March 20, 2005, 6:18 a.m. CST
Film is not dying. Studios need to be quicker with understanding new media. Only now they acknowledge the existence of the internet. They should have been sooner with finding safety that DVDs can't be copied. Of course, everybody can do it and everybody does, but wasn't it the same with video tapes? If studios started to look at this issue ten or eight years ago, they would have been much more advanced in this matter. Personally, I love 3D, but I don't want *all* my movies in 3D.
March 20, 2005, 6:29 a.m. CST
...but I think you are waaaay off here. 3D is not the future of film. It was, is, and always will be a gimmick. Nobody, not even Lucas or Cameron, will be able to convince the public otherwise. I sat through "The Polar Express" in IMAX 3D and thought, "Why the hell did they do this?" What a waste of money and energy.
March 20, 2005, 6:32 a.m. CST
The revival and technological advancement of 3D is fascinating and I'm anxious to see what can be done with it.( I wasn't interested enough to go see Spy Kids 3D). Internet downloading is definitely hurting the film industry, but I would argue that the quick turnaround of films to dvd release is a bigger one. At least the bosses at the theater I used to work at thought so. The studio saves money by only having to have one marketing campaign for the theatrical and dvd release and they save some money, while the theaters take a hit. There's other reasons for the decline in movie-going, I'm sure. Declining quality in the films is often cited, but that's probably too easy since lots of crappy movies still make money. $10 for a ticket is pretty crappy too. I'm sure a lot in the older set are saying, "hey, I want to see this movie, but I know I'll be able to rent it for a couple bucks and watch it on my slick home theater system in three months and not have to deal with obnoxious teenagers at all." I welcome 3D and a new stage in the theatrical experience, but I don't think the internet is the sole factor in the decline of the film-industry, escpecially since it seems I'm still always hearing about films breaking box-office records. As for Hong Kong's declining film industry, I guess if you can walk into any store and all the dvds for sale are bootlegs selling for the equivalent of 1 US dollar, then that's going to hurt them.
March 20, 2005, 6:32 a.m. CST
It would seem too much like a gimmick. I am all for holodecks though. Don't see any problems with those.
March 20, 2005, 6:56 a.m. CST
Theater is theater, and film is film. Film is a 2D painters canvas with the magical ability to create motion. I dont WANT to share a dimension with the characters in a movie. Pat-downs before screenings? The fuck does that have to do with me? I don't see shit early with the press, i pay ten dollars on release day and bring teriyaki and a fifth. 3D is STILL a gimmick. Cool for some stuff, but keep it a niche genre that doesn't encroach upon my life. The internet is destroying the film industry? Destroy the internet! Imprison everyone who downloads a movie. Put your foot down, you're fucking HOLLYWOOD. GROWL!
March 20, 2005, 7:02 a.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 7:09 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
I remember an era some 10 years back when i had had enough of walking out of cinema's feeling cheated.
March 20, 2005, 7:11 a.m. CST
As much as I enjoyed Ghosts of the Abyss in all its 3D Imax glory, I still think 3D is a gimmick, and not a very good one at that. The whole processes still feels clunky and weirdly retro - not something the future is made of. And do I really want to see Sideways in 3D? In the end, regardless of whether a movie is in 3d or not it comes down to whether it was a good movie. (And seeing a bad movie in 3D is like adding a third-dimension to it's badness - I mean do you *really* want to see White Chicks in 3D? Didn't think so.) How about this for a gimmick, rather than put out crap like Boogeyman or make sequel after sequel, start making good, even maybe great original films... just a thought.
March 20, 2005, 7:15 a.m. CST
3d can be the future, sure for directors like the aforementioned. For your popcorn entertainment, that's fine. But what about Scorcese, Tarantino or Coppola, or even Mann? The gimmick just wouldn't work, and if all we go to the movies for is to be mesmerized by cool visual tricks, then I guess we are lesser fans of film than we thought. 3d may be the future, but that is like denying that the classic dramatic films of today are worthless, and films like Ep. II or Aliens of the Abyss or Polar Express are actually worth seeing. 3d is a fetishistic toy for bored filmmakers with fading talents.
March 20, 2005, 7:16 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
If you can get a fine and even go to jail for smoking a plant, then why the fuck not for viewing someones work without acknowleging the artist responcible. If the work is shit, tell your friends and said artist will have to do better, or make way for someone else!
March 20, 2005, 7:18 a.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 7:21 a.m. CST
3D, like IMAX, may be a good idea for big spectacle films to make the most of dazzling special effects, but spectacle for the sake of it tends to get in the way of story. So where spectacle is a central component of a film such as Star Wars I can see the point. But where a film is motivated by story, character and emotion 3D will only be a distraction. When I watch Sideways I want to be moved by the story rather than being distracted by the thought of "wow, that bottle of wine really seems to be coming towards me". I really hope that 3D will only be limited to select cinemas such as IMAX venues rather than be in every single screen in the country. Because if that happened even though most films would still be in 2D all blockbusters would probably be solely in 3D and filmmakers would be under pressure to make the most out of 3D. So quiet emotional moments and thoughtful dialogue would be jettisoned from blockbusters altogether because they don't make the most of 3D. I think that it is possible to have intelligence and emotion in blockbusters rather than pure spectacle, as I believe War of the Worlds is attempting to do, and even though I enjoy good special effects I also like it when filmmakers give me something a bit stronger to go with my popcorn. I support 3D as a limited release concept to go alongside the mainstream 2D release, much in the same way as IMAX releases are handled now. But I oppose it becoming a universal technology as Lucas and Cameron obviously want it to be. And what about people who wear glasses? 3D glasses don't work at all if you're shortsighted when you take off your usual glasses. Asking people with glasses to go to the expense of getting contact lenses is a bit much. And wearing 3D glasses over a pair of regular glasses throughout the course of a feature film is just plain ridiculous.
March 20, 2005, 7:35 a.m. CST
How about this: GOOD MOVIES ARE NOT BEING MADE.
March 20, 2005, 7:36 a.m. CST
Harry, I enjoy your web site, and I think you have a good voice and influence on the industry in both subtle and odd ways. But making older films 3D is probably going to be worse than colorizing Casablanca. Films that were shot for the format were at best terrible and at worst complete garbage, Jaws 3D comes to mind. And the idea of taking older movies that weren
March 20, 2005, 7:43 a.m. CST
You can't be serious! I've never witnessed any pr0n films presented in dts, have you?
March 20, 2005, 7:59 a.m. CST
"My arse" as Jim Royle would say. Box office takings increase pretty much every year with maybe only a slight dip every so often (although I will admit that the number of people going to the cinema has decreased slightly). But this year is almost certainly going to be a record year with ROTS, War of the Worlds, Kong, Hitchhikers, The Island and Batman to name but a few. I can't remember any year with such a large number of potentially huge blockbusters. And if there is a threat to the film industry I'm not sure if the main threat is piracy. Video was meant to kill cinema since everyone would stay at home to watch films but what it actually did was fuel a love of cinema which actually *revived* the film industry. As others have already noted, the main potential threat to the film industry is the studios themselves. They release DVDs so quickly that a lot of people will just think that they will be better off waiting for the DVD release rather than the expense and inconvenience of a trip to the cinema. The cinema experience is in danger of becoming nothing more than an advertising campaign for the DVD release, since DVDs already outgross the original DVD release in many cases. Most internet piracy does NOT come from poor quality camcorder recordings in cinemas but from crystal clear DVD copies after the DVD release. Anyone tech savvy enough who can be bothered to download a camcorder recording will probably do this purely as a 'taster' to see if the film is any good. If they like it then they will go to the cinema. And a combination of legal worries and technical knowledge needed means that most films are downloaded by fewer than 100,000 people - too many but not a major box office threat if most of them end up going to the cinema anyway and tell all their friends how good the film is. The main reason piracy has flourished at all is that the studios have refused to take advantage of new technology to offer consumers what they want - the opportunity to have the convenience of downloading movies straight to their computers at a fair price. After all the MP3 downloading hoohah singles sales slid to a low, but are now rising again and album sales are at an all-time high. Why? Because the music labels have begun to offer legal ways to download music conveniently at a reasonable price. People who download one track they like will often buy a whole album. The same will happen for movies if studios embrace new technology instead of fighting it. Most people prefer to purchase things legally rather than for free but illegally. Give people the opportunity and they will take it. Companies are far too precious about copyright. I condemn piracy because I believe that a fair price should be paid, but companies are so keen to 'protect' copyright that they go after easy targets that aren't even a threat. Remember, these are the same people who tried to prevent the video recorder from existing - the very invention that revitalised the film and TV industry. Without video there would be no DVD and no billions of dollars to make all these wonderful movies we're seeing now. I believe that if video had been banned then cinema may well have suffered to the extent that the resources to make Lord of the Rings would not have been available. If studios really want to fight piracy then allow consumers to have fair use of copyright for a fair price rather than being over-restrictive as they are now. Harry - you are swallowing Cameron's hype about 3D just as you are swallowing the studios' hype about the 'threat' from piracy.
March 20, 2005, 8:25 a.m. CST
I am serious and please don't call me shirley.. oh wait you didn't. I don't think Harry would condon me posting a link to an adult site here but it was called X-Vision and if you were to say do a search at google with the phrase "Nina Hartley" 3d - well the very first link would take you to the now defunct X-Vision stuff.
March 20, 2005, 8:44 a.m. CST
As well as your comments on the merits of 3D I also agree that Talkbacks should allow paragraph breaks. Oh, and something to remember my user ID and password so that I don't have to enter them every time I want to post.
March 20, 2005, 8:48 a.m. CST
... if you gave some evidence of film actually dying. Sure piracy will be a problem, but during the same years piracy exploded, the studios gained a new cash cow in DVDs. Sure less people may be going to the theater (though it seems like the box office continues to hold steady), but the studios make movies to make money, that doesn't require putting butts in seats anymoe. The studios could care less how they get it. People aren't going to want to sit in theaters with headgear on unless it's sci-fi, action-adventure, or an Angelina Jolie movie. www.theletterd.blogspot.com
March 20, 2005, 9:04 a.m. CST
While 3D is amazing (Miss Sadie Thompson at BNAT left me speechless), it really is nothing more than a gimmick to try to stay ahead of piracy. But the film industry will never stay ahead of piracy as long as technology continues to advance. 3D monitors (without glasses) are here and in another year or so they'll be affordable for everyone ... about the same time that this 3D strategy for the industry reaches its peak. Instead, film makers should be rocking the boat in getting the distribution model changed. Get us first run movies delivered to my big screen TV in my home and quit assuming that the audience will really care if you jangle keys infront of their faces instead of focusing on how we choose to consume our film product. Hopefully Mark Cuban, Steve Jobs or another billionaire outsider will help us get to the promise land if the industry itself can't figure out how to get my money.
March 20, 2005, 9:05 a.m. CST
by Bob Parr
March 20, 2005, 9:13 a.m. CST
Where do you get that? You don't state one single reason why or how you think film is dying. I could go my whole life without seeing another 3D film, it just isn't all that great.
March 20, 2005, 9:16 a.m. CST
I hope this expands into other forms of art as well. Imagine viewing a painting in an art gallery in stunning 3D!! Let's go back and tamper with some of the greats by Picaso, Monet, or even Van Gogh! WOW! That would be amazing, imagine having the background of Starry Night now out of focus (in stunning 3D) so you're forced to look at only the foreground. Maybe at some point in the future we can trash the original paintings altogether in favor of a complete 3D hologram. Screw composition, I want to look at Starry Night from a different angle.
March 20, 2005, 9:31 a.m. CST
by Bob Parr
There has been a lot of posting on AICN in recent weeks about how horrible the movie-going experience has become. I live in Kansas City, which is the world headquarters for the AMC Theaters comapany and, as a result, we have a ton of their screens here. On Friday night, the AMC near me looked like every suburban parent for miles with pre-16 year old kids had dropped them off at the multi-plex as if the AMC people have some obligation to act as a free babysitter for their shitbag kids. You nearly have to push and shove your way to get into the theater. In the last year, I think I've had to walk out of films because these kids are so badly behaved. The kids seem to be entertained by seeing how badly the can fuck the movie up for everybody else. The theater owners have to hire extra security. It makes for a truly miserable exerience. This theater is less than a half mile from my house, and I now drive out of my way to avoid this mess. There are two Cinemark theaters in my area, both of which are cracking down on this. One of them allows no one under 5 in at all, and requires those under 16 to be accompanied by their parents and seeing the same film as their parents. Both Cinemark theaters in town have made it clear that they are not a free sitter service for these middle school assholes. (By the way, when you see these kids, do you fear for the future of western civilzation??) The studios need to address this problem with the theater chains. The studios are losing money because most theater chains seem to not really care if the theater experience sucks for people or not. And yes, the quality of films today is bad as well. Has there been a memorable studio picture released this spring??? We've gotten about 35 PG-13 horror films, which goes back to the shithead teenagers again. They are keeping real moviegoers away and strongly influencing what sells tickets, and, therefore, what gets made. USA Today ran a piece a couple of weeks ago saying that teenage girls are flocking to see these horror-lite films. God help us!! When 14-year-old girls are driving the market and what films get green-lit, it's scary as to what films will get made.
March 20, 2005, 9:33 a.m. CST
by Shawn F.
Piracy is not killing the industry. Shit films and bad moviegoing experiences are the two main factors that are harming an industry that lies about its bottom line even more than our government. I used to go all the time to the movies. Most of the time now, I wait to watch them at home. The image is usually out of focus or misframed, you get a bunch of fuckwits talking on phones or to each other or people who bring babies and loud kids. And the films? Are We There Yet? The Pacifier? Any of the tsunami of shit horror flicks that have come along this year? Wouldn't watch any of those for free.
March 20, 2005, 9:35 a.m. CST
by Bob Parr
March 20, 2005, 9:41 a.m. CST
by Bob Parr
The Pacifier, Be Cool, Boogeyman, White Noise, Are We There Yet, Diary, Son of the Mask, Racing Stripes, Hide and Seek, Man of the House (what the hell was Tommy Lee Jones thinking??), Cursed, The Ring Two, Ice Princess, Hostage, The Wedding Date, Elektra, Alone in the Dark, The Jacket, and Because of Winn Dixie. That's a hell of a start for quality in 2005!!!
March 20, 2005, 9:41 a.m. CST
Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but when technological breakthroughs allow full-on 3D visuals (and audio) to be viewed in the absence of inconvenient crutches like specialized glasses, the media revolution shall take another incremental step in consumer choices.
March 20, 2005, 9:42 a.m. CST
by Bob Parr
And we aren't even out of March yet.
March 20, 2005, 9:42 a.m. CST
And that was early 80s.
March 20, 2005, 10:02 a.m. CST
by Evil Chicken
Piracy will find a way to adapt
March 20, 2005, 10:04 a.m. CST
I think part of the problem with the revenue model is that good movies have to carry all of the bad movies. And we have to pay for the bad movies indirectly. The piracy issue keeps the good movies from getting that additional revenue that would have been used to make "XXX 3". Again, if the industry took all of their anti-piracy energy and money and focused on weeding out crap product, they'd find they really are raking it in. I mean, just ask Peter Jackson about how the good films have to carry the load for the bad films that a studio makes.
March 20, 2005, 10:11 a.m. CST
At least, the regular everyday kind of 3D. I like 3D art - it's called sculpture. I like 2D art too - painting and photography. What I don't like is SIMULATED 3D. It's fine as a gimmick. It can be fun as a spectacle to 'oooh' and 'aaah' at. But there's a reason why simulated 3D artworks only usually appear in optical illusion museums - they are just fun gimmicks. I can admire the stunning moving dinosaur image in the Edinburgh museum of illusions, but the Mona Lisa would not be improved by wearing special glasses so that her smile pushed out of the frame towards you. The day that movies are made in 3D as standard is the day that I stop watching movies. And as for The Wizard of Oz, either people would have watched the first 20 or so minutes wearing 3D glasses with nothing to see in 3D or a notice would have had to have been given at the end of the tornado sequence - "put your glasses on now!"
