demons are flying around and you think they are attacking you. But that’s about it for my pro-3D rant cuz I don’t think it will be a wise thing for them to go total 3D.
November 23, 2008
#13
790-
I totally agree with you. We associate 3-D with “cheese factor” and it works for those types of movies. Unless they come up with a way to view these movies without special glasses and the effects aren’t so nauseating, it will not catch on.
November 23, 2008
#14
Yep… all entertainment is a fine balance between making money and keeping viewers/customers. (I didn’t add happy in there)
And don’t F*ing get me started on “The Leader of the Band” network.
CRAP! ABC had cut away from a history making nascar race a few weeks ago, with less then 40 laps to go, for America’s Funniest Videos. Just slammed it down and shoved to another network. The uproar was so big that ABC had to release a statement with 30 minutes of the race end. Yea, I’ve got my own issues with Disney / ESPN / ABC. grr.
Going completely 3D… not the brightest test statement to make, and I think that is exactly what that was… they’re testing the waters for reactions. I think they’ll get the message. I hope they’ll get the message. OK.. maybe they won’t.
Oh no. Does anyone remember that headache you’d get watching this 2D crap? It came back just on principle, reading 790’s article.
Now I need an excedrine migraine.
Sigh.
November 23, 2008
#15
Wow I can’t believe that ABC/Disney would cut off a NASCAR race with 40 to go for that lame show (americas home videos),,,
Disgusting.
What’s also sick is out here in LA the ABC news inserts Disney film spots in the news broadcasts. You can be watching a story about a deadly wildfire, and they come back from commercial and do a 6 min info piece on “Bolt”. Wtf!!!
December 13, 2008
#16
Well now isn’t this a nugget of a movie blog post? lol. I can’t believe the ignorant statements that I just read, but whatever. I am not going to rant on about how wrong you are about 3D and that all you are doing is painting yourself into a corner as being old school and well, ignorant. But what you can do is check out my blog on STRICTLY 3D – thats right, I started this blog 2 years ago and it is growing gangbusters. Why? Because 3D is growing gangbusters. It is more than growing, it will be the whole industry in 5 to 7 years. Oh and not just movies. Sports. Events. TV. It’s all coming. Kinda funny watching you squirm really – foresight is a wonderful thing…
But nice blog otherwise. The world is no longer flat my movie blogging friend.
December 13, 2008
#17
Fair enough Jim, I hope you check out some of the other reviews and articles on MOVIEGUYS ,,,
And if you want to get specific on 3D I’m here 24/7..
December 13, 2008
#18
You know Jim, I think that some 3D films are great. And it’s pretty clear that 3D is going to be something we are going to be seeing a lot of in the future. But what about the people who cannot enjoy 3D because of vision problems? Why should they be forced to watch a movie in 3D? Personally I think it would be better to offer things in regular and 3D format, and allow people to choose. THAT, is the issue here. No one here is saying we should stop using 3D, but instead we are saying that it should not be shoved down everyone’s throat.
I would love a chance to check out your 3D blog, my friend. I’m sure its real cute.
December 13, 2008
#19
Yep. It’s a cute blog alright lol.
I would have to hear more about the people who can’t watch 3D. I must make clear here that we are talking about MODERN 3D, not the hokey blue and red glasses of the 1950s. You cannot compare them – completely different. If you experienced trouble with the old anaglyph glasses, that BY NO MEANS says that you will have trouble with modern 3D.
What EXACT vision problems are you referring to – about MODERN 3D?
-jim
http://www.marketsaw.com
December 13, 2008
#20
Well Jim, I personally don’t have the problems with 3D, as I said I do enjoy the occasional 3D film. But if you read the comments above, some of our readers do have problems with adjusting their eyes to see whats in front of them. In particular, read the comment from the untamed One. Some people do have vision problems, and I’m sure you wouldnt presume to know exactly how everyone’s eyesight is. And if there is a significant amount of the population with an issue with their vision, shouldn’t we keep producing things in the format our eyes have all become accustomed to, in addition to the exciting new format for everyone else to enjoy?
