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

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Have you ever seen the stereoscopic 3-D version of "Kiss Me Kate"?   If so,
what was your opinion of it?

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Watters" <michael.watters@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 12:09 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: Coming to a theater near you


>
> >    From: Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Coming to a theater near you
> >
> > >>I believe new technology is required.  Theater owners simply will not
> > stand
> > >>for having to pay for dual projectors, two sets of prints and the need
> > to
> > >>distribute glasses, polarized or especially LCD.
> >
> > As I mentioned, this needs to happen. There is no infrastructure - less
> > than 1% of US Theaters are able to show stereo motion pictures. And the
> > reluctance of the theater owner to use gimmicks like LCD is obvious, as
> > if the publics's reluctance to wear them. As for giving the patrons
> > polarized glasses, this is very cheap.
> >
> > A first rate, seriously considered motion picture in stereo would start
> > the ball rolling. Success would spawn more stereo movies and more stereo
> > movies would force theaters to become equipped for them, sparking more
> > movies and better technology. This is simply the way commerce works. But
> > these efforts better yield a great movie experience, or it is back in
the
> > closet for another 50 years.
>
> Actually, I'd suggest that there are a couple of major
> pieces of the puzzle in place already.
>
> 1st - IMAX.  Granted, not everything they show is stereo,
> but they are geared up for it.  If anything, we should be
> amazed at how successful they HAVE been considering the
> films they show are mostly crap (IMHO).  To explain (in an
> attempt to ward off flames from IMAX fans...) these films,
> if shown flat at a conventional theatre would open and
> close on the same day with no more than 10 viewers.  In
> terms of CONTENT - they belong on the Discovery channel,
> not on the big screen.  The ones I've seen are badly acted
> and just had a "I just barely graduated from film school
> last week" feel about them.
>
> 2nd - Sagging theatre revenues.  The best stereo delivery
> systems (polaroid and LCD glasses) are either not workable
> or somewhat marginal on home TV.  What this means is that
> any film presented in stereo could ONLY be seen in its full
> glory in an honest-to-God movie theatre.  Given that,
> theatres would be much more likely to pull in viewers for
> older films, films already on video etc.  This factor is
> very similar to what we would have seen in the 1950's (with
> the advent of TV).  Movie makers were scrambling to find
> novel presentations that could not translate well to TV
> (stereo picture, stereo sound, increasing use of color,
> widescreen movies).  The primary difference now is that
> movie houses aren't as closely connected to the studios as
> before.
>
> 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.  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". ;)
>
> 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?
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Dr. Michael Watters
> Email: Michael.Watters@xxxxxxxxx
> Valparaiso University
>
>
>
>
>