Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8martinland at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
happens to be in stereoscopic 3D

Dial M for Murder.

You'll notice I didn't mention Robot Monster...

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:18:16 +0100, Auntie C <caryn.gra... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I also agree with Scott, that G-force doesn’t exactly look like the
greatest movie in the world.  :)

That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and happens to be in stereoscopic 3D (as opposed to computer-animated in 3D e.g. with threedimensional data - I am a bit worried about this latest confusion)?

Hands down: Stereoscopic 3D will always be a gimmick, no matter what they try to tell us now (for at least the third time in a hundred years of cinema)...

ML

Is it, in fact, possible to book Robot Monster in 3D?  Even in anaglyph?
When I looked into it a few years ago, Swank could only get me a 16mm
reduction print in 2-D.

Hmm, doesn't sound too hot.

That's the one biig ything I would hope for in a very distant, brave new world of truely great electronic cinema exhibition (if it happens):

You could watch movies in theaters again that previously were just unavailable, period.

When we look at the current tragical theatrical (?) exhibition of "Oz" I'd say, we're not there yet...

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey <kludge at (no spam) panix.com> wrote:

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8martinland at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
happens to be in stereoscopic 3D

Dial M for Murder.

Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D

You'll notice I didn't mention Robot Monster...

Haha, cute. Nice one, Scott...

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8martinland at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey <kludge at (no spam) panix.com> wrote:

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8martinland at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
happens to be in stereoscopic 3D

Dial M for Murder.

Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D

I agree about Coraline too.
It's a movie that is good enough even without
the 3D effect.

You'll notice I didn't mention Robot Monster...

Haha, cute. Nice one, Scott... ;)

Is it, in fact, possible to book Robot Monster in 3D?
Even in anaglyph?

When I looked into it a few years ago,
Swank could only get me a 16mm
reduction print in 2-D.

--scott

In the next few years, I think you'll probably end up seeing *more*
quality presentations of classic films by default because the
infrastructure is now getting there and there's less margin for error.

J. Theakston

Actually, I'm quite surprised you guys are quick to knock ROBOT
MONSTER for its 3D-- without that aspect, it IS just a nonsensical,
low-budget sci-fi film (with a great Elmer Bernstein score, no less).
But the 3D photography is quite good technically, and makes the film
far more watchable than it would be flat.

Likewise, there's no reason that 3D is any more of a gimmick than
widescreen or color. Like any aspect of film, it's completely in how
it's used and how it's presented that makes the process. And although
I know it's heresy to post such a thing on a newsgroup, frankly, I
find it more versatile and less of a gimmick than, say, Cinerama,
which because of its wide-angle nature is limited in how much you can
do with it.

I still insist that most of the negative memories about these films
and their use of 3D don't actually come from people who have seen the
films (or if they have, not recently), but merely folks who are
expressing a viewpoint, no matter how ill-informed it is, for the sake
of actually *having* a viewpoint on the process.

J. Theakston

On Nov 2, 6:48=A0am, klu... at (no spam) panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Is it, in fact, possible to book Robot Monster in 3D? =A0Even in anaglyph=
?
When I looked into it a few years ago, Swank could only get me a 16mm
reduction print in 2-D.

There is, as of today, only one complete left/right pair out there as
part of the 3D Archive.

Actually, I'm quite surprised you guys are quick to knock ROBOT
MONSTER for its 3D-- without that aspect, it IS just a nonsensical,
low-budget sci-fi film (with a great Elmer Bernstein score, no less).
But the 3D photography is quite good technically, and makes the film
far more watchable than it would be flat.

Likewise, there's no reason that 3D is any more of a gimmick than
widescreen or color. Like any aspect of film, it's completely in how
it's used and how it's presented that makes the process. And although
I know it's heresy to post such a thing on a newsgroup, frankly, I
find it more versatile and less of a gimmick than, say, Cinerama,
which because of its wide-angle nature is limited in how much you can
do with it.

I still insist that most of the negative memories about these films
and their use of 3D don't actually come from people who have seen the
films (or if they have, not recently), but merely folks who are
expressing a viewpoint, no matter how ill-informed it is, for the sake
of actually *having* a viewpoint on the process.

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey <kludge at (no spam) panix.com> wrote:

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8martinland at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
happens to be in stereoscopic 3D

Dial M for Murder.

Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Kiss Me, Kate -- maybe not a
"great" film but certainly a very very good one, and one which uses 3D
very effectively without a lot of gimmicks.

Reptilicus

But the vast majority of films that employ widescreen
[...]
don't take advantage of them

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:47:32 +0100, Scott Dorsey <kludge at (no spam) panix.com> wrote:

Reptilicus

Ha! Guilty pleasure. Have it here in our movie archive complete w/ commentary track by Dennis Muren of ILM fame.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey <kludge at (no spam) panix.com> wrote:

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8martinland at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
happens to be in stereoscopic 3D

Dial M for Murder.

Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch wrote:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:47:32 +0100, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Reptilicus

Ha! Guilty pleasure. Have it here in our movie archive
complete w/ commentary track by Dennis Muren of ILM fame. ;)

Come to Arisia in Boston, Jan 15th. We're running a beautiful
print of it, excellent color. Not only that, we have adapted

our Emergo system for this presentation. www.arisia.org.

Sponsored by the Society for the Promotion of Very Bad Cinema.

--scott

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8martinland at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
happens to be in stereoscopic 3D

Dial M for Murder.

Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Kiss Me, Kate -- maybe not a
"great" film but certainly a very very good one, and one which uses 3D
very effectively without a lot of gimmicks.

-Neil Midkiff