No one here can say 3D should cease to exist, merely that it should not be shoved down our throats. If people don’t enjoy the format, for ANY reason, that does not necessarily make them old fashioned. And it certainly does not make them ignorant. Certainly anyone who is not blinded by their love for the format can see that it is possible for some people to dislike the format without being ignorant. I’m certain if you run a blog site like the one you mentioned (I did check it out) you would not fall into that category.
Some people have problems with their eyes. Some people just do not like the format. It’s okay to have differing opinions on things. That is part of life. All I would ask is that you respect the opinions of our readers without bashing them. I certainly would never go to your site and bash your readers.
Thanks for coming back to discuss this with us. I respect that.
December 13, 2008
#21
I did not disrespect anyone – however they need to be clear what the issue is. I have had people tell me they can’t watch 3D and they were talking about a movie forty years ago!
Also, they will have glasses the do the following:
1. PRESCRIPTION 3D glasses – no need to wear glasses over glasses – just buy your own as you would sunglasses.
2. DUAL PURPOSE 3D glasses – will also adjust to become sunglasses – fully polarized for eye protection. These will be made by LUXXOTICA and RAY BAN for example.
3. SINGLE SIDE glasses – both eyes will see either the left or right versions of the movie – nothing the brain cannot handle right? Same as if looking normally at something for them. This will obviously be in 2D, but will remove the blur associated with 3D without glasses.
It will be a LONG time before there is only 3D theaters – in fact by that time glasses will be obsolete anyway. Naked eye viewing of 3D is the goal and it will be achieved.
Hope this helps…
December 13, 2008
#22
You know, I appreciate you being so clear with your point. I think we can both agree that any movement on that front won’t be complete for a long time. Let us just remember that calling someone ignorant is insulting, so in the future if you could keep comments like that to yourself it would be nice. We want MovieGuys to be a safe place for people to come and talk about movies (and whatever else they enjoy) without feeling like their opinions will get them insulted.
However I think we ultimately disagree on its implementation. Your point makes sense, there ARE things people may be able to do in the future to be able to view 3D films and enjoy them as others do. But I don’t think anyone should be forced into buying something that will surely be expensive just so they can go enjoy a movie. The 3D revolution is clearly your passion; its why you defend it so valiantly. Movies are our passions, thats why we feel that everyone should be able to enjoy a film without having to buy expensive glasses. Movies should be enjoyable for everyone involved, I mean, they are expensive enough as it is, right? It is my thought that 3D will be a fun thing to enjoy in the future, but it should not be forced on people.
I thank you for making your point so clearly, and I’m sorry we could not come to an agreement. But I do hope you continue to check out the site despite this disagreement. I certainly will check yours from time to time.
December 13, 2008
#23
Jim?
You already made your point. Don’t be jumping the shark trying to grind it into the ground. For those interested, they’ll look into it… For those not, well, … they’re not. For their own reasons.
‘Nuff said?
December 13, 2008
#24
I don’t know if writing this reply is going to matter as I thought I made my point already,,,
^
Lastly,,, (in my opinion)
The main reason I wrote this article was because I found Jeffrey (Dreamworks) Katzenberg and Mark (Disney Studios Motion Pictures Group President) Zoradi’s statements in the (Thursday Nov 20, 2008 edition) Hollywood Reporter, extremely disturbing…
^
Katzenberg and Zoradi, both declared (with authority and gusto) that Dreamworks & Disney are going to push the 3D envelope to the next phase. That phase includes ALL films in the next 7+ years (not maybe) will be produced in 3D,,,
^
Dreamworks (right now) is developing the 3D technology with theatres, and camera equipment manufacturers…
Meanwhile, Disney is (Bolting ahead) developing and marketing 3D films to children. It starts with making all there kiddie films and even some of their past classics into 3D movies. You can see this hapenning now…
Let’s get real here, if you ask a kid if he prefers 3D over 2D movies, he’s more than likely just going to agree with whatever, just to see the movie…
Disney is using children to advance 3D, they want to condition them early on, so that the overall transition to 3D will be smooth and easy. This is classic conditioning. (Same thing they do to mickey mice in laboratories)…
Meantime, Dreamworks builds the 3D theatres,,,
^
I didn’t receive a Q/A poll in the mail asking whether I would like to see all movies in 3D,,, ???