March 20, 2005, 10:11 a.m. CST
For every Casablanca or Godfather their were dozens if not hundreds of crapfests that no one remembers. Because no one remembers them, they begin to believe that all they made back then was 5 star classics. Movies today are doing just fine, for god sakes we just had new classics like the Lord of the Ring trilogy and Eternal Sunshine. The ratio is the same as it always has been, for every 1 good one there's 50 bad ones. And 3D isn't going to make the bad ones any better. WTF!
March 20, 2005, 10:15 a.m. CST
I live in Toronto and the second run theatres here still run Friday the 13th 3-d, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Andy Warhol's Frankenstein, and other shit like that. You really haven't lived until you,ve seen an old well used print in 3-d.
March 20, 2005, 10:17 a.m. CST
And give it 7.1 surround sound. And smell-o-vision. And make sure there's a guy behind you that smacks you upside the head every time someone on screen gets smacked upside the head. Leave my fucking movies alone.
March 20, 2005, 10:29 a.m. CST
I mean, seriously. No degeneration into name-calling or political soapboxing. This must be a real issue if everyone is chiming in like this. Personally, I think it's a good thing. I think the market will determine whether we see ALL our movies in 3-D, I tend to think we won't. But in the process, theaters are paying more attention to the way they show the films, and the new technologies should improve the experience even for non 3-D showings. Now all we need is cellphone blockers and noise cancelling so I don't have to listen to the schmuck next to me setting up his post-movie booty call. We all know what's ruining our theater experiences, and those things need to be fixed.
March 20, 2005, 10:30 a.m. CST
Harry bitched about Fantasia and others being cropped and then being billed as "Now in Cinemascope!" So I have a question about IMAX. I have only seen one thing in IMAX since the nearest IMAX screen to me at the moment is in London and that's too far to travel for something that I'm not really interested in, so I would appreciate the knowledge of those better-informed than myself. The IMAX screen that I saw in Bradford was terrifyingly huge in an astounding way. The film I saw was about special effects and was released soon before the Star Wars original trilogy special editions. The screen appeared to be almost as tall as it was wide, so I'm guessing about a 4:3 ratio. The images that were filmed in IMAX format and filled the screen were incredible and I see why people are impressed. But the extracts from films such as ID4 that they used were presented in original ratio and looked very underwhelming compared to the full screen stuff since they only took up about half the screen, height-wise. As I have not seen anything in IMAX since then I would like to know if the aspect ratio for IMAX has changed, or are feature films shown at IMAX venues such as LOTR screened in their original aspect ratios so only take up part of the screen, or are the images cropped from the sides to fit the IMAX ratio (which is something Harry bitched about in the first place)? Thanks.
March 20, 2005, 10:44 a.m. CST
3D is a parlor trick - at best. It will never become anywhere close to the norm. As said above, the reason theatrical showings are declining is DVD. Why pay $10 to see a movie now, when I only have to wait three or four months to see it in the comfort of my own home, with added special features? Movies are coming to DVD so quickly these days, at the same time the theater-going experience has declined. Hell, if Hollywood truly wants to get theaters full again, start opening some "under 17 not allowed" theaters - if I didn't have to deal with talking kids and crying babies, I'd be much more willing to go to the theater more often.
March 20, 2005, 10:49 a.m. CST
Lets get things straight here....Film is dying? The hollywood film industry is "suffering"? WTF??? Oh that explains why most friggin blockbusters cost 100 million plus to make when you can make a decent film on less the budget. Piracy isnt killing the film industry...beurocracy is....greedy hollywood execs are.....egotistical film stars are. Short on cash then the film stars need pay cuts....whats gonna happen? They quit? theres plenty of actors around...better actors than half the jokers in the industry. Please explain then..that most films make a profit big time? Dvd sales are high....film profits are obviously high....so where on earth is this suffering? I can answer...too many middle men! How is the piracy industry effecting this? It isnt....not in the killing sense. Saying the industry is dying... heck! 3D is expensive no? then what will happen?....smaller films will be kiled off....nowhere to show these independant films. As a independant filmaker/Animator myself...Im agast by this.
March 20, 2005, 10:52 a.m. CST
Digital cameras have already "done in" traditional film as we know it. I grieve the loss. I love movies. I love movies best when I am sitting in a theater with an audience. I see how the easy access to digital media has buried careful attention to the kinds of things for which cinematographers and filmakers had lovingly and expertly cared in the past. Elements such as reproducing real color the way our eyes perceive colors or depth of field the way our eyes perceive depth of field. That is because cameras were originally made to mimic our eyes and film captured it much the way our retinas capture images. This past week alone, I watched 19 movies and only a small percentage, regardless of the budget, showed skill with and fidelity to color and depth. In The Aviator, Scorcese mimics advances in film color technology in film with purpose, talent and art direction. I cannot tell you how many films these days display heavy greens, blues and pinkish flesh tones. I cannot say whether this is done on purpose or it is a byproduct of the digital world and filmakers "settle" for it or whether they think it gives their film an artsy look. Frankly I HATE IT. It makes my eyes hurt and it is distracting. Also good digital movie cameras record in infinite depth of field. That is really cool, BUT, that is not the way our eyes see. Maybe the furture of film will install a chip in the back of heads onto which the movies will be downloaded and then it will override our retinal perception and feed the images directly into our brain. Sound appealing? No thanks! I am all for innovation and I am certainly for easy access for young aspiring artists and film makers. But there is nothing that will "replace" the movie theater experience for me. As for 3-D, well I loved seeing Miss Sadie Thompson (Rain) in 3-D, I also loved seeing that silly Gorilla movie at the Kid's Club in 3-D. Let's just say that Tim & Karrie League have the proper love and respect for movies to make the 3-D venue thing work. It doesn't hurt my eyes or feel like a gimmick. I also enjoyed Ghosts of the Abyss for a view into 3-D Technology from James Cameron. Spy Kids 3, although I enjoyed it, the color palette bothered my eyes. I give kudos to Rodriguez for being innovative and taking the risk to try something new and I really look forward to seeing Sin City for the same reason. But I don't think 3-D is the answer to solving piracy problems. As far as piracy and movies...this is not so much a question of easy access to media as it is a question of ethics and values. The world needs to do something to address these issues rather than coming up with newer technology that can "outrun" the theives. The point is that our society has very little regard for the artist as a visionary or respect for the hard work, talent and expertise that goes into making movies. Everything is all garbled by greed and celebrity worship. Somewhere along the line, the distinction between right and wrong gets blurred. Many people think they are "entitled" to steal something. They think they are justified because so much money gets poured into the entertainment industry. It usually isn't the actual creator of a movie or music who gets the money, it is the studios and distributers who manipulate or "milk" the rights to a movie to the point where they get all the money and everyone else, including the film maker, the crew, and sometimes the actors are are screwed. Somewhere in this greedy world the talent and vision of the film maker is no longer worthy. It is a system put into place by greed and unchecked by internal ethics. As for me. I will always love a good movie as seen in a good movie theater. I am VERY happy that I live in Austin, where the Original Alamo (and now the S. Lamar Alamo) makes it possible to do this on a regular basis...whether in 3-D or not. Being an artist, I will always try to honor the dignity of creativity and vision and love of any art form with my support whether it be to pay for a movie ticket or a heartfelt good wish or word. I sincerely hope the ethics, (or lack of them) in the movie industry changes to make the system more equitable for film makers and movie-goers alike.
...Entered without finishing! ^^ I agree too that the home cinema market has made people sit at home rather than go out...hell I do it! Tickets sales do not lie though....and its apparent that sales are healthy. Stop making lacklustre films...lower your budgets. 3D isnt like sound harry...sound isnt a gimmick.
March 20, 2005, 10:58 a.m. CST
by Slab SquatThrust
Everyone on this talkback has hit it dead on. Most movies coming out right now are terrible. And making "Man of the House - 3D" is not going to get more people into the theater. As many have said, piracy does play a small part, but mostly it is the proliferation of afordable home theater that keeps people out of the cineplex. It can't be stated enough: who wants to throw away $20 to go sit in a room full of jibber-jabberers, crying babies, cell phones ringing, etc and be pulled out of your movie experience? Not me, and it's a shame because I love to see films on the big screen, the way they were intended. I just can't stand the frustration. If the Theater owners could find a way to fix that, many more movie lovers would come out, and probably for repeat viewings. And one other thing: I also think that the rise of television shows like Sopranos, the Shield, Six Feet, etc have had a huge impact. Any given episode of the shield is better than most movies being released these days. So, why pay shitloads of money and put up with the hassels for some 90 min piece of crap like "White Noise" when I can stay at home with the DVD of the Sopranos and enjoy HOURS and HOURS of kick ass writing, acting, and directing?
March 20, 2005, 11 a.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 11:05 a.m. CST
Why spend $18 for two tickets at the theatre, when I can wait four months and buy the DVD for $15.99 at Best Buy and watch it on my 60" screen? Perhaps that's not so good for the box-office take, either.
March 20, 2005, 11:08 a.m. CST
I gotta be honest, the whole 3d thing in movies just doesnt work for me. it *cant* work for me due to one of my eyes being so much weaker than the other, so one is much more dominant that the other - thus making polarized glasses worthless. I imagine i am in some super-small minority here and i doubt me even raising my voice will help to keep this from happening... but damn, if movies go this route i'm not going to be able to enjoy them anymore (with the exception of my current dvd collection)
March 20, 2005, 11:14 a.m. CST
by Mister Man
It's the home-viewing phenominum of the past 20 years that has ruined the theater experience. I gave up going out to films three years ago. My health was at risk, as I bitched out some bitch yacking on her cell phone, and then macho dumb fuck boyfriend pops up and nearly kills me. Complaining to the staff never helps, as they are a bunch of pimply teenagers who don't know Hitch from cock. People have becomed accustomed to sitting at home and carrying on conversations while watching videos on their TV sets. Children were raised in such a manner, and now they behave accordingly in public. Frankly, I don't even allow people to chat when I'm watching a movie at home. Do any of you remember watching movies in the 60s and 70s???? People actually shut the fuck up. Screens still had curtains then - even in small towns. They'd close the curtains between the previews and the feature, to add a special feel to the presentation. I've worked in this industry for 20 years, but I refuse to see a film till the DVD release. On the topic - 3D is fine, as long as the content isn't completely formulated to fit the concept.
March 20, 2005, 11:16 a.m. CST
by Mister Man
No more Bloody Mary's.
March 20, 2005, 11:23 a.m. CST
...jagoff pimply faced kids downloading movies isn't what's wrong with movies these days (most kids that I know that do it (and there's only a few) often go and see it in the theater anyways if it's a good movie...) My biggest problem with going to see a movie, and why I don't go see more, is that you will -always- have idiots in the audience, especially where I live. People on the phone, Laquisha and Latrina talking through the whole thing, teenagers throwing candy at people, babies and toddlers crying (usually in an R rated movie for some reason). And if you complain to any of these people they think YOU'RE the one with the problem, or worse, they'll want to "fight ya". Not only that, but even the best theater in my town (only a few years old) -always- has technical problems... focus problems, sound glitches, broken air conditioners (or air conditioners that work too much)... Oh, and calling ahead for a movie time, seeing it on the board at that time at the theater, and then being told that there isn't one playing at the time.... should I go on?... Going to the movies these days just SUCKS. You can put it in 3D all you want, the idiots around you will still make sure your experience blows.
March 20, 2005, 11:26 a.m. CST
As Harry said, he screened one of the great 3D films, Miss Sadie Thompson in 3D, at BNAT 6 this past December. The film featured NO moments where something "came right at you" or "was going to hit you" Nothing came out of the screen, there were exactly ZERO gimmick shots. What it DID feature was a backdrop in the south pacific, glorious, breathtaking images of a truly beautiful place. It featured performances that literally danced in front of your eyes. SIDEWAYS would be a PERFECT film for the new 3D. A movie about people,and relationships, and uglyness, set in the middle of the unbelievable beauty of the California wine country? The scene where the two men run off into the winery? In 3D, this would be deep, unbelievably beautiful. The contrast that Payne was going for, and achieved would only be heightened in polarized 3D. Get past the gimmick people. Are you SO stuck in your thinking of Freddy and Jaws and Red/Blue 3D that you can't grasp the idea of beautiful images with real depth?
March 20, 2005, 11:29 a.m. CST
Using piracy as a reason to cite the death of film is ridiculous! You have to go all the way back to 1991 to find a "down" year at the box office when compared to the year before. In fact, since 1980, there have only been 4 "down" years!! That's a helluva way to describe a dying industry! Methinks Harry doth protest too much! Besides, do you really think that just because some directors decide to talk about how cool 3D is, that every studio will suddenly bow down to them? Hell, Lucas is the only one that can finance his own flicks on a regular basis. The rest of them still need studio $$. So call me when you get 3 or 4 studio heads together to proclaim 3D is the next sliced bread! Like so many others have said here, studios care about how quickly they can recoup the cost of a film with minimal marketing before they move into the profit phase. Nothing is going to change until we have several more of those "down" years! FYI, since there's no point to stating facts unless you cite a source, I used boxofficemojo.com/yearly for my figures. And the next time any of you see Uncle George, howzabout asking an important question for once? Like, "How come we never got a sequel to Willow?"
March 20, 2005, 11:29 a.m. CST
How about making movies that are actually GOOD. Enough of this crass commercialism. For every "Shawshank Redemption," there's ten "My Boss's Daughter"s. There's no soul in Hollywood anymore. It's all about the money. The second Hollywood starts making quality product again, it should all fall into place. But maybe "Shawshank" was a bad example. It only made 20-some million at the box office. But it has long since recouped that on video. Nevermind. I don't have the answers. I just know that it needs fixing. And don't even get me started on the state of radio/music.
March 20, 2005, 11:33 a.m. CST
While there are some film that I think would not benefit from such a process, I think the concept of seeing film done without the sight gags, that just ad a level of reality to what your watching is an intriguing idea. I'm sure there are movies that will be absolutely breathtaking.
March 20, 2005, 11:37 a.m. CST
...on film lovers everywhere. Yeah I've seen 3d imax, numerous times, and you know what it really is? A fucking gimmick, that's what. And one that underneath it all had no substance or impact, and didn't aid actual film making, artistry or filmic enjoyment one bit. Sure first time through it's fun for something different, but the novelty value soon wears off, and all you have left then is the gimmick itself, and more often than not a wafer thin film behind it, usually designed to be a visual feast, but real light on an sort of actual emotional or intellectual or even just plain fun filmmaking. **************************************************************************** And even if the films themselves underneath all this gimmickry do turn out to be good, praising a system that is being designed to kill the home market for all but the richest of technophiles, creating a whole bunch of films that we won't be able to see and enjoy at home or at our own convenience, but instead will have to travel to specially designed and authorized cinemas and pay ticket prices with every single viewing that we wish to have, and will have to a) rely solely on those theatres discretion on what to play and when, and b) most of us will probably have to travel far and wide just to find a cinema running this technology (and running it well) in the first place, yeah, that's quite a accomplishment right there. And an elistist, money grubbing one at that. Yeah, sign me up. Sign me up for a system where no longer will we easily be able to own a little piece of the films that we love, and be able to own and watch them at our convenience, as through this technology, we the film fans, have been cut out of the loop and reduced to nothing more than a ticket stub and source of repeat income any time we want to enjoy these films. Yeah, that's quite the triumph to be heralding alright. **************************************************************************** Now I'm not here to say the sky is falling, but I will say that your propoganda has a hell of a lot of holes in it, and personally I don't see this as the answer, but instead yet another problem, but at the same time I don't think we have too much to worry about. I'm sure there will be a big push forward with this stuff, but I don't think it's going to prove to be the next big thing, or replace film and the cinema experience as we know it. I forsee this going the same way as IMAX (the last, next big thing) did, a niche market that people check out, initially in droves, but on which the gimmick soon wears off as people get bored with it all. Sure, it'll prove popular initially, but it'll be an also ran, something that exists alongside regular cinema, just like IMAX does today, it won't replace it, no matter how hard certain film makers get behind it and try to push the technology. Because what certain people seem to fail to realise is, that at the end of the day, it's not about the technology being used, it's about the films themselves, the story, the characters, that's what we fall in love with. That's what sweeps us up, envelopes us and takes us away. That's where we connect to films. The method of technology used to deliver that, honestly, to most people, is irrelevant. I think some film makers could do with a reminder of that fact. My thoughts anyways.
