[photo-3d] R: House of Wax in Richmond

["sergio baldissara" <bobongo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Boris Starosta wrote:
> each time I have seen an older ull length 3d movie, I have
> come away thinking that it would have been
>just about as good shown flat.

Gabriel Jacob wrote:
> I have seen a lot of 3-D movies, and never tire watching
> them. Of course the same thing can't be said for the
> general public and I can sadly see Boris's point about
> 2-D movies being just as effective for many people.

this makes me think about the previous "bad fad" thread...
"Mirabilandia