^
Disney & Dreamworks have a better solution, their gonna get the kids hooked on 3D, and the adults will slowly have no choice but to fall in line,,,
Disney, manipulating children to push their 3D agenda,,,
(Hmmm am I way off here?)
^
If people turn a blind eye to this , that’s pretty sad as there dupes in this whole process of making Disney & Dreamworks more powerful, not to mention… 3D technology can and will be used to subterfuge the next level of subliminal advertisements into movies… (Think I’m nuts, do the research)
Does anyone else see how this technology could be abused in (all areas of) media in the near future ???
^
In conclusion to my overall point on 3D, I have NEVER once in my life EVER, watched a movie and said, “Wow that would have been soooo much better in 3D !!!”
I’m hoping people get educated on the real push behind 3D, and refuse to support 3D movies,,,
December 14, 2008
#25
Well, I can only agree with 790 on this one… 3-D is far from a fair representation of a medium that’s based on the human perception of story telling. It’s going to cause too many issues and films will eventually either fail because of it or become too commercial and manipulative in purpose.
However, I doubt serious filmmakers would subscribe to this. Yes, mainstream Hollywood directors might get erect nipples when they realize that they could watch their films in 3D. But the truth is that real Directors, Filmmakers will find it difficult to feel free in this medium. They’ll be constrained to use certain ways of telling a story, thus killing the artist and creativity in the ways they tell the story and how people interpret it.
Though we’re lately force fed stories to the point it becomes obvious and annoying, done through, suggestive sounds, music and editing. We’ve left the human mind no alternatives for interpretation of the story, no sense of inner visualization or imagination, everything is presented to you in a dumbed down version. People don’t need to think anymore, leave out that all important notion of adding DEPTH to your story, visuals and overall film.
And so, while many new directors land in the Hollywood chair of “Mainstream Productions inc.”, they don’t even care to improve or alter the used to death formulas that’s been circulating Hollywood for ages now. They just regurgitate everything over and over again. This is probably what they want to do. Do everything over in 3D, same kind of stories etc.
But in reality, real filmmakers will not be able to tell their stories through this medium. So… They’ll stick to Black and White films, animation, normal 2D films and whatever else that can justify their styles.
Now, what most people don’t even care to talk about is the VR filmmaking, adding a new realm to Dziga Vertov’s Kino-pravda or what it’s called to day Cinema Vérité/Direct Cinema. While classics like Wiseman’s Titicut Follies uses Direct Cinema with a hint of Cinema Vérité, arguably one of the most influential films from that era, now sees it’s true evolution through this new technology with the use of VR filmmaking.
VR film making would offer the REAL Direct Cinema, with no questionable edits manipulation or sounds control.
That’s the real news… 3D films are just another way to force people back into the dark to re watch stories and films they’ve seen a thousand fold. The real evolutionary changes will take shape via VR filmmaking, offering new perspectives and new interpretations.
One genre though, would probably like to invest in this even more (I’m sure this isn’t new in their field)… Porno movies would probably love this… ;)
December 14, 2008
#26
Well, it has taken a while 790, but we finally have a real debate going on the subject! I live for this, especially on a subject that I will readily admit is not an area of expertise. It really helps me make some decisions on the subject when two intelligent people debate a subject. Everyone here has made some great points.
Ergo, I have to say that I absolutely agree with your point about new directors in Hollywood and the recycling of ideas. I wrote a little bit up about that a while ago (its here, look for “Hollywood is killing the Classics” if anyone is interested) Its not exactly what you are saying Ergo, but it is a very small part of the larger point you are making. They really need to inject some fresh ideas into the movie business, get some people who aren’t afraid to make bold choices and try original things.
I long for a day when the movie viewer is challenged to think outside the box. When movies are creative once again. I will definitely look into VR filmaking, as I am all for anything that makes the movies better.