March 20, 2005, 11:39 a.m. CST
Harry, you don't remember me, but I knew you before you were born and for a short while after (before I left Austin). Your parents and I attended the Dallas comic book/science fiction/film convention D-Con '73 together. There, they showed in marvelous 3D: "The French Line" "Outlaw Territory" "Dangerous Mission" "Cat-Women of the Moon" "Devil's Canyon" etc. It was a gimmick in the 1950's, it was a wonderful gimmick to see them again. Getting film to synchronize across two projectors was nearly impossible, because film will break. The single projector system allieviates this problem, but does not stop the idiocy of having to wear the glasses. Richard Felix and other crackpot inventors have been working on 3D imaging systems for at least three decades. mainly under grants from the US military, for imaging systems to see the enemy's range... they are working specifically to create a system which would not use glasses on any viewer. So far, the results are good for one viewer, but off-axis viewing suffers greatly. 3D television is also part of their research (with the cooperation of the military -- patents & licensing might pay for a war or two)... costs of placing this in theaters (combined with the horrible treatment patrons get from both theater employees and other "patrons") would most likely remain prohibitive, but home units would initially cost little more than twice what the very first HDTVs did... The film industry needs to keep up their movement to quick DVD/cable/satellite/internet & other high-resolution delivery to homes for their long-term profits, rather than mass cattle corrals for popcorn throwers, drink spillers, back-of-seat kickers, conversationalists, and just plain running-around infants... ... Theaters are temples, churches, cathedrals; places to worship the art of cinema. But nobody seems to want to pay attention in church anymore. ----- 3D TV? Eventually, yes. 3D film in theaters? Not likely, unless the theaters can afford the change-over and the policing of filmgoers' behavior.
March 20, 2005, 11:40 a.m. CST
While 3d stands to propel movies into a new land of coolness, I agree that the internet has less to do with the problems of movie going than those obnoxious fucks who don't know HOW to see a movie. My town just lost its best theater because of newer ones out in the suburbs. Those new "cool" theaters are flooded with stoned/drunk 16 year olds lookin' to hook up with some 8th grade chick. That's what ruins the movie for me.
March 20, 2005, 11:43 a.m. CST
No more piracy! Put an end to piracy! WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT PIRACY? Not everyone is fortunate. Not everyone or everyone's family can afford to see theatrical release after theatrical release, or buy every DVD that comes along. "Manny Perry makes movies." I BARF WHEN I SEE THIS TRAILER. I love movie magic and pay for what I get. But I see NOTHING wrong with the less fortunate resorting to other alternatives to experience these things, albeit in a lesser or unscrupulous manner. LIKE THE GODDAMN PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY DONT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY. You facist eliteist greed whoring overpaids, I think you can let people pirate. Besides, I doubt you can ever stop it. Entertainers make more than they should, when our Social Security, health care, and general economy is shit.
March 20, 2005, 11:46 a.m. CST
...you are a boot-licking, ugly NOTHING, whose opinions (KEY POINT: OPINIONS) weigh no more than anyone else's because you run a ragged site. Why don't you suck the dick of the industry a little more and have a cholesterol, non-exercising heart attack and do us all a favor. Consider me going elsewhere for information after these little ignorant piracy comments.
March 20, 2005, 11:50 a.m. CST
I am really enjoying these thoughtful and thought-provoking posts. Best I've seen in a long, long time. More!
March 20, 2005, 11:51 a.m. CST
...and now film is dying? Wrong again, Harry. It will never die because filmmakers unlike yourself realize the benefits over digital. Stick to what you know; writing biased reviews and getting paid trips and gifts from studios to like their films.
March 20, 2005, 11:54 a.m. CST
...That is, damn fine talkback UNTIL jedimast3r posted...
March 20, 2005, 11:55 a.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST
I just bought a new HD TV with a bunch of other Home Theatre perks this past X-mas. Why? Because of the reasons many have stated here about the peoples attitudes in Theatres. I also agree that the 3D thing is a Gimmick, and doesn't work on every film. And, I also agree that too much is made about the Piracy thing, concidering to me it came off as a fad, and with the quality you get from DVD and HD, why would you want to spend 8 hours downloading something so you can watch it in a 4 x 8 box on your computer screen? I had friends that downloaded all the big recently released flicks, but they dont do it anymore because they got fed up with the shitty quality. I do feel Harry's on the right track by saying studios have to offer something different to get people in the seats, but I think it should have to do with the quality and veiwing exsperince you get in the movies, than any special gimmicks.
March 20, 2005, 11:59 a.m. CST
Lol, Harry Rocks!
March 20, 2005, 12:04 p.m. CST
Or if you had "booths" to block out the losers around you? From what Im reading, it sounds like people are more fed up with the Theatres themselves than anything to do with the film itself.
March 20, 2005, 12:06 p.m. CST
But I think Harry is absolutely right this time. 3D is the natural evolution of entertainment - interactive AND passive. Stereoscopic solutions for games have been available for many years, I've even used a few and LOVED the ones that actually worked. Good 3D is absolutely mindblowing - and will go a very long way to sucking audiences into the film. Furthermore, it actually WILL single-handedly end film piracy. I can't wait for this to really become THE mainstream.
March 20, 2005, 12:10 p.m. CST
I wanna see Gone with the Wing (the hilarious sequel to Chicken Run) too. I wanna see it in 3-D.
March 20, 2005, 12:18 p.m. CST
by Bob Parr
March 20, 2005, 12:19 p.m. CST
by Gheorghe Zamfir
But its not piracy, its simply home entertainment. Sure, movie attendance is down, but DVD sales and rentals are consistently rising, film isn't anywhere near dying. Like it or not, the next evolution of film isn't the next movie theater gimmick, its home entertainment. You want to know where movies will be in 300 years? They'll be in our homes. Point in fact, 3D may be neat, but it won't be something that really catches on until they find away to carry that experience to DVD sales. Though frankly even if 3D is a super mega wonderful thing, it won't make a lick of difference to this idea that "film is dying." There is a specific kind of movie that has something to gain from 3D, the big event blockbuster special effects type of movies, and whatever general attendance may be, these kind of movies haven't been suffering at all, these aren't the movies that are dying (though in a lot of cases they should be) and these aren't the movies that need saving. The kind of movies that are struggling are also the kind that won't see any benefit with 3D technology.
March 20, 2005, 12:21 p.m. CST
In the 1980s, the Hong Kong film industry was incredibly vibrant and growing - making over 300 films per year. This year, the industry will make about 60 films - and falling. It's directly attributable to piracy. And most of this has been the "lesser" piracy of VCDs - where you still had to go buy something, even though it was cheaper, and the quality was terrible. Didn't happen to us because the VCD was never popular here, as it was in Asia from the mid-nineties on. Now, as broadband and hard drives are just getting to the point where it will become feasable to start downloading movies en masse, piracy is even more dangerous. Soon you'll easily be able to get movies for FREE, from the comfort of your own home, and they'll be perfect DVD quality replicas you can burn on DVD and watch on your home theater system. If this catches on, we simply won't have movies anymore. The economics are simple. Music is bad enough, but it's one thing - you can lay a song down on a CD for a thousand dollars easy these days. But the average Hollywood movie costs $60 million. Start taking away revenue from that and you simply won't have investors putting anymore money in for films. They'll simply stop being made. Hell, even a quality independent film often costs over a million bucks. Piracy will take a huge bite out of the ability of those films to get made, too. It will simply destroy films if we allow it to. And the people hurt the most won't be "evil coroporations", it'll be the tens of thousands of crew and their families who have no more work. It'll be the moviegoing public. It'll be the families who won't get to have memories of going to see movies together in the theater, as I'm sure most of us have now. And all because peopel have some sense of "entitlement" here. Like they're "owed" a movie for free if they don't want to pay for it. And they invent all sorts of rationalizations for it - "If they made better movies! They're all rich anyway!" and blah blah blah. The facts are, they have made a product, and set a price. If you don't think that price is worth it, then don't buy it. It's completely voluntary. Nobody is forcing you. But you DO NOT have the right to violate the social contract and then STEAL the product because you don't like the quality or the price. Don't watch it, and watch something else, or nothing at all. Tell your friends not to, either, if that makes you happy. But don't steal. If the product is worth it to you, then you will shell out the asking price. If not, you won't. Very simple and fair for all. Go around that "because you can", and you're screwing a whole lot of people - hardly any of them "the rich". You'll also just be assuring that we won't have movies anymore - at least not any of any quality. Take the profit out of it, and there's no reason to blow so much money and time to make any film. We must get a handle on this piracy issue or sites like this won't even have a reason to exist, because there will be no more movie industry to support it.
March 20, 2005, 12:27 p.m. CST
Most of the directors talking up 3D and digital are vain hacks primarily concerned with being remembered as pioneer iconoclasts. They complain that cinemas are 'still using technology that is over 100 years old,' and therefore must be changed. Why? Firstly, that little sound-bite side-steps all the constant hardware advancements and refinements that have occured throughout the history of the cinema, reducing it all to an homogenous century of 'a photochemical process' and 'frames passing in front of light' and secondly the assumption has been made that the narrative of cinema itself will always be as predictable as one of these guys' movies. 'When radio came in, theatres came back with sound, when TV came in theatres came back with more colour and cinemascope' etc etc and now it apparently must follow that digital and 3D must become the standards because of better home cinema. The theatres need to fight back - the studios want to use them as prestige publicity for the DVD release on a 10 - 20% share of the box office? They need to be told to fuck off. The theatres should randomly pick 2 studios to boycott until the model is re-negotiated. What is rarely mentioned is that the studios' vulnerability to piracy at their end hurts the picture houses, not just the picture makers. But the theatres too have their responsibilities to keep their customers comfortable and to keep their screenings unpirated. 3D and digital - and celluloid - are tools to be used in creation of movies, not stages of progress. 3D, as pretty much everyone here seems to agree, is a gimmick. People who advocate it as the future reveal their weakness as self-appointed cultural leaders. Cameron and Lucas are like lame-duck Presidents concerned only with their legacy in a history that will treat their actual works with contempt. But it is worse than change for the sake of the new. Don't forget that these guys only want you to go the cinema 3 times a year - and Cameron has publicly argued for charging you double for the pleasure. They aren't thinking of cinema as a broad church, they are thinking of themselves, their wallets and their waistlines. Why scrap the wheel?
March 20, 2005, 12:28 p.m. CST
Okay, even if the images don't "come at you" out of the screen it would STILL be a gimmick. When I listen to the conversations between these wonderful characters I don't want to be distracted by "oh look how great that depth of field is". 3D is just a special effect. It's great for spectacle but can add nothing to a story. Like any special effect it would be horribly distracting during thoughtful or emotional scenes. And it most definitely is NOT "beautiful images with real depth". It's not real depth - it's SIMULATED depth. I enjoy the real thing in everyday life but for movies 2D is surely the preferred option. And I do hope that this does remain a limited technology like IMAX. But remember what Lucas achieved with THX - he only let cinemas with the required level of sound equipment to screen Episode 1 and they all signed up. If Lucas and Cameron insist that Star Wars re-releases and Battle Angel Alita can only be shown in 3D then the cinemas may sign up in droves. Then studios would be compelled to make blockbusters in 3D to recoup the investment, putting subtle emotional moments in blockbusters at risk since they are not enhanced one iota by 3D. Smaller films would still be in 2D but there's a danger that 3D could cause virtually all blockbusters to get even dumber than they are now. And if 3D succeeds in the bigger films it may eventually have the kind of impact on all films that other technologies developed for big releases once had - sound and colour. I hope that 2D films never become as rare as silent and black-and-white films, but in 20 years' time who knows?
March 20, 2005, 12:32 p.m. CST
This reaction is based on the assumption that 3D films cannot be recorded when all that's needed is a polarizing filter on the camcorder lens. Hell, someone could hold one eye of the 3D glasses over the lens with the small cams. Stopping piracy with 3D...mmm, yeah.
March 20, 2005, 12:33 p.m. CST
by darth kubrick
off of film to say that its dying. Now, if some hack at the Independent Spirit Awards had said, maybe I'd buy it.
March 20, 2005, 12:38 p.m. CST
by Bob Parr
The major studios are all owned by giant, global corporations. Giant, global corporations are in business to make money. Although it seems that some films are enormously profitable, their profits are very small compared to the billions these corporations make each year. If the big corporation is losin money in the film busines, they will either get out or change the film business. ******** I would also like to respond to the idea that just as many bad films were made back in the day. Right now, the number of films produced by the major studios is well over 200 a year. In the 50s, the studios never produced anywhere near that many feaure films. Movies were exhibited in theaters very much like going to see live theater today (funny, but you don't have the same probelms in the audiences in live theaer). The number of films that range from being merely mediocre to being truly terrible is astounding. The bottom line is people don' respect film as an art form anymore. The only look at it as mindless entertainment.
March 20, 2005, 12:43 p.m. CST
Until people realize what the technology is really good for and the killer apps start appearing. Moving pictures used to be a gimmick. Then sound was a gimmick. Everything's just a novelty item at first. Video games used to be a cute little diversion you gound at your local arcade/pizza joint/whatever. Look, you move this stick and the paddle goes up and down! Now they're a multibillion-dollar-a-year industry rivaling the movies and are in a ludicrous percentage of American homes. To say that 3D will always be a gimmick or a novelty is extremely shortsighted to say the least. All it needs is a chance, and with these directors involved, it just might get that chance.
March 20, 2005, 12:44 p.m. CST
by Bob Parr
The idea that piracy is OK because poor people can't afford to go to the movies or buy DVDs is ridiculous. The profile of people in poverty is they tend to spend money on entertaining themselves instead of taking responsibility for the things they need. It's not uncommon for people in poverty to have the most expensive level of cable TV and not have any insurance. Plus, when I go to the movies, to the video rental store, or the electronics store, there are some prett poor looking people there.
March 20, 2005, 12:48 p.m. CST
Pirated DVDs these days don't come in the form of a movie being taped in the cinema. The come these days as DVDs made from the source materials, from inhouse copies of the movies, with clear pictures and sound, just as it would appear on a real DVD. That's because pirates these days take the materials from the studios, maybe they pay one guy enough to sneak them a copy, etc. And they don't come as videocam recordings, because pirated DVDs are usually available BEFORE the movies are realased in cinemas. Oh, and for the record, I don't buy pirated movies, if I'm going to pay, I want quality, and the real deal, and see it in the cinema, then hold a real DVD in my hand a bit later.
