Re: [photo-3d] Re: Coming to a theater near you

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Watters wrote:
> The one thing lacking as far as I've seen is anything resembling
> decent content (a MAJOR lacking of the 50's 3D films too).  If IMAX
> was able to swing a single decent high-profile film to be shot and
> presented in IMAX 3D, their popularity would show a massive upswing.
> 

I liked "Under the Sea" (or whatever the underwater one was), but I
guess you would discount that because it was more of a documentary and
didn't have to have a plot.  I also liked "Across the Sea of Time" (my
first IMAX 3D movie), but then I live in NYC and I think the 3D gimick
worked well given the plot of the movie.  I don't remember how many
other IMAX 3D movies I've seen.  Unfortunately I don't have time to
see them all, but I'd rather make time to see an IMAX 3D (or just
plain IMAX) movie than just about anything that comes out of
Hollywood.

> My selection (given recent conversation): A Star Wars related film.
> Can you imagine the business that would be generated by a Star Wars
> product that could likely NEVER be presented in a home product in
> any way remotely resembling the original?!?  If I were running IMAX,
> I'd PAY Lucas to shoot a 45 - 60' short StarWars film in the format,
> solely for the promotional advantages.  Well, as long as it didn't
> turn out like the famed '78 "Holiday Special". ;)
>

I think it would be a bad idea to do a Star Wars IMAX 3D unless Lucas
funded it himself.  Lucas is likely to realize that the marketing
potential of a format that can not be later sold into the home isn't
very good.

If a company wants to do something Star Wars related without Lucas
footing the bill (i.e., license the rights) Lucas expects an up front
payment for the licensing fee, not a pay as you sell the product.  I
know of one major hobby company that is now in serious financial
trouble because they bought the Star Wars license and didn't make it
back when the most recent Star Wars movie bombed.

If you wanted an IMAX 3D hit I'd say get Pixar to do it.  "Knick
Knack" was great when shown stereoscopically many years ago at
SIGGRAPH.

> That's my major gripe with previous era's attempts at stereo films -
> they sucked.  I can think of ONE 3D movie that was actually any
> good: Dial M for Murder.  After that, the best would have been House
> of Wax.  That's pretty sad.  Can't think of a single film in the
> early '80's stereo binge that was any good.  They were all laughably
> bad in fact.  Heck, who can get too excited about a film format when
> it's almost exclusively used for garbage films?
> 

So far I've seen three 1950's 3D movies at the Film Forum: "Dial M for
Murder", "Kiss Me Kate" and "House of Wax".  I've probably seen "Dial
M for Murder" on TV at some point in my childhood.  I saw "Kiss Me
Kate" on AMC a couple of months before seeing it at the Film Forum and
realized by the closing shot (Howard Keel holding Kathryn Grayson and
floating over the audience) that it must have originally been a 3D
movie.  I don't recall if I've ever "House of Wax" before, but I love
the similar Vincent Price/Roger Corman/Edgar Allan Poe movies.

I liked all of these movies as show at the Film Forum (twin strip) and
expect I'll like "Miss Sadie Thompson" when it shows in December
(along with a Three Stooges short that I probably won't like).  I go
to the movies to be entertained and I found these movies to be
entertaining.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"