December 14, 2008
#27
@Jon,
Thank you for understanding the dire situation Hollywood is facing. Ideas never run out, but regurgitated formats replying the same ideas become painfully hard to loose ones self in.
With the recent more carefully used Direct Cinema and Cinema Vérité, latest film to use this style was Cloverfield, which did a very good job of it, took the premise form such films as Blairwitch Project etc. But naturally added scale to it.
With VR Filmmaking and the technology behind it today, we can have a 360 panoramic view of a scene (room. Think 12 angry men) were all audio channels would record every degree and the 360 panoramic view would be able to be manipulated by the viewer 100%. Meaning if 10 people talk at the same time as something is presented, you can see the main event from their perspective, being in the middle of the room, or look around and look at their expressions and reactions. Then focus on the people talking to the right of you or to the left of you, in front of in the back, all this without one single editing of sound or image, allowing the true sense of Direct Cinema to become the closest thing to the actual event you would ever come to experience.
You’d be able to listen in on people either whispering giving clues to what might really have happened, (murder mystery etc.) look at evidence around the room and so on. This would capture an event as close to reality as possible. This is the future of a new Style of telling stories. Where the main story is told, but everyone has a part to play, then the viewer becomes apart of the story. If you look for the right signs, listen to the right conversations, you’d pick out the truth. You’d become almost a participant. This would only work in carefully scripted films, but would offer a new way to make the spectator become as active in the story as humanly possible.
This does offer new ways of telling stories.
3D is a gimmick, an old one at that… certain films would be wonderful to see like that. And those certain films would be NATURE films, underwater films where maybe VR filming would be included to give you an even more intense experience. Either way, Hollywood is too narrow minded to see how they can improve the experience…
Oh and by the way, Hugh Jackman will host a ‘not so funny’ Oscars next year… :/ to that I have NO COMMENT…. except… :/
;)
December 14, 2008
#28
I loved Cloverfield. The way you describe VR, it sounds exciting. I would love to see it used more frequently (when applicable, of course)
And, I did notice the Hugh Jackman news, and I almost posted something up on the site. But I couldn’t write anything about the story without being mean, so I decided against it. I’m not a big fan of Jackman, he’s okay, but I believe that awards ceremonies should be hosted by comedians or “professional hosts.” It just takes a different skill set to host a show like that, and do a good job of it. I’m a big fan of John Stewart, maybe give Stephen Colbert a shot at hosting a big show like that. I’d even rather have Seacrest do it. I know Jackman has stage experience, but I’m a little worried.
But as movies are my business, I’ll watch it anyway!
December 14, 2008
#29
Hugh has awards show hosting experience since he’s hosted the Tony Awards 3 times so no frets there gang.
December 14, 2008
#30
Thats great news Bruce, thanks!
I guess I am just really hoping for something here, but do you think it is possible that because of Hugh’s involvement in the ceremonies, the studio may arrange with the networks a commercial slot to air some exclusive wolverine footage? I remember when I was researching my Dark Knight Oscars post a while back, I read that they were really hoping to draw better numbers this year. They were talking format changes, and I guess the news of Hugh hosting will bring in more people, so that seems to fit. And new footage being shown in the commercial breaks would certainly bring in more viewers. So is it really that big of a stretch?
December 14, 2008
#31
I liked Hugh Jackman in X-Men cause I wasn’t an avid X-Men comic book fan. But as an actor, Hugh Jackman’s presence falls under the same verbal treatment as Dr. Cox delivers from time to time. ;) See Dr. Cox’s passion for Hugh Jackman, is legendary. ;)
As for Steve or Jon… I agree, I met Steve and I think he’d be perfect. Jon is a legend naturally and I loved his style. Always have, but I don’t watch the show anymore cause even his stories are sad to watch cause you know it’s true… :/
Oh wait… I wasn’t thinking about Colbert, I was thinking about Carell. It’s late, my brain has left the building… :/
December 14, 2008
#32
Well I stand by using the word ignorant because it is a word in the English language and if someone is offended by it – that is too bad, that is not my intention. It is however the perfect word so it is what I will continue to use.