March 20, 2005, 12:53 p.m. CST
That "Poor people can download movies for free" comment is retarded. Why, because the computer, cable connection, software to format the movies, and all the bells and whistles make movie downloading not anymore cost effective than going to the movies or buying a DVD. If your downloading movies for free, its because your cheap and lazy, nothing more. Poor people do go to the movies, hence the people that drag 4 kids with them to see an R rated movie because they cant afford a babysitter.
March 20, 2005, 12:59 p.m. CST
99% of ripped films I've seen, up till 2 weeks ago, are a far fucking cry from DVD quality. It comes down to being too cheap and lazy to go to the movies. Nothing more. Hey, I've been cheap and Lazy at times, its just if I want to see something bad enough, I'll pay to see it.
March 20, 2005, 1:07 p.m. CST
by SLEAZY DINOSAUR
I don't go to the movies as much, but it's because of the ever rising ticket prices, even the matinee prices here are almost 7 dollars. Once you buy a ticket for yourself, and your date, your in anywhere from 14 to 19 dollars, and the movie might not be that great. I used to go every weekend during the summer, but now, not so much. They also have almost 30 minutes of commercials before the movie, which seems to me should be keeping the prices down. 3D won't get me back in the theatre more often, lower ticket prices will.
March 20, 2005, 1:10 p.m. CST
...since every other reply is "I'd rather watch movies at home" Thus, the theatre "experience" is changing and in danger if hard-core movie geeks (which a person probably is if they post on this site) are saying this. Look what happened to videogames - you used to have to go out in PUBLIC (gasp!) to an arcade to play the best stuff. Then home systems riveled arcade quality (just like DVDs and home theatres sort of rival theatres now) and boom - arcades are practically extinct. Anyway back to movies, while BO sales have increased over the years the movie budgets have gone up even more. Merely 8 years everyone thought $200 million for Titanic was an utter diaster, now that's the standard cost of a major summer release (i, Robot, Van Helsin, Spiderman 2, WOTW) Not including marketing! And why do you think concessions cost so much? That's pretty much where all the theatres profits come from! See when these studios release big movies they want like 80% of the BO for the first week, 70% the next etc. The idea is the longer the theatre keeps the movie the more THEY make rather than the studio. Problem is, movies only stay in theatres 3-4 weeks now! The result? Popcorn goes up in price! Alright, so what if DVD/HD-DVD whatever causes theatres to die and the studios revenue only comes from home video? The prices will go through the roof or the quality will fall through the basement. (Think every crap-ass Disney "direct to DVD movie") While the theatre portion of a movie's overall gross is diminishing it's STILL a significant portion which may not pay for eveything but might, perhaps, cover the marketing campaign (which also pre-increases awareness of the DVD) and a good portion of the budget. And the rest? Ok, NOW we're into overseas piracy and how it affects things. Let's take I, Robot for example. Near $200 mil cost, $150 take domestic BO so they probably made $80-$100 on that. $100 mil short (plus $50-$75 mil marketing) Where does this $175 mil come from? OVERSEAS! Where a movie can double its US profits! But now that's being hurt by piracy (and a LOT of people live in Asia) So instead of filming breaking even on their worldwide theatrical run they'll need to break even (and THEN maybe make a profit) on DVD, increasing the cost. Bottom line: if you like "big" movies with spectacle (a la LOTR) you'd better HOPE theatres stay around. Boy this is a long post, but it's a Sunday! As for seeing stuff on DVD/home video I'd rather see a movie I hate for $7.50 than spend $15.00 on it or (shudder/horror) rent it (which is approaching seeing it in the theatre in cost) Ok one last thing. Cameron is a man-god and if he thinks 3D is the future well I believe him. Why is it a gimmick? The whole universe is in 3D for Christ's sake! Is it a gimmick to have 2 eyeballs? Live theatre is 3D, is that a gimmick? It's just another example of technology creating "representations" of reality that are a little closer to real. B&W to color, sound on movies... (The Nintendo DS, now THAT's a gimmick!) Finally the filmmakers hyping 3D, well, they seem to know their shit when it comes to technology and how it can be used with a story (Ok, Lucas not so much so now but at a time...) One more thing about digital cinema - not having to distribute physical film prints would save the average big movie millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars. If they could somehow pass that savings onto theatres in the short-term as "digital conversion incentives" they could reap the profits later on once the technology was established. Even if they shipped the discs (to avoid online piracy) that's cheaper than shipping 60+ pounds of film.
March 20, 2005, 1:20 p.m. CST
I have pirated several movies. In fact, Mori brought to my attention a few years ago that a workprint of Hulk was available on line. Did I download it? Hell yes. Watched it too. I also saw it in the theatre. I just thought it was funny that Harry will preach about piracy and yet he has also benefited from other shady tactics. You silly bastard Harry.
March 20, 2005, 1:26 p.m. CST
by Bob Parr
March 20, 2005, 1:30 p.m. CST
there are some good reasons to oppose movie piracy, but using uncredible arguments surely undermines such an opinion.
March 20, 2005, 1:43 p.m. CST
...your views on Piracy (which I dont condone). It doesnt take the fact away that huge quantities of money is wasted on piss poor productions. That large payments are made to actors who frankly cant act...all this from a industry thats "dying"? HK film industry is nowhere as huge as what Hollywood is.
March 20, 2005, 1:43 p.m. CST
by Jack Parsons
Film is not, not, NOT dying, and they are not losing money from movie downloads. Downloaders wouldn't pay if it weren't free, so it comes down to a marketing expense of ZERO. It's about control freakery, not money. People copied tapes for decades, and the music industry is fatter and wealthier than ever. Ditto CD's: the "loss" cited by the RIAA a couple of years ago was caused by a voluntary and undisclosed reduction in low-volume production of non-sellers, not downloads. Their accounting tricks are legendary. Contrary to the MPAA's assertions in 1984, VCR's did not destroy the movie industry as Valenti predicted. We've been copying video tapes the world over for over 20 years, and the movie industry prospers. DVD controls were cracked, and revenue from DVD's now outstrip US box office profits. Downloads of current flicks are flying (slowly) across the world, and box office grosses have never been higher. Harry, don't drink the industry Kool-Aid. People go to the theater for the experience of seeing forty foot tall movies with hundreds of their friends, not to see "content". 3D will come to theaters, slowly, but it will also be brought to home systems as well, then cracked and copied. And the movie industry will thrive as usual. To mention why people hate the lying bookkeepers who just got Orrin Hatch to lead the war against technology, Stan Lee just won a verdict against Sony et al for profit share in Spider-Man. The movie company's claim: SPIDER-MAN MADE NO NET PROFIT. Copy away.
March 20, 2005, 1:45 p.m. CST
Anyone been to Disney? I was recently there and they have 3D movies there too... but... they call them 4D. Maybe this is the future that people envision... me im not too sure. It just seems a little gimmicky for me.. fun... but the novelty could wear off. In their 3D / 4D movies there is interaction from film to audience. Weather its a sprinkle of water, bubbles, air, or sound they bring the audience into the movie like no other 3D out there. Its fun... just not sure how long something like that would last for. Anyways.... 3D is fun... I like 3D but I wouldnt want all movies made this way.
March 20, 2005, 1:46 p.m. CST
I have to admit I
March 20, 2005, 1:50 p.m. CST
fewer people are going to films
March 20, 2005, 1:51 p.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 2:14 p.m. CST
by Kentucky Colonel
Don't you mean "Gone with the X-Wing"? Or are you referencing all that cash fanboys spend on the latest Lucas merchendise: X-Wing figuter, now with Dagobah goo! Or X-Wing Fighter: now with Wedge's wing sticker! Or, more likely, some promotion from Hooters: Free Star Wars Tickets if you can eat 1000 wings in an hour! Gotta love that last one, eh? Anybody? And as far as film dying, gimme a fucking break! The only thing that's dying are these piece of shit formula movies (well, not all of them but we can hope!). If anything is being lost it's backend profit. Thirty years ago a movie made it's bones in the theater, and if you ever wanted to see it again you'd either have to settle for seeing it on Saturday afternoon on your local independent channel (Thank You WDRB-41 in Louisville for all those Saturday Godzilla marathons!!!) or maybe it would get re-released every 10 years or so back into the filmhouses. The only backend you could count on was either soundtrack sales or novelization/picture books from the movie. So some hollywood hotshot might only make $20 million from his latest picture. Boo-Hoo. I am lucky if I break $40.000 a year working my ass off. Fuck them and their jillion dollar homes, throwaway bitches and all that wasted cash. Fuck them. Fuck them uo their fucking asses. BTW-I don't pirates movies, either. I TiVo FMC & TCM, though!
March 20, 2005, 2:19 p.m. CST
Reefer...at least it did for The Polar Express :O
March 20, 2005, 2:20 p.m. CST
So, yah, don't blame it all on piracy. I do agree cinema needs a swift kick in the ass, and it'll be fun, but I doubt it'll completely take over regular 2D movies
March 20, 2005, 2:22 p.m. CST
Okay, so Lucas says he want to release Star Wars in 3D for its 30th anniversary. I'm ALL for that. Yup, even the purist in me wants to see the battle of the Death Star happening in 3D. Following on from that, he's going to release each of the six films in 3D at the rate of one per year ? Okay...I'm up for that. Does this mean that the superdupermultiwhammy all six films extreme one time before they're gone for all time box set won't actually be released until what.... 2013 ?? And it'll be in 3D. Wow, I'd like to see that. For all the advances in theater presentation of 3D films - the home viewer is hardly going to be able to get the same experience without a substantial financial outlay. I have a copy in my film library of Freddy's Dead - The Final Nightmare. The original 3D sequences are on it, and it came with the special 3D Freddyvision glasses. My point is this - by the time your eyes get used to the 3D, the relatively short 3D sequence is over so you never get the benefit of it without rewinding. Now, if Lucas, Cameron, Zemekis & co can utilise the same technology they use in shows like The Terminator, Honey I Shrank the Audience etc that's great...especially if it reaches us here on the outer rim...but what about affordable 3D renditions at home ? It's as likely as a home IMAX system - Ain't gonna happen !
March 20, 2005, 2:34 p.m. CST
Joe Hallenbeck, anyone? Hello?
March 20, 2005, 2:34 p.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 2:41 p.m. CST
by Kentucky Colonel
Lemme see, $20 just to get in the door, $5 for a SODA (!!!), $8 for popcorn and lets not forget gas and occasionally parking (I live in DC, these are REAL BIG CONCERNS here). Now, if we have dinner beforehand that's another $20 on the cheap, $50 done nicely. For that same $100 I can put it towards my 60" plasma and Barcolounger and not have to worry about the loud, offensive and (yes) smelly people around me. I saw two movies at the AMC in Arlington last year, and they were both "The Incredibles". Yeah Hollywood, time to take a paycut before you price yourself out of an audience and everything goes straight to video. Oh wait, that would be a GOOD THING!
March 20, 2005, 2:42 p.m. CST
I don't understand why my home DLP Digital Projector can't project these 3D images. Harry said "they can project 2 different images at the same time". However, the refresh rate of my projector is 60 Hz, standard film is 24 fps, so technically can't my projector display 24 alternating frames in one second? To the eye, isn't this virtually the same thing? What am i missing here. Thanks to anyone who can help
March 20, 2005, 2:47 p.m. CST
What happens when you watch 3D? When elements take you off the screen and you look at them to your left or right or up and down you see the theater. It takes you right out of the story. The best 3D I've ever seen was Terminator 3D at Universal. They have 3 screens, 1 in front and 1 to the left and right and it still isn't good enough. If this is supposed to be an answer to piracy it is laughable. I'm sure if you asked the majority if people would say the theater if is the best way to see a movie. If movies cost as much as renting, people would go more. If movies were better and people felt they were getting their money's worth, they'd go more. It's not that hard to figure out.
March 20, 2005, 2:49 p.m. CST
Like right after Cameron Diaz signs a contract for 30 mil to make 1 film, she could do a PSA on how, if movies weren't pirated, she could have gotten 50 mil. Or maybe George Lucas could do one after ROTS comes out. Gee, maybe we should always compromise technology for business. If the business can't figure out how to make money with the current state of technology, then they shouldn't be in the business. TV and Radio grew to giants because it was free in households everywhere. And then, they figured out how to make even more money by offering a better version in subscription form. Didn't Harvard just do a study on how internet piracy and determine that most of the people who download movies and music wouldn't buy the product to begin with. If you really want to combat piracy, lower the prices.
March 20, 2005, 2:55 p.m. CST
The industry always cries wolf when new technology arrives until some company finds out how to capitilize on it...as for Hong Kong, blame the Triad. It's not like these DVD labs are being run from some dude's mac. It's a worldwide business that they make a mint on...also, here's a little factiod Harry - China is not a free market. It has no history in respecting copyright or intellectual property - ever. Piracy, in all forms, has been allowed by the Chinese government as a way to de-value western products...so how hypocritical is it to be some milionaire leftist who openly dislikes America's captialist-corporate structure in other industries, but will bellow when the far left does not obey the regulations of your industry...this is a joke as bad as Moriarty's Hulk blunder...this site pirated screenplays for notiriety over years...but now because you're hooked into the studios, outlooks have changed...it's fucking gluttony...try and have a little consistency...I can't wait for the day when Knowles comes out against buying DVD's from other regions and using R0 players...it's only a matter of time.
March 20, 2005, 2:56 p.m. CST
Now we're talking - you want to go to the theater? Great. You want to watch a flick at home, great. We need to be able to do both. That will end piracy.
March 20, 2005, 2:57 p.m. CST
I'm sooooo fucking tired of this issue!!! There is NO DEBATE!!! Piracy is the theft of SOMEON ELSE'S property, PERIOD!!!!!! Quit trying to snake around the subject with your 'clever' arguments...how would you feel if you invited someone to your home, only to notice after they left, they had taken something of yours?!?!?! Quit making excuses for crimes!
March 20, 2005, 3:06 p.m. CST
by Right Bastard
1) Harry, why don't we start by colorizing all those old noir that you love so much? Yes, I do listen to most of the old films in mono, given the choice, because many of the people who remaster to 5.1 do a terrible job. 2) You will never stop piracy. Build a better moustrap, the mice will still get the cheese. I don't support most movie piracy (unless it's a Brukheimen piece of crap). I view it the way I view music trading. If you want to take the mindless coporate crap, do so; but in return you should pay for the little indepentdent and intellegent films. I also think if they want us to weep for the crew, like all of those commercials claim, then they can cut Tom Cruise's salary by 1/4 and distribute the millions among the little folks.
March 20, 2005, 3:15 p.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 3:17 p.m. CST
The ratio of good-to-bad films doesn't vary nearly as much as you may think. Every year has its good and its bad. You can't possibly put forward "Hollywood is making crap films, and they've been doing it a lot, especially since broadband went into wide use" as an argument and not sound like a dick. Piracy is the problem here.
March 20, 2005, 3:19 p.m. CST
by Right Bastard
I agree with others here, it's the theater that killed the theater going experience. The multiplex killed cinima. 1) Screnes so small that even my 26" T.V. is more impressive, 2) theaters going on the cheap, and not turning on the Surround Sound on shows that don't sell well, 3) sitting through 15 minutes of commercials and 15 minutes of previews before the movie starts, 4) patrons who no longer distinguish between a theatrical experience and watching a movie at home, and are incapable of shutting up or bathing, 5) $5 for a Reeses? On what planet would you ever pay for that? 6) Too cheap to turn on the ventilation, we get stuck in theaters that smell like stale popcorn butter and b.o. I really want to see Sin City in a few weeks, but after the experience seeing Constantine, with a theater filled with snikering idiots, it really makes me dread going to see that film. I'm praying that it's going to be at the indie theater with the real butter pop corn, pristine sound system, and espresso stand.