Speaking of ignorant… lets see – directors who are using 3D… hmmm – Cameron, Spielberg, Jackson, Zemeckis, Lucas, Soderbergh, Burton… etc. Yep. Pretty much the bottom of the barrel you are right. Oh and it is not just Disney Animation stating all their future movies will be 3D, it is also Dreamworks Animation and Pixar. That’s right, all of them.
Do you see what I mean? Ignorant – but for the sake of everyone’s ire, “ignorance of the 3D industry”. And, no, I am not throwing insults around! It is English.
December 15, 2008
#33
Well, Jim, I am sorry to tell you this but your message seems to be falling on deaf ears. Maybe if you chose to use less offensive words to illustrate your point, more people would be receptive to your message. There are words in the English language that are offensive, you know. But I guess we are just ignorant because we disagree with you. So be it. Some people just don’t like 3D. I’m done with this.
@Ergo
I love Scrubs! I’m glad it is coming back for a proper ending. I am one of the few hardcore comic fans who actually liked Jackman as Wolverine. Seems like all I keep hearing is “Jackman is too tall” and that he was too “likeable.” I thought his Wolverine was great. It’s just all of his other films…
You met Steve Carell? Thats awesome. I’m a huge fan of his. I’m so glad he’s finally made it, he was terrific on the Daily Show. He would make a great host. I’d like to see him get a crack at it next year. And of course, Jon is the greatest, I watch the Daily Show religiously. Can’t go wrong with him.
December 15, 2008
#34
@Jon,
Oh yeah I love Scrubs too man!!! Love it! I just wish they’d slap J.D. and Elliot together once and for all… that or let J.D. and The Todd get married… (Yeah I don’t want that either!) ;)
I liked Hugh as Wolverine, I thought he was cool. I loved the intro, with him fighting in the cage! Awesome!
Steve is amazing, he’s the type of guy you WANT to have as a friend, he’s the type who can make you feel comfortable and make you realize just how silly this whole business really is. He’s one of the kindest person I hear others say about him. :)
Do you know how many episodes they’ve ordered to complete Scrubs? And which network bought the show’s last season?
December 15, 2008
#35
I was hoping for J.D and Elliot to get together too. The way NBC ended the show was shameful. I never thought they gave the show a fair break as far as scheduling and advertising.
ABC bought the show. The plan is to air 13 episodes to wrap up the storylines for most of the current cast. They are calling it the final season, but I have read otherwise. IF what I read is true, it will be the final season for the cast as we now know it, but the show will live on. The talk is about most of the main characters moving on (Definitely, Zach Braff is done, but may make a cameo appearance. all others MAY return) With a new cast, or the current interns gaining the starring roles. It is all kind of up in the air. But at least we will get a fair final hoorah for the characters I have grown to love over the years. Courtney Cox has signed on for at least 3 episodes as the new chief of medicine. They may begin airing in February. I can’t wait!
December 15, 2008
#36
@Jon,
Really? Hmm, not sure I’d want to see Scrubs without the main characters… after all it’s always been about them. It’s like having Everybody Hates Chris go and have a new main character called Jerome. :/
The thing is that I would have liked to see the show end on a happy note… with a possible TV movie to end it all. Or maybe even a motion picture movie if the writers are able to make it good and not like Police Academy 4, 5 etc. ;) I had no idea they had a TV series AND a frakkin’ cartoon! :o
Courtney Cox as Chief of medicine? Isn’t that a tad unrealistic? She’s way too young… but then, I’m bias… I loved Kelso! Kelso and Cox were such an amazing duo. :)
I’m sure I won’t watch Scrubs if they do new characters, cause it was all about J.D. and his friends and how he did in that hospital. Moving outside of that field wouldn’t make it work for me. :(
Though I would probably watch the first episode to see if I’m wrong… I wouldn’t mind if I was. :)
But it’s like Having Farscape without Ben Browder. :/
Anyway, I can’t wait to see the new show!
Hope it’s going to get emotional! I loved the one where the woman had a tumor and she heard everyone singing… that was so well done!
It’s been a wonderful show.