March 20, 2005, 3:23 p.m. CST
by Right Bastard
You're right. It doesn't vary much. About 50 bad films for every good film. About 30 o.k. film (that are really bad when you think about it) for every good film.
March 20, 2005, 3:30 p.m. CST
It's 5 minutes of tech ads that are supposed to be started 5 minutes before the scheduled time, that way the green screen for the first preview goes up exactly at the scheduled start time. When the theatre i work at gets a technicolor sheet, it tells us to make sure we start the movie the length of the tech ads early. So if its 7 minutes of commercials, we start the movie 7 minutes early. Considering the lights dont go down for them and most ppl just talk through them anyway, I don't think its anywhere near as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Just my opinion.
March 20, 2005, 3:42 p.m. CST
I've seen two CGI movies in Imax 3-D and the effect was amazing! I don't know about live action films in 3-D...I haven't seen that done well yet, even at IMAX (T-Rex sucked). But I'm all for more CGI 3-D films.
March 20, 2005, 3:46 p.m. CST
Dumb, horny teenagers will always support bad films and bad theaters...they need somewhere go to on dates to and movies are #1 on their list. I agree that going to the theater is a pain with the 10 minutes of commercials, 15 minutes of previews, overpriced concessions, etc, etc. But the kids will keep coming back which is why most films are made for them, not for older, more intelligent people.
March 20, 2005, 3:48 p.m. CST
by Right Bastard
Theater experience aside, I just don't want to see anyone fucking with these old movies. Even if it's their own movie. I don't want to see Black and White movies colorized, and I don't want to see 2001 in 3D. I'll jump at the chance to see NEW movies in 3D, but please Leave These Old Films Alone. (Fine, restore the prints before they disintigrate; but that's an entirely different issue).
March 20, 2005, 3:48 p.m. CST
Please! I challenge any one of you TB'ers to provide a link with figures that proves piracy is costing the film industry money! You can't do it, because it's not true!! It's just the "excuse du jour" for the studios to justify their raping of the theatre owners. In turn, the theatre owners pass the violation down to us... Unfortunately, the receipts show that we are perfectly willing to take it! Until we start to speak to Hollywood with our wallets, things will never change. (pissed cuz UConn lost!)
March 20, 2005, 3:54 p.m. CST
This is what I am hearing here: 1) 3-D is a gimmick and is no substitute for good film making and probably not the answer for piracy either. 2) The Multiplex experience sucks because the tickets and concessions are expensive, the usual choice of movies are limited to 95 percent awful, and today's audiences have no manners. (Pay attention to the Talkbacks that commend the Arc Light and the Alamo Drafthouse) 3) People are generally growing misanthropic because they are repulsed by the lack of ethics, manners, expense and danger present in the outside world. They withdraw from humanity and are further enticed to keep away by the level of technology in the home. (Please read the short story "The Machine Stops") 4) Widespread media piracy should serve as a wake-up call to the industry to break the paradigm and recreate itself to survive. Is 3-D the answer? 5) Anyone who enjoys movies should be responsible for their attitudes and actions and know that what they do may impinge the future of the movies. 5 a) Technology will proceed in its march to the future. It is good to occassionally take a look at the future to see what is worth embracing and what is not. If we don't look ahead or take responsibility for the present, we may be forced to accept a default that is not of our choosing. ----------
March 20, 2005, 3:57 p.m. CST
.... cheapen the ticket prices. $8-$12 is as ridiculous as the $6 popcorn. What's in it for, say, somebody with a wife/husband and 2 kids? $60 to go out to the movies? Or $14.99 to stay at home with a DVD on their home theater? (and they get to keep the movie!) That's a no-brainer. *** and as for this 3-D thing, well, it didn't catch on in the 80's, why should it catch on now? Honestly, I don't want to see movies in 3-D.
March 20, 2005, 4:10 p.m. CST
You're welcome to COPY anything that is in my house.
March 20, 2005, 4:13 p.m. CST
That's what people did when talkies arrived. If you all did a little more reading on the history of film, you'd see how familiar this all is. Call it a fad, call it a gimmick...Ebert is doing the same thing with digital projection, and he's just as wrong as the rest of you. It's not going anywhere. Previous attempts at 3D didn't stick because they weren't good enough yet. But the process is improving, and when they can do it for real, it's going to be the next frontier (along with, sorry Roger, digital projection). Essentially, you're all Arthur Dent lying in the path of the bulldozers. Do you know how much damage these bulldozers will suffer if they just it let roll straight over you? None at all. Now, 3D might NOT ultimately be what's best for film, but that doesn't matter one bit. Many people thought sound would be bad for film, but it happened anyway. And for those of you saying that what's REALLY killing movies is bad movies and bottom-line mentality, do you really believe that's a new thing? The studios, regardless of what you may think, have ALWAYS been businesses first. There was never, ever a time when the studios were selfless institutions dedicated to the bringing art to the people. That age never existed. Yes, 75% of movies released are dreck, but they always have been. We just never see the dreck released in the 40's. We only see the classics, and it's created this illusion that they used to make more great films than they do now. But hey, lie down in the path of progress if it makes you happy. Just don't bitch about the tire tracks up your torso later.
March 20, 2005, 4:22 p.m. CST
I work with stereoscopic 3D movie images every day. I'm convinced that 3D can be an exciting part of the cinema landscape, but I don't think every movie should be in 3D. 3D is ultimately another technical and creative tool. It requires the right subject matter, careful panning, and great execution. The serious technical deficiencies of previous 3D technologies (mostly inferior projection), combined with truly terrible movies, never allowed stereoscopic 3D to develop into a serious storytelling medium. It has always been the case that there are more lousy 2D movies than great ones. So we can be expect that to be the case with 3D movies too. That's the nature of all art. (Yes, I'd agree that the ratio of lousy 3D movies to good has been particularly bad to date.) But digital technology offers a new set of tools that are particularly well-suited to stereoscopic 3D movie production and exhibition. Now it's up to moviemakers to learn this new medium, develop appropriate stories to tell, and perfect the process. And it's up to exhibitors to ensure that the viewing experience matches the effort that goes into production. I'd be happy to see one digital 3D-equipped theater in every multiplex. It's my first-hand experience that 3D is really an intimate storytelling medium. Our real-world depth perception starts to flatten out beyond about 20 feet, so close-in subject matter tends to work better in 3D. I wouldn't like to see either of my favorite two movies converted to 3D, but to illustrate my point I think a movie like the Godfather (intimate storytelling) would be a good candidate for 3D, but Lawrence of Arabia (epic storytelling with all over those wonderful exterior vistas) wouldn't. And the "new" 3D isn't just about the theatrical movie experience. Interestingly, 3D doesn't really require a huge screen for impact. (In fact, the screen tends to disappear when we view 3D.) 3D can work very well on a tv or computer screen. It's not exactly the same experience as seeing it in a cinema environment, but it's an interesting one. Different forms of digital 3D technology and 3D content are going to start appearing in many different media over the next ten years. When 3D is great, it's a magical experience, and viewers can't get enough. We're just at the very beginning of the reinvention of 3D. Here's my website address again for those who want to know a little more about stereoscopic 3D: http://www.hd3dmovies.com. From the number of hits and messages we've received in the last couple of days (thanks Harry), many, many of you are very interested in 3D. I not selling anything (yet) except, perhaps, my modest vision of one possible future. I'm excited by anything that offers a new entertainment experience. Aren't we all?
March 20, 2005, 4:25 p.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 4:25 p.m. CST
But the vast majority of film piracy, which is done by ripping commercially available dvds and transmitting the entrails over the net, will remain unhindered. Until 3D technology brings us a new physical medium for home-sales, little will change. And even if the medium was some esoteric cartridge/tape/optical system like we've never seen before, as long as the films we see are digitally processed and stored, as nearly all are, and as literally all of them eventually will be, then digital piracy will continue unabated.
March 20, 2005, 4:25 p.m. CST
Sorry about the typos in my previous post. "panning" should read: "planning". Blame the rest of the garbled english on lack of sleep. Yeah, that's it ...
March 20, 2005, 4:28 p.m. CST
by Right Bastard
Yeah, but they still haven't gone back and put voices in Metropolis, Nosferatu, or Charlie Chaplin films as far as I know. The issue is not "should we have 3D film?" The issue is: Should we let Lucas and others go back and turn classic films into 3D? I vote Hell No. I'm not all that interested in new 3D movies either. For things like "Friday the 13th Pt.3" or "Jaws 3", it's a great gimmick, but do you really want to be in the middle of "As Good As it Gets" or "Steel Magnolias"?
You know one thing I find interesting is how a movie with zero special effects and action requires still require such large production units(aka.people,drones....)?Hmmmmmm...
March 20, 2005, 4:35 p.m. CST
PianoMonkey is right. 3D for the home will undoubtedly be delivered on HD-DVD (HD3D-DVD) which holds enough data for the stereoscopic image pairs, so 3D is ultimately not a solution to piracy.
March 20, 2005, 4:38 p.m. CST
lol, that was funny
March 20, 2005, 4:39 p.m. CST
by The Piss Boy
I love the Brits. America, didn't we get over this Angol-phobia back in the 1780's? The real enemy here are the cracker-ass, no-class honkies, stinky-smeling spearchuckers, loud-talking Frenchies, and all those other ethnicities (I'm a Gook, thank you very much) that didn't have a mother with the class to raise their child with the COMMON FUCKING COURTESY not to talk in a movie. Fuck all y'all.
March 20, 2005, 4:39 p.m. CST
People love flat video games luke Space Invaders lol
March 20, 2005, 4:40 p.m. CST
and the writers they will not stop us, for the only truth they'll find is Paradise
March 20, 2005, 4:50 p.m. CST
Why? Because people don't like to pay 10bucks and get screwed by a bad movie. So being able to watch it on the internet you can sample it. If it's good enough that you wanna see it in a theater, you will
March 20, 2005, 4:56 p.m. CST
...because its a pretty old arguement. But what annoys me is that the statement of Piracy is killing the industry etc. Its bull....Take LOTR...the film was pirated to hell...TTT there was a dvd screener doing the rounds one week after its cinema release....did it effect sales? No...Did it effect DVD sales? No. Someone mentioned about people used to que around the block for films....I remember that too from being a 70s kid. Fact is though....multiplexes were not a thing then....Home cinema wasnt a thing then...Vcrs were not even the thing then. Yes Piracy is wrong...but its not the cause of industry "decline". Someone hasnt yet mentioned merchandising....films pre star wars didnt have the kind of tie ins as they do now....MORE REVENUE. About films being bad/good...yeah there are loads of bad films made throughout the years...40s,50s etc....thing is though back then films were made with smaller crews...soem films made on no budgets. Exactly Lickmybeets! nowadays you have someone being paid to work for someone to be paid to work for someone....you can have 100 million dollar film thats no different than a B movie. The decline is of many things...overspending being one major factor.....they need to look closer to home....Actors are seriously overpaid. Just solely blaming piracy is narrow minded thinking. Fact is...like every industry..theres a rise & theres a decline. They are finding ways to put bums on seats....3D is one. I bet you have to pay more for yer ticket for this "revolution"....so when is it not a gimmick? Its a gamble by the industry if they go with this....a expensive gamble...strange how they can afford it...if they are so hard done by.
March 20, 2005, 5:13 p.m. CST
No wonder people in the U.K. know to be quiet in theatres; they don't want to open their mouths and end up looking like a complete douchenozzle like wolf in the door. And we all know DVD, CD, and everything else became mainstream the minute it was accessible to the public, right? Wrong.
March 20, 2005, 5:16 p.m. CST
The only time i ever pirated anything was while doing tech support one of my fellow geeks downloaded Shaft with Mace Windu and at first I was all jazzed up and ready. Then the thought occured to me while I started doing my submission homework for art school(im a designer now)because that shaft movie was fucking LAME and I suddenly had some time to kill, that I had wanted to go see Shaft. Big fan of the OG, love Mace, I was pretty geeked up. The piracy did two things: first and most egregious - it robbed me of the intended cinematic experience. when my buddy had spiderman 14 minutes before it came out in movie theaters, I couldnt understand blowing the movies impact for a cheap ass shitty copy. Second and most practical - it took my theater going dollars out of the pockets of the people who had earned it...the film makers. And I see its effects now, working my way to the film industry via the video game industry. The more piracy (of both products) the fewer young, talented, underemployed artists and production talent (like me)get hired for projects.
March 20, 2005, 5:17 p.m. CST
Sounds good to me, but, what I want to see are 4d movies! Movies where you get to be a character in the movie. Hell yeah.
March 20, 2005, 5:30 p.m. CST
Piracy has crippled the film industry? Piracy has CRIPPLED the film industry?!?! Um...how much did Hollywood take in last year? How was that amount lower than the year before? Fuck the Hong Kong industry, if their law enforcement choose to do nothing to stop the pirates-for-profit. FILE SHARING HAS NEVER LOWERED THE FINANCIAL PROSPECTS OF ANY INDUSTRY. Period. Ever. Argue all you like, that's a cold, set fact. The decline in the record industry has WAY more to do with the terrible business practices of the industry than it does with file sharing...seems funny that selling songs online is making them millions now if all everyone wants to do is download them for free. For-profit piracy (as in, REAL piracy, where people make fake copies of movies and sell them) just plain doesn't exist in the US. Not in any numbers to theaten even the smallest indie studio. It's a complete myth. Harry, you and people like you need to shut the fuck up and stop feeding the publicity machine of greed-riddled Hollywood who want to blame every movie failure on those darn Internet pirates. Disengage from sucking the Hollywood cock for just a second and run some fucking numbers. The math just does NOT hold up.
March 20, 2005, 5:34 p.m. CST
by Ted Striker
3D is a gimmick for now. The reason? There needs to be a CONSISTENT way to create and present movies. Today, movies are created on film, but that's slowly changing to HighDef Video (although, if you ask me - I think it looks TERRIBLE. Case in point: 'Collateral'. Anyone else notice how washed-out the blacks look, and how the colors smears in action shots on the Collateral DVD? That's because HighDef still isn't anywhere near the quality of film capture - period). I was hoping that the Maxivision48 technology would take off - ie, films in 48 frames per second, which I've heard add a certain 3D quality to movies because of the clarity. If HighDef Video can be improved to the same resolution as film, and maybe even be shot at a higher frame rate (even 36 frames per second would be a huge improvement) then that in itself would be reason enough for theatres to upgrade. However, as it stands now, theatres still show films on FILM in 24 frames per second, and will for years to come. You can't tell me that a theatre is going to invest $100,000 in a new projector that is going to show a handful of big-budget movies each year in 3D. In fact, George Lucas has been touting Digital Projection now for 6 years and there is NOT EVEN A DENT made for changing to digital (I live in Seattle, and there are only a couple theatres with digital projection that I know of, though I could be wrong). If Digital 3D projection does happen, it won't be for 10+ years - that's just how supply/demand works. Why should a theatre make that investment if nobody is demanding it, especially if there is no Return on Investment. In the meantime, 'specialty theatres' like IMAX will be the place showing 3D movies - and that's fine by me because there's an IMAX nearby where I've seen several 3D pictures, all of them Blowing Me Away! But again, even an IMAX movie showing regular feature-length movies such as Apollo 13 is cool enough for me because the size of the screen and sound quality makes me feel like I'm 4 years old again. But will there be an IMAX in every town? No way. Not going to happen any time soon...and I WILL say that until I'm blue in the face because it's the reality of Today - though it *could* happen in a decade or two.
March 20, 2005, 5:44 p.m. CST
by Right Bastard
T.S. I'm also an artist, and I don't cry one tear for people in it for the money. If you really love art, then you make it because there is nothing that can hold you back from it. If the hardcore punk movement of the early 80's taught us anything (and it did), the only way to really be an independent and successful artist (and make money) is D.I.Y. Most of the good bands (Radiohead, Fugazi, Pinback) don't care if people download their music, because they just want people to hear them, and know that they will make enough money in the long run. If you are only in it for the money and want to work for the big studio system, then unionize and demand fair wadges for those behind the scenes. If they have enough to give the big actor several millions, they can give the entire crew a several thousand dollars raise. They called copying records on to cassette "piracy", and they even tried to figure out a way to stop people from taping movies from HBO on to their VCRs. The music and movie industries are still here, as far as I can tell. This "piracy killing the movie industry" argument is bullocks.
March 20, 2005, 5:48 p.m. CST
by Ted Striker
3D is a special effect. Not all movies have special effects, so it's not necessary to show them in 3D.... I think watching American Beauty in High Definition on my HDTV looks great. No need for 3D. The big budget flicks may use 3D with astonishing effects, but not ALL movies need it - and that's why it will take a long time to catch on. Theatre owners don't need 3D projectors to show a great film like American Beauty. Not necessary.
March 20, 2005, 5:52 p.m. CST
I'm just curious, but how is this process done? Since it was shot with only one camera and there is no paralex to reproduce, how do they turn a 2D film into 3D? If there's a good article on this I would love to read it.
March 20, 2005, 5:58 p.m. CST
This is a minor but valid argument. The brain computes depth by various ways (and I could list them if you want), only one of which is based on each eye receiving a slightly different image. Each eye receiving a slightly different image is called "binocular disparity". 3D movies are based on this: presenting a slightly different picture to each eye, creating the illusion of "depth". The thing is that about 20% of people don't use binocular disparity to compute depth (I'm one of those people), meaning that they see equal depth with one eye closed. This is well-known (read a cognitive or neuroscience text book on vision). So, this 3D thing - however good it will be - will only work for about 4/5 of people and won't make a difference to 1/5 of the audience, except you make them wear uncomfortable glasses. This has nothing to do with how good 3D technology is, it has to do with people's brain wiring. But I'd say that potentially cutting your audience to 80% might be drastic.
March 20, 2005, 5:58 p.m. CST
That'll never fly. The minute Bush came on screen the other 50% of America will see that he's nothing but a giant ass with ears. 2D tends to hide that. Off-topic, I know, but I have to Bush-bash at least once a day to keep my sanity. Oh, he just put Orrin Hatch in charge of copyright. Ladies and gentlemen, who needs LSD anymore? We're living in a bad acid trip.
March 20, 2005, 5:59 p.m. CST
Remember what happened to Barkly
March 20, 2005, 6:02 p.m. CST
Come on, seriously. 3D is a gimmick, it works for IMAX but since IMAX is also a gimmick, that makes sense. Besides...save theater business with 3D and you kill home video business at the same time. DVD is a cash cow for the studios, regardless of piracy.
March 20, 2005, 6:07 p.m. CST
Oh, and that Brit who complained about American movie audiences is (at least partially) correct. Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I have to admit that not only do American movie audiences contain relatively more obnoxious elements than European ones, but it's also the case that US theaters have usually small and uncomfortable seats, have inferior audio and video quality, and are dirty. **************************************** I just realized that if you make people wear glasses, they might be less inclined to obnoxiously socialize with their peers while the movie is going on. It might, in the wrds of another talkbacker, make the movie-going experience feel more "official".
March 20, 2005, 6:21 p.m. CST
Saw Friday the 13th part 3 in 3-d at the alamo drafthouse last year, on Friday the 13th. Pretty sick. I live in CA so can't get to the drafthouse all that easily. Last 3-d flick they showed here was a John Holmes flick called the Lollypop Girls. Was crappy red'n'blue and john holmes wasn't really in it more than 5-10 minutes.
March 20, 2005, 6:32 p.m. CST
Indeed. The Spice Girls were pre-dated by the Beatles, kids. Hope the truth hurts.
March 20, 2005, 6:35 p.m. CST
I do think it's short sided to think that piracy isn't hurting the industry ... as it is. But, other elements, like affordable DVD's, and home theaters are causing people to forego the movie theater experience in lieu of a more intimate home one. Kind of like the advent of next generation home video game consoles ... just about ran arcades out of existance. The only way arcades see to attract people is through gimmick laden devices like hydraulics. Likewise, it seems Hollywood is seeking a gimic to get people in theaters.
March 20, 2005, 6:38 p.m. CST
All this b.s. about piracy crippling the movie industry chaps my hide. Every year, the box office take at the movies is bigger than the year before. Are we supposed to believe this nonsense that people are downloading movies off the internet and wholly disregarding the movie theater experience? I think not. This 3D talk is interesting, but it will never be more than a novelty akin to the 3D comics of the 1950's - it was thought they'd revolutionize the comics industry, and they didn't. They passed away into obscurity. No one is going to want to put on glasses or watch every movie in 3D; it's a hassle, it's bothersome, and it's not practical. This, too, shall pass. Film is NOT dying, Mr. Big Talk; it's merely giving birth to another medium, and it will be nothing more than a child to the parent which gives it birth. I suppose you'll want to replace all your DVD's now with 3D versions. Herry, this is time that you will NOT be getting back.
March 20, 2005, 6:40 p.m. CST
(PS, 3-D sucks.)
March 20, 2005, 6:40 p.m. CST
I can't see 3D. The glasses and such just don't work for me. And I've heard that that is true for about 1 in 10 people. I could be wrong about that: somebody please correct me if I am. How much money are theatre owners going to sink into 3D technology if 10% of the population can't go, especially in smaller markets.
March 20, 2005, 6:43 p.m. CST
by Calico Pete
That's the next step. Keep 'em in yer eyes fulltime. Then maybe the world will finally seem more vibrant, more... alive!
March 20, 2005, 6:47 p.m. CST
Harry, like many of his liberal friends forgets one important thing. The film industry like every other industry exists in a marketplace, and in marketplaces demand creates supply not the opposite. If there is significant demand for 3d works, then obviously some studio will begin making 3d movies. However, if there is no demand for such a product and some studio decides to push that onto the market, they'll fail. Harry, take a high school eco. class before you start trying to be prophetic about any market, whether its one you're familiar with or not.
March 20, 2005, 6:47 p.m. CST
Girls Gone Wild, The 3D Extravaganza. Just imagine it ont he huge screen with the boobs in 3D, it will make so much money!!!!!
March 20, 2005, 6:50 p.m. CST
If US audienced ever feel the talk?? WTF does that mean?
March 20, 2005, 7:10 p.m. CST
There will ALWAYS be some sort of moving-going activity no matter what people say about online piracy. Remember back in the early 80's when home VCR's were going to kill the industry? Or how about when movie-channels were going to kill the movie-going industry? And looky-looky... the insdustry is still here. I honestly believe that the movie-going industry WILL indeed morph into something else in the coming years (3D? Virtual Reality? Something Else?) kinda like the way CD's took over vinyl records (the format changed, but the industry is stil there). As long as people have an urge to step away from their PC's, DVD Players and get the fuck out of the house, the movie-going industry will stick around. Besides, there's too much money to be made to let it simply die.
March 20, 2005, 7:15 p.m. CST
a handycam version of a movie filmed in a cinema needs their eyes gouged out. seriously. everytime i see people on street corners trying to flog this stuff i just want to beat the shit out of 'em. a far more grey (gray) area is downloading ripped dvds because the movie has at least had a chance to grab some cash in the cinema. and a lot people don't have access to many of the less mainstream movies at either their local cinema or video shop.
March 20, 2005, 7:16 p.m. CST
by Evil Chicken
No. There will always be a place for the decent local theater. People still like to be able to get out for the evening and forget about the world for a couple of hours. It
March 20, 2005, 7:30 p.m. CST
i gotta say from my experiences in both countries watching flicks that america is hands down better ( i should qualify by saying that i have watched all my cinema in only London, NY and LA- no red states). you brits are filthy fuckers with shit thrown all over the floors. i have never seen anything like it in my life. plus british cinemas suck compared to LA. i once went into a cinema in England that had no air conditioning. and it was the middle of summer. lost 3kg's in weight! best cinema: the arclight in LA. never been to the alamo though.
March 20, 2005, 7:31 p.m. CST
by Frank Black
Piracy and 3D? I am a little surprised by Harry's stance here. I love him and the site, but for once I am leaning towards the people crying foul. Having worked in and managed video stores for 15 years, (in Michigan, California, New York and back to California,) I have seen the problem. It isn't piracy, its stupidty and short attention spans. Its Blockbuster video and the sheep mentality! Customers walk in every week asking for the major 3 releases and get pissed if the new release is unavailable, paying no mind to the thousands of classics they might have missed over the years. People don't go to the movies like they used to because people only want what they are TOLD is good! I have never downloaded a movie off of the internet and I don't know anyone who has because the people I know want to watch a movie on a screen at least the size of their television sets not a computer. Hollywood is killing themselves with bland and unoriginal remakes and movies like f*cking "White Chicks" and "Johnson Family Vacation." Movies have gotten dumber and so have the audiences! And furthermore, piracy isn't stealing from the gaffer or technicians, it steals from the rich executives who are making shallow crap. Rich people get pissed when they get less rich! Seriously, if Hollywood and film are dying than I bid them goodbye and hope the corpse rots in Hell. Robert Rodriguez is a hero of mine for his ambition and tenacity and he doesn't Hollywood anymore than George Lucas does. He'll find a way for his films to get seen, one way or another, and so will all of the other struggling indie geniuses. I haven't gone to a movie theater in over a year because of the bad manners from the audience and poor quality and upkeep of theaters. I constantly have to get up during a movie and remind the manager or projectionist to fix the sound or the screen. People treat movies like junk food and don't respect them for their artistic merit. How many times does a studio put out multiple DVDs of the same movie and make a ton of money off of people like me, (incidentally I own over 3,000 DVDs and I paid for each one with my hard earned money, and not a dime went to pirates.) Why should we care if Hollywood doesn't get rich anymore? Hollywood doesn't support artists like David Lynch! They want to make PG and PG-13 movies void of real content or intelligence, and now they are even talking about reducing the amount of sex & violence even more. (Last thing I remembered, good movies with hot sex got pretty scared, but "pro-family groups keep attacking them." I already enjoy good 3D, its called my life, and I get to see crazy things happen all of the time, (like me having sex with my hot wife or me going for a swim at the beach and checking out hot women! It is all in 3D and it is awesome!) So long as Hollywood keeps making so much garbage and people keep watching only what they are told is good, I will keep hoping that film does die and people start reading or something. Every time I hear "Whats new thats in, thats good," I say "Have you seen "Out of the Past" with Kirk Douglas and Robert Mitchum? They say, "No," and I scream "Its new to you then, go watch it and put down "Sleepover," "Ladder 49" and "White Chicks" and watch a real movie.
March 20, 2005, 7:44 p.m. CST
Frank, you make some good points but it's not [just] Hollywood that's in danger. I've heard a lot of people say they've downloaded Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later. While these films made a lot of money, it's the indies that will suffer. People love being able to say they saw films ages before their release, particularly here in Australia where there is often months of delay. It's a status thing.
March 20, 2005, 7:59 p.m. CST
by I Dunno
Like I said, I don't know enough about it to comment intelligently so I may be wrong but it seems that if you have to wear glasses it looks like the same technology the've had before they even had color. The way people were talking about it, I thought Princess Leia was going to come out of the screen and suck me off. Anyway, the notion of all movies being 3-d is ridiculous. I don't want to put on a pair of glasses for every movie I see for the rest of my life. As for what someone else said, why -are- movies so damned expesive to make? Star Wars and Raiders were made for $10 mill. You can't even make a Hollywood movie with mid-level actors for less than $40 mill now, forget about FX films.
March 20, 2005, 8:16 p.m. CST
by Mr. Profit
And if you live in the Bronx like me, forget about seeing a big budget blockbuster without hearing the stupid chorus of people yelling OOOOOH SHIT SON! when Neo kicks someone in slow mo, or when we see a tired action gimmick that we've seen in the trailer. People dont realize how annoying they can truly be. Instead of getting into fights, and there have been a couple of times, I stay my ass home unless it's a movie I really really want to see. And then I'll go see on a weekday. As for the future of filmmaking, 3D is and always be a gimmick and I do not want Hollywood to tarnish old films by adapting them to this tired format. I enjoy good storytelling. Save 3D for the mindless popcorn flicks that we all enjoy no matter how much of a cinema snob we may be. And Cameron is using 3D as a way to hide the fact that the KING OF THE WORLD hasnt made a real fucking film since 97. People shit on Spielberg, but at least the mutherfucker tries and still makes movies. Anyhow, who's paying Harry to suddenly discuss this? And it's a tad silly to blame piracy, when terrible word of mouth spewed from an early review of a film that was posted on a website can destroy it's box office just as well.
March 20, 2005, 8:55 p.m. CST
so how else should we expect you to stand on "piracy?" Tell me, how far does Jack Valenti have his hand up your ass...up to the elbow? You sure as hell sound like a puppet. The truth is, over 2/3 of the films I've seen in theaters over the last two decades have been CRAP and I have had no recourse. I watch a movie based on the hype, and get sold a crappy bill of goods. Where's the refund? At least when I buy a piece of CE, I can return it to Best Buy if it turns out to be a turd. But, now Hollywood has been forced to up its game if its gonna get a buck from me. I don't buy into hype anymore, I download it in a matter of hours. If the product is good, you bet your ass I'll pay good money to see it the way it was intended to be seen, both in the theater and on DVD. If its a turd, I can hit the delete key and move on to the next item. I feel the same way about the RIAA and its bullshit policing of the net. Sheesh, give it to us to taste, let us decide for ourselves, and to hell with the goddamn bullshit focus groups.
March 20, 2005, 9:02 p.m. CST
I have friends that download flix and in the last 3 months they haven't bothered to download anything because everything is so lousy. I think you hit the nail exactly on the head. I would rather watch Deadwood, Carnivale, or Scrubs than spend money going to a theater.
March 20, 2005, 9:21 p.m. CST
We've gotten used to watching movies on our PC, listening to music, shopping, getting our information. It's all there in one package at the push of a button. It's so convenient. We can't go back now. Going out to the movies or going to your living room to hear a music CD, used to be an event, but now it's going the way of the dinosaur and the people who don't use your computers, because either they're old fashion, ignorant or just don't like them. We'll be left behind in society.
March 20, 2005, 9:49 p.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 9:51 p.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 10:02 p.m. CST
I was really excited when I first heard 'bout all this 3D business sprouting up again. "Could they actually have done it right this time?" I wondered to myself. "Can I go and sit down in the theater and watch a 3D movie finally without having to put something on my face in order to witness it? Wow!" ...then I realized that even though it's the year 2005, the future still isn't here. 3D is the future, sure. But I'd prefer not to have to strap on utensils to my head thank you.