December 15, 2008
#37
Just fyi,,,, for the best online tv coverage check out!
^
http://www.cinemastatic.org
^
Bruce does a hellava job on that site and MOVIEGUYS is pround to support him!
December 15, 2008
#38
I absolutely agree with you Ergo. I wouldn’t want to see the show without J.D either. And I was sad about Kelso leaving, but I wouldve been okay with it if Dr Cox took over as Chief. Courtney Cox was just selected because of her previous sitcom experience and her looks. They will use that to confuse J.D
I think the thinking is that they can turn the show into more of an E.R type show, only funny. And the fact that E.R lost its main characters and lived on is a testament to fan support. I wouldn’t like it but I will watch it.
I loved that episode! It was very emotional, but I have to admit, my favorite part was rather crude…
Everything comes down to poo!…
December 15, 2008
#39
Oh, and you are absolutely right 790, Bruce does a fantastic job over there. I also highly recommend tv fans check out his site.
And btw, 790, we are PROUD to support him, not pround ;)
December 15, 2008
#40
Oh did I say Pround?
That’s cause I’m watching “The Fountain,,,”
Wow what a head trip,,,
I’ll have a review up soon.
December 15, 2008
#41
I’ll take pround!
Thanks guys.
December 20, 2008
#42
Wow, I should have checked this topic sooner, being one of those who have a physical problem with 3-D illusion. My particular problem hasn’t been fully explored in the sense that is root cause is defined.
I know that while some people can enjoy or be fooled by certain 3-D optical illusions I can’t. One classic example is the hollow face that appears sculpted outward instead of inward when looking head on into the sculpture. I could tell from the outset that it’s hollow. I can also see simultaneous illusions built into pictures, like the classical young woman/witch’s face illusion. This is without prompting. The disadvantage is that some optical tests that ask you to reproduce what you see, using a device that relies on a 3-D illusion as feedback to guide your drawing, turns out unreadable no matter how hard I try.
I know it seems crazy, it’s certainly boggled the minds of a few Optic MD’s I’ve visited. It definitely would effect my enjoyment of a 3-D movie. Polarized 3-D scenes viewed thru the glasses mostly look flat and a little blurred with occasional 3-D effect if the angles are just right. Over the course of a movie it’s just bothersome. If I had to work in that kind of environment I’d probably get sick or have a headache by the end of the day. Not an experiment I would be interested in conducting.
Moving Holo’s on the other hand are easily seen and are very interesting to me. I don’t expect to see a movie made with that technology though.
December 20, 2008
#43
Old Man, I have to admit I’m surprised how many comments like yours I’ve heard on 3-D.
Visiting with family and friends this winter, I brought this 3-D topic up, and was surprised how many people are not hip on 3-D,,,
I’m going to be following up on the “war on 3-D”, and keeping in eye on these 3-D, fanatics and their 3-D agenda.
December 21, 2008
#44
I’ll be watching for updates. 3-D to me isn’t all it’s hyped to be…He,he-corn ;-)
December 31, 2008
#45
Has anyone ever stopped to think that, maybe Hitler is not Dead, and he is running Disney behhind the scenes?? And that George Lucas sold his sole to Fox, who in turn sold it and theirs to the devil??
For me the best movie Expierence is being able to see a movie in picture perfect clarity, with sound bad ass enough to knock your socks off, if it so choses to. But I draw the line at 3D, Personally I have never seen a 3D movie, however, the thought of haveing to wear glasses over top of my prescription glasses for two hours, makes me upset. I do not need to be “Immersed” in the film to enjoy it.
And Why The Hell does Disney feel the need to tamper with their calssics by releasing them in 3D. What a Bunch of Crap. Saw Beauty And The Beast Once already, Good enough for me, Besides Have you seen Gaston’s Chin, no amount of 3d fixing will be able to fit that into anyscreen.
December 31, 2008
#46
ha! Nice Metallicat. Very nice.
I have no problem with 3D, as long as they are not forcing people to watch it. This sounds to me like they are trying to shove their crappy3D films down our throats. I don’t like being told how to enjoy my movies.