March 20, 2005, 10:11 p.m. CST
March 20, 2005, 10:44 p.m. CST
by Ford Fairlane
March 20, 2005, 11:08 p.m. CST
Thanks to supertoyslast for pointing this out. Does it not infuriate anyone else that filmgoers get blamed time and again for piracy? Christ almighty. I have been known to download the occasional movie (though 9 out of 10 times it's something that I've already seen in the theater and want to catch again before the DVD hits for me to rent or buy) and basically zero of the films are in theater bootlegs. They are almost always screener copies made by employees or friends/family of the studios in question - or VERY rarely, in theater bootlegs made from the projection booth with a direct sound rip from the theater sound system.<br><br>Camcorder bootlegs were "in" back in 1999 when you were cool if you could gnab a VCD file off of an obscure IRC channel or newsgroup. These days every pirated copy comes direct from the source - the studio! And who does the studio blame? Who does the studio force to watch demeaning videos of some crazy red bearded set carpenter? Clearly not the people doing the actual piracy, but instead, US! THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DECIDED TO GO PAY TEN BUCKS TO SIT IN A THEATER AND WATCH THEIR FILM! We get blamed!<br><br>Nothing is more painfully stupid to me than that, in all of the "entertainment industry." How much ink is spent on this issue? None! Why doesn't this site say something? The official home of the film geek? Harry wasted plenty of copy on the little red dots that showed up on on Kill Bill or whatever (the ones that were supposed to aggrivate the oh-so-prevelent camcorder pirates), but hadn't bothered to drop even a sentence on the fact that while the studios have leaks that cause their work to appear online for free we the paying audience are completely shat upon and violated simply for wanting to watch a film in the theater. The problem is actually very obvious.
March 20, 2005, 11:10 p.m. CST
I found an uncut version of Darkness online. Downlowded it, encoded it, and burnt it to dvd, all using freeware. The quality is less than DVD, but better than VHS. Here is the kicker, this movie was only released in the US as a PG-13 movie. I went to theatre out of curiousity to see the PG-13 cut and was horrified. It sucked really bad. Not that the uncut version was a masterpiece, but it was way better then the piece of crap that was marketed for the US MTV generation. Am I way wrong for "PIRATING" this movie. Or is Hollywood way wrong for passing off a mediocre cut of an alright movie into our theatres. I mean, without the internet, I never would have the cut scenes from CLOSER on DVD for my own personal enjoyment. Instead, I would be like the rest of you, watching the "cut" Natalie Portman. My God the are real and they are fantastic.
March 21, 2005, 12:13 a.m. CST
About 10% of the population cannot see 3D. While this is unfortunate, it won't be a major obstacle to the development of digital 3D . Coincidentially, about the same percentage of the population has some form of color blindness, but that didn't stop the shift from black and white to color. 3D movies won't replace 2D movies. 3D is just another means of creative expression. I don't think you'll find any filmmakers, including Lucas, Cameron, et al, who think 3D will supplant 2D movies. I believe it's Cameron's intention to release Battle Angel in both 3D and 2D. If it's a good movie, it should be good in both formats. It's interesting to note that Polar Express grossed $40 million from the IMAX 3D release in something like 50 theaters. This is a disproportionate percentage of the movie's total gross. There is a market to 3D movies.
March 21, 2005, 12:23 a.m. CST
I think the movie industry is dying. It has becoming apparent with the ideas floating down from the higher ups on how to "save it" that they feel that they are backed up against a wall. Measuring the health of the movie industry based on sales, stating that movies are always breaking box office records, is pretty difficult when a movie now costs twice as much as it did 10 or so years ago. I think piracy has hurt movie-going and I can't see it stopping anytime soon if at all. It sucks to think that 3-D filmmaking is going to save the industry and it sucks even more when I hear you guys bitching about all the things that is a movie-going experience. I have seen many a movie that has been interrupted by one thing or the other but I always remember the movie. I can't say what will be the "savior" of cinema but I sure don't think it's going to be 3-D (at least I hope not). I also don't think it's going to be the creation of "better" movies... well.. because I don't think "better" movies will be made. It's the all mighty dollar people. It's the reason why Million Dollar Baby didn't come out on the same day as Spider-Man 2. The movie-going experience has to prevail on it's own and people have to check what is more important to them: paying for the experience or paying for the movie.
March 21, 2005, 12:33 a.m. CST
March 21, 2005, 12:35 a.m. CST
There is no decline of revenue made by movies. Good movies still make a ton (and some bad ones.) That piracy is killing the movies is total and compleate bs. The fact is that with the quick turnaround for movies to be in theaters and movies to appear on DVD and Cable, the viewing audience has shifted. Look at ticket sales for movies in the early 80s, and then look at ticket sales, DVD sales, and Pay-per-views of the same type of movie and tell me that cinema is dying. The fact is that Production companies have diluted the theater audience by giving them the choice to view it in other fations... and cheaper means. Piracy is not the issue, the same group of idiots are doing it today as did it 20 years ago, and the same tasteless non-movie fans are buying and watching them. It is the fact that the Production houses gave us choice, and now they are pissed we are exercising that choice.
March 21, 2005, 12:56 a.m. CST
As everybody goes, "Oh $#$%%, kick ass!! Did you see that? Damn son! etc. etc." I used to go to the movies every weekend in the summertime and often as well the rest of the year. But no more. Why? Because all it does is annoy me any more. Here's why I stay away: 1. Ticket prices are so high that you might as well wait for the DVD--at least then you'll own it and can watch it as much as you want 2. Good Lord, the crowds are AWFUL. People bring babies to horror movies nowadays, and when the kid starts crying and you yell at them to get the kid out of there they turn around to you and go, "SHUT UP!" You get high school kids offering brilliant commentary during Kill Bill. Or the people who "get" a gag in a comedy and then repeat it out loud immediately after. And my personal favorite: people who have a comment about every scene they just saw, to the point where you wish the movie did indeed suck so they'd be too disinterested to even discuss it. And nevermind the fact that if people feel the need to say something during a movie that they haven't any idea that they should WHISPER it. Nope--they just talk right out loud, so everybody around them who could give a shit about what they have to say have to listen to it anyway. 3. People kicking your seat. 4. People smuggling beers into movies and becoming nuisances. 5. Laser pointers. 6. And finally something that has to do with the theaters themselves---DVDs just look better on my HDTV than they do all fuzzy up there on the big screen. I'm sure I could keep going, but the point is, theaters need to start going the Magic Johnson theater route---you talk, you're kicked out. They need to start establishing a code of acceptable conduct, and if you break the code, you're out. I know tons of people who rarely go to movies any more---especially older people, but also plenty of them in their 20's, because it's no longer an escape. It's being stuck smack dab in the middle of millions of mf'n morons.
March 21, 2005, 1:06 a.m. CST
It all of the stupid movies that no one wants to see, that studios greenlight for no apparent reason, that is the problem with money loss. When movies are making hundreds of millions of dollars each, how can there really be a problem. Maybe if they made 20 or 30 less movies a year, more people would go see the moview available. And coming from someone who aleady wears glasses, am I supposed to take my glasses off, and see a really fuzzy 3D image. Is that a person or a tree that is floating in front of the screen.
March 21, 2005, 1:55 a.m. CST
Currently the best 3D viewing glasses are available for IMAX 3D. Some are better than others, but they're all entirely adequate and in no way resemble the terrible cardboard-framed glasses. They're designed to be used by people who wear glasses and those who don't. I wear glasses and I have no problem with them whatsoever. There's no reason why similar or better viewing glasses can't be developed for mainstream cinema applications.
March 21, 2005, 2:21 a.m. CST
Anyone advocating piracy needs a reality check. If it gets to the point where everyone is doing it, then who in their right mind would invest in a movie? Films cost a lot of money, and it isn't because the stars make too much. It's because you need to pay for actors, crew, equipement, insurance, film, permits, travel, props, costumes, sets, music, editing, and on and on and on. They will never be cheap, because it takes a lot of people to make them. Case in point: Napoleon Dynamite cost $400,000 dollars. No name actors, shot in Preston, ID in the middle of nowhere, with no SFX. $400,000 is about as cheap as a feature can be shot, but it is STILL a lot of money. Who is going to spend $400,000 dollars of their money if the return is going to be $0? Much less spend $60,000,000, which is the average cost of a feature. No one will. As far as 3D goes, it definately is a gimmick. Sorry Harry, but it just isn't going to be the standard. Ever. People like 2D images. Paintings, photos, movies. Just because 3D is more "advanced", it hardly makes it better. It's cool for IMAX, and theme park rides, but if you think that it will be the way everything is shot then you really are out of touch with reality. I don't seem to have the same moviegoing experience a lot of you are having. People talking incessantly or phones ringing just doesn't happen too often. At least in Portland, OR in my experience. And I go to the movies a lot.
March 21, 2005, 2:37 a.m. CST
reading talkbacks is such an incredibly frustrating experience, yet I cannot help it.......sometimes I think I must like wanting to hit some of you people...... I remember being absolutely thrilled as a kid that CBS was airing a MOW version of SPIDERMAN. As you all know, it was incredibly cheesy - white ropes for webs and a utility belt. Didn't matter....loved it. I watched whatever attempt they made at speaking to what thrilled me. I suspect that many of you are the same......What happened? We live in a time when an enormous number of movies and TV producers cater to "geek" and "fanboy" (hate those terms) interests. This site, and many like it, have much to do with that. Sure there are plenty of cynical attempts to just get our money, but there are so many people out there in positions of power, trying to make something worthwhile. and you know what, there are gems to be found in each and every one of those attempts. What makes many "talkbackers" so full of bile and hate for the very projects that are aimed at us? The people who want to bitch about being ripped off by an unsatisfying movie are full of shit. It's still the best deal around - a hell of alot better than the music world. The gripes and rationalizations of music pirates at least had some merit. CD's and concert tickets are incredibly over priced for such hit and miss content. Going to Best Buy on Tuesday and being able to lay out a mere $16 to own THE INCREDIBLES ($5-8 7 used in a few weeks) is just plain fantastic. Hell, I'd pay that for RIDDICK because of the VFX alone. Bottom line is, we don't appreciate how lucky we have it. We're in the middle of an incredibly cool time when the money men want to cater to our interests. This won't last forever, especially if everyone choses to hate whatever comes out. For every JUDGE DREDD( and again, there is some fun to be had even in that movie) there is also X2. If you must really spew out the bile, go out and try to make something yourself. It's never been easier to technically do it. See if you can do better than what is out there.......
March 21, 2005, 7:14 a.m. CST
These could be the explanations for the goofy, out-of-place, out-of-time, out-of-touch-with-reality "Eenternet peerasee weel keel thee moovees!" rant.
March 21, 2005, 8:20 a.m. CST
I have a rare genetic disorder tha caused a big blind spot in my left eye. I have adapted to it and can see fine. The right eye sort of compensates for what my left eye is missing. BUT.....when I see 3D, the image never looks right. I lose out on the effect and I get double vision. I have gone to see IMAX 3D in hopes that maybe that would be better....but it isn't. Plus, 3D doesn't work for everyone. Some people have problems seeing 3D even if their eyes are fine. I think the film industry is insane. They are making billions off of film and DVD. What a greedy lot they are. 3D is a gimmick. Nothing more. I would hate to see it be the wave of the future, because if it is, then I am screwed.
March 21, 2005, 8:40 a.m. CST
Aside from cinema attendances being at their highest for over fourty years (which completely obliterates your 'argument' for 3-D - a serious possibility soon), the fact that you wont give whole-hearted support for the most visceral movie of 2004, 'DEAD MAN'S SHOES' (which was conceived, written, financed, shot and completed within four months) shows that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FUTURE OF CINEMA AT ALL HARRY. In the future, the cinema will belong to 'the little guy' - and this is what TRULY rattles the likes of Cameron/Lucas et al. If there's one thing that digital technology has given to cinema it is the ability to realise the visions of those who, in the 'studio-dictated past, would never have had the chance. Editing facilities once available to only a select handful of studios on Earth are now matched by anyone in possession of an iMAC. A film-maker has the capability of being the complete auteur. Shane Meadows, currently (IMHO) the greatest director since the emergence of Scorcese, is blazing a trail that every true cinema buff should follow. 'DEAD MAN'S SHOES' cost $500,000 to make. Cameron doesn't even but on his best diving gear for less than double that. As for Peter Jackson... mmm, well. This is the man who made 'BAD TASTE' over a five years period on his Sundays off work. I had always hoped he would keep his distance from Lucas etc but the hopes are definitely fading. I know which side I like my bread buttered and until we get someone emerging with the kind of vision demonstrated by Lang/Dreyer/Eisenstein then cinema ain't going nowhere. And does James Cameron truly believe in his own rose-colourised mind that he is respected as an Auteur..? He must be having a laugh. Titanic. The Abyss. Pirhana 2. Galaxy of Terror. Nuff Said. Workshed.
March 21, 2005, 8:47 a.m. CST
March 21, 2005, 9:28 a.m. CST
I was at the Showest 3D thing with GL, he made it clear that not EVERY movie needed to be made in 3D from now on, but its something that theaters should be equipped for when some movies DO come out in 3D. Cameron concurred, saying that this isnt gonna replace 2D, but its something that has a real use and is gonna become an important part of the way the movie industry operates.
March 21, 2005, 10:10 a.m. CST
by Mr. Profit
I also hate when people laugh hysterically at a gag they've seen 1000 times in the movie's trailer. The movie going public are just rude. I went to see Requiem for a Dream and these kids were laughing at Ellen Burstyn when she was lost on the subway. I also hate when you have an annoying comedian who tries to be funny and says shit out loud. I went to see Hellboy and we seriously had to threaten a guy who was talking so much shit and no one near him had the guts to tell him to shut up.
March 21, 2005, 11:37 a.m. CST
by Bob Parr
If the film industry does go to a more home vid model of business, the theater owners will be the ones getting the squeeze.
March 21, 2005, 2:57 p.m. CST
Yep I love it, not 2 weeks ago I had to threaten to beat the shit out a guy 2 times to get him to shut up. Yeah, I'm the guy who will tell you to shut the fuck up and I will drag your ass outside and beat you. Most people don't want to throw down but I was dying to. I'm sure someday I'll get my ass handed to me, but it aint happend yet. Wow look at the time, I gotta go call Harry's buddy Joe Hallenbeck and buy me some bootlegs! Harry is a fucking hippocrite or just a hippo... GFY
March 21, 2005, 2:59 p.m. CST
...you expect people to spend $12 for the privilage of entering a place that charges you $10 for a beverage and some popped corn kernels that cost pennies to make? Then seat them along side any number of chair-kicking and breath-stinking psychotics, without so much as a referee? Only to sit through an hour's worth of shilling the latest products, be they cinematic or vegimatic. Just to get a peek at train-wrecks like "Fat Albert" or "Cat Woman." Then you proclaim that piracy is killing the movies? Right!
March 21, 2005, 4:10 p.m. CST
Piracy is not even making a dent in the Film Industry...anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something! Year before last, the Box Office numbers were an ALL TIME RECORD! I am betting this year will come close to topping that! If there was a dip last year it would be because nothing that came out last year was a big hit! With the Exception of The Incredibles, not one movie really grabbed me last year! And the year had so much potential too...But when Hollywood can even screw up a BO wetdream like AvP there is just no hope of a good year of BO sales! This next year is looking good tho. This is the same crap we heard from the RIAA about Napster, yet their Dollar profits were larger that year than the year before! Their excuse was that their projected profit margin was smaller than initially predicted...Uhh...That year had a lot of crap for Music! The problem is not Piracy...Its CRAP FOR PRODUCT!
March 21, 2005, 4:27 p.m. CST
I'm excited to see what happens with 3D films. After reading an interview with James Cameron last December, I'm fired up for the possibilities of 3D. Like some of the other talkbackers on this thread, I watched an IMAX movie several years ago about human DNA, and I was blown away by the experience. I haven't watched anything remotely as intense since then, so I'm cautiously optimistic about 3D film's chances. Cameron said he's filming "Battle Angel Alita" in HD 3D, so that's encouraging. As for the state of film in the world, I see both sides of the piracy issue so I don't feel strongly either way. I also think some great films have been released in the last few years despite the glut of glizty, overwrought PG-13 films. Against my better judgment, I'm still optimistic.
March 21, 2005, 5:05 p.m. CST
Put every damn film in all the major and independant's libraries on it for 5-10 bucks a pop. Make them MPEG4 AVC format for quality that you can't get from crappy pirate rips or cams or telesyncs. Put them on for sale the same day they go to theaters so you can watch them in the awesome home theaters that are becoming standard all across the country. If people think the product is worth it they WILL pay for it, the problem is the theater industry sucks. They put way too many seats in theaters up front so they don't "sell out" of tickets when all the good seats are gone, they charge from 50 cents to a BUCK AND A HALF for an online "convienence fee" even from their own damn website that actually saves them money cause they need less ticket clerks, they let 5 year old in to scream during your viewing of Blade 3 and they put up commercials for 10-15 minutes when the flick starts containing old man ass or other annoyance. Is it any wonder the home theater DVD and PPV market is taking off while theaters are dying? I mean, for the 7.50-10 bucks I pay for a theater experience I damn well expect no commecials and bullshit they put you through now. Hell, they even charge that much for theaters with NO STADIUM SEATING! The theater industry is 99% crooks and need a swift kick in the ass.
March 21, 2005, 5:38 p.m. CST
I think this article may be interesting for those who wonder on what possible alternatives may pop up down the line that may finally forego the paradigmatic corporate/piracy stalemate, though it talks more about T.V. and the public airwaves than the movie industry per se. I'm not an expert on internet and computers, so I plead ignorance on the matter. Still, this is quite interesting. As far as 3d is concerned, I'll keep my opinion on the matter to myself until i have seen what the next generation has to offer with my own eyes. **************************************************************************** The worldwide consolidation of media industries has led to a consequent closure of the public airwaves with respect to matters of public interest. As control of this public resource becomes more centralized, the messages transmitted by global media purveyors become progressively less relevant, less diverse, and less reflective of ground truth. At present, individuals and organizations work to break the stranglehold of these anti-market-media-mega-corporations through the application of the courts and the law. However, because of the inherent monopoly that anti-market media maintain on the public mindset, legislators have been understandably reluctant to make moves toward media diversification. We are thus confronted with a situation where many people have interesting things to say, but there are progressively fewer outlets where these views can be shared. The public airwaves, because they are a limited resource, are managed by public bodies for the public interest. While honorable, the net effect of this philosophy of resource management has been negative: a public resource has become the equivalent of a beachfront property, its sale generating enormous license revenues, but its transfer to the private domain denying the community access to the sea of ideas. If a well-informed public is the necessary prerequisite to the democratic process, then we must frankly admit that any private ownership of public airwaves represents a potential threat to the free exchange of ideas. Now that private property has mostly collectivized the electromagnetic spectrum, and with little hope that this will soon change, we must look elsewhere to find a common ground for the public discourse. We are fortunate that such ground already exists on the Internet. (cont.)... http://www.aftrs.edu.au/go/library/research-tools/reports-and-papers/open-source-television/index.cfm
March 21, 2005, 5:57 p.m. CST
Sorry, man, I could take the ranting about Scooby Doo, I could take the infantile stuff around your birthday, but this is just flat-out evil. Hollywood views you, for good or ill, as the leader of the geeks and for you to endorse this is disgusting. This is going to fail, and it's going to fail miserably, and you know it. Anybody with a working brain knows it. Name me three movies that aren't SFX extravaganzas that would benefit, REMOTELY, from a 3D treatment. Especially old movies. Why not endorse colorization while you're at it? The only people behind this are Rodriguez, Lucas and Cameron. And of those three, Lucas is desperate to keep making his mark on film technology and Cameron's a gadget freak. Rodriguez is the only guy who might actually use it as an effective story-telling tool, and Spy Kids 3D didn't make that much money. This isn't going to prevent piracy, either. The 3D system has already been outwitted as a piracy prevention system. Any idiot with a polarized lens cover can beat this. It's a gimmick and it's a gimmick that can only damage film as an art if it's widely implemented. I have nothing against stereoscopic, but it wasn't exactly used for A-budget dramas and witty comedies. And furthermore, it's not our fault. It's the fault of lazy college students and Hollywood idiocy. Honestly, the Internet has mostly highlighted how many people see shitty copies of Hollywood movies as opposed to the movies themselves. Piracy is about people feeling like they're getting one over on a huge organization, not about actually seeing the movie (I have NEVER seen this creature Hollywood lives in fear of, the pristine download of a new release; it's all amateur hour.) They want less piracy? Work out a deal with the Actor's Guild to cap star salaries. Start moving away for formulas. Develop an awareness and understanding of the technology involved. You should be goddamn ashamed of yourself. So it looks cool. So what? What matters is whether this technology, like sound or widescreen, can push film as an art forward. You know what? Except in the case of, well, "Star Wars" and "Battle Angel Alita", it can't. All it can do is make rollercoasters, not movies.
March 21, 2005, 7:39 p.m. CST
I always kind of hoped 3D would take over. Just so long as it's not the gimmicky "ooooh, let's see what we can poke at the audiance" kind of 3D.
March 21, 2005, 7:56 p.m. CST
by Gordon Shumway
Not the movie, per se, it was a fine movie for children, but the 3D effect was awful. It gave me a headache, and the whole thing looked nearly black and white because of the tint from the glasses. It was all washed out, and not in the good Sky Captain way.
March 21, 2005, 8:20 p.m. CST
They had Shemp in 'em. And they suck.
March 21, 2005, 8:31 p.m. CST
by Mr Brownstone
but I think theatre chains need to get rid of on screen adverising too. watching trivia and advertising slides while god forsaken light top40 music plays before a film is an annoying experience. and then theres the commercials. maybe I'm insane but being forced to watch car commercials before something I PAID too see seems like the definition of insanity. But is it any more insane than magazines that charge outrageous cover prices even though they are chock full of high priced ad space. I pine for the "good ol' days" when movie soundtracks played, and then the red curtain parted to reveal magic (or crap, but thats besides the point). The whold experience of the theatres has been cheapened in an attempt to make them more accesible. it's no wonder people feel free to walk in with a video camera and start filming when the whole vibe of most multiplexes is that of glossy post-thempark whore house.
March 21, 2005, 9:56 p.m. CST
Hook 'em up to your computer and watch in 3D. If they make 3D into a big offering, they will have to offer LCD glasses that hook up to your disc player so we can watch at home. It should work with with CRT, plasma, LCD, DLP. They have to plug into the player so they can synch which lense is open for what frame is displayed.
March 22, 2005, 1:51 a.m. CST
I've seen it. It's amazing, it's comfortable, and it really makes things "pop" on screen. It's not just about making things jump out at you, like in the gimmicky 3D, but about portraying a real sense of depth. It's like the difference between looking at a painting of a person, and looking at a sculpture of them. The sculpture gives you a sense of texture, depth, and scope. It's hard to explain, but Harry's right- Don't even comment if you haven't seen the new version, with the polarized lenses (not LCD, not RED&BLUE), most likely in an IMAX theatre. And not just POLAR EXPRESS. An animated movie should be 2D, even if it's CGI. I'm talking about something live-action. It really seems like you're a witness to the events, rather than just watching a film. I can totally see how good 3D could revolutionize the THEATER industry- not movies (since we'll always want home video) but the theater experience. We'll have a reason to see it in the theater again- It will have that "something extra" that makes it worth the money. Just wait- You'll see.
March 22, 2005, 5:13 a.m. CST
That could definitely add a new dimension to getting off...and I agree that the whole 3-D issue is not going to affect piracy, one way or the other. And you guys are fools if you say that piracy doesn't hurt box office revenues. People who download lots of movies see less movies at the theater, obvious, but very true.
March 22, 2005, 5:48 a.m. CST
by Commando Cody
...and they're not alone in pushing technology forward. As others have noted, Hollywood is often the absolute LAST to create particular technologies. Hell, they've often tried to squash it sensing it would endanger their cash flow cows or rigid control of distribution. However, that said, clearly the digital/ computer/ entertaiment revolution long predicted to revolutionize the home is upon us. Meaning in the next 5-6 years -- thanks to companies like IBM that are more interested in making a straight profit vs. Hollywood which is more interested in making a sort of compounded profit by continually reusing the same copyrighted material over and over again ("Hey, let's make them buy Star Wars and LOTR for the 18th time!") -- thanks to companies like IBM we'll all be able to own true wall-sized 80" flatscreen HD monitors that will screen movies a HELLUVA lot better than theaters bother to do today. And best of all, it will be minus wise-ass talking teenagers, crying babies, little kids kicking seats from being bored, smelly floors from improper cleaning, or cell phones ringing from people who think being at a movie IS the same as watching a TV at home. Personally, I know the politically correct answer to say is "a movie is meant to be watched in a theater enviroment! With lots of people, all bonding in a community spirit!" but screw that shit. Since today's average community spirit is absolutely about being inconsiderate and is more often than not comprised of too many brainless teens (who likewise make me weep for the future of our country), the day of me owning my 80 inch wall screen and enjoying a movie IN FOCUS at home and UNDISTURBED by kids can't come fast enough. So if Hollywood wants to know "what's killing" the movie business, maybe they should get out of their multi-million dollar homes or limos and step into the average multiplex to see HOW SHITTY the average movie going experience has become for the average wage earning person, maybe THEN they'll see why more and more people are choosing to stay away.
March 23, 2005, 12:03 a.m. CST
One of my good friends has only one eye. The 3-D effect is totally lost on him. What will become of all the one eyed film lovers? No more going to the theatres for them? Seriously though. I hear where Harry is coming from. Maybe alot of the big hollywood films may go the 3D route...but most films wont.
March 23, 2005, 2:46 a.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
March 23, 2005, 12:05 p.m. CST
... as the whole CD issue- The record companies try to play that piracy has killed the music business- meanwhile everyone I know has the unanimous opinion that music today sucks hard. it's too formula- too postured- too exploited and too soulless... The same with most mainstream movies nowadays. I'm not saying that great indie movies and albums don't exist- they sure do- but they are hidden and swept under the rug and most people don't know of their existence because of this mainstream puke thrown in our faces... Shame on you Harry for suggesting that piracy is ruining the movie industry
March 23, 2005, 12:17 p.m. CST
... aside from the occasional Sin City, Kill Bill or City of God- I much more look forward to Sunday nights than I do opening Friday nights... On like 80% of the weekends I can expect better things from Deadwood, Carnivale, The Wire, Six Feet Under, The Sopranos, and Curb your Enthusiasm with Larry Fucking David than I can from puke like (let's take this weekend's movies for example: Miss Congeniality Two- Armed and Fabulous, D.E.B.S., and The Ballad of Jack and Rose. I'll see Oldboy of course- but it's a KOREAN movie. Damn I saw Ring 2 last weekend- and that sucked raw cow utter- OH! The original Ringu director! Well the ORIGINATOR churned out pure formulaic Hollywood trash- believe it.
March 23, 2005, 2:15 p.m. CST
by Wee Willie
Heretofore, 3-D was and is a gimmick. It's spectacle. What will be really interesting is when "serious" filmmakers get their hands on the technology. Somone very clever once said that "Cinema has very little to do with literature and theatre, and very much to do with Music and Architecture". This is true, The very best films are about space and rhythm, not so much story and dialogue. Do we remember images or words? It would be interesting to see this technology in the hands of Ingmar Bergman or Wong Kar Wai or Scorses for that matter. As for Star Wars being in 3-D? I couldn't care less. But if 3-D is the future of cinema, I can't wait to see what real Auteurs do with it.
March 23, 2005, 6:36 p.m. CST
This medium will never take off until you get rid of the glasses. Until the glass are GONE, the genre will be viewed as an old fashioned gimick. That's a fact.
March 24, 2005, 10:20 a.m. CST
Think about it. I can take my girlfriend to see a film and pay $16 for two student tickets, or wait 6 months and BUY the film during its release week for $14.99 on sale. I don't have to deal with crying kids, talking filmgoers, or sticky seats. Lower ticket prices, and you may see a return to the movies.
March 24, 2005, 4:53 p.m. CST
Why is it everytime I read about my favourite forms of entertainemt - Movies, Music, Comics and P C gaming. There is always articles about how these industries are dying. Yet there is more entertainment out there than at any time in human history and it's still being put out at a record rate. Remember this is the same industry that said The English Patient didn't make a profit, that Forrest Gump didn't make a profit. Compare the market place to the fifties. There are now six billion people on earth as to 3 in 1950. American movies are now been shown in India, China and Russia something that wasn't happening before. And the people who I know who download movies are the ones who never went to the cinema anyway.
March 24, 2005, 5:02 p.m. CST
For myself I would rather see King Kong at the cinema rather than a scrapy 15 inch monitor. So I go on a Sunday at ten am. Saturday and Friday nights - Just full of talkers, mobile phone users, girls screaming. Popcorn throwers. Always go to the earliest session in the day.
March 26, 2005, 11:50 a.m. CST
I don't think that piracy can be killing Hollywood if they are able to continiue to make films. What's killing Hollywood is Cameron sized budgets and SHOWGIRLS sized returns. When folks stop sweating the opening weekend, then we might start seeing better films out there.
March 28, 2005, 1:48 a.m. CST
And when we get *home* 3-D (which Harry unwittingly implies will happen when he mentioned that big 3D monitor he watched), with HDTV already inevitable, Blu-Ray quality and so forth, the suits will have to come up with _another_ gimmick yet again. Or go on an anti-television campaign and try to make you feel guilty for watching anything at home because you're taking money out of their pockets.
March 28, 2005, 1:51 a.m. CST
You could bring your own food, drink liquor, talk or make out all you wanted, and listen on your in-car stereo system while watching a screen way bigger than anything at home or in a cineplex. Sounds like a great business model. Oh well.
March 28, 2005, 10:43 a.m. CST
Hollywood made record profits last year, and they have been continuing to rise. Film is not dying, and if it were, 3-d is not the answer. Sure it might be a fun thing to do every now and then, but it's a novelty. A distraction. You watch 3-d movies because it's neat. You watch films because it's art. I don't know who paid you to write this article, but fuck you for it because you didn't mean it. Nobody could ever MEAN those words you just wrote, Harry. With record profits in the theater, and DVD sales through the roof, films gonna be around for a long time to come.
March 28, 2005, 7:54 p.m. CST
I've said this before. Harry is right, but he's not pushing it enough. 3d is also going to be the way we use computers, not just view movies. Check out Project Looking Glass by Sun. Blender 3d in France is working to create an entire network operating system like DOOM 3. And that's only the start. Ultra-thin screen Organic Light Emitting Diode Screens that fill an entire wall will be available in less than three years. Read Fahrenheit 451 again. Ray Bradbury's vision of home entertainment will come true THIS DECADE. And George Lucas will lead the way.
March 29, 2005, 10:44 a.m. CST
Sorry, but that claim is just absurd. It's studio talk, and I can't believe it's coming out of Harry's mouth. I'm not a fan of piracy, but it is certainly not the end-all of film. You cannot take a date to a pirated movie. You cannot enjoy watching a good movie nearly as much on a 17" computer monitor as you can in a giant theatre with a fleet of speakers. And the average guy is not sitting at home asking himself, "Should I go see Million Dollar Baby in the theatre, or should I download it?" People are still spending money for movies worth watching. Piracy is NOT the reason that such fine cinema as "Catwoman" did not make any money, although I'm sure that it was downloaded a lot. The industry has a quality control issue, but they see a scapegoat in the dark mystery of the thing called internet, so instead of addressing their real problem, they slap lawsuits on people and try to strong-arm the public into believing that they have been wronged. The fact is that they are trying to cheat us into watching crap. That is not the path to excellent filmmaking and it only serves to drive film further into obseletion.
April 1, 2005, 10:06 a.m. CST
...but admit it. You'd like to see that first shot from Lost in Translation in 3D just as bad as I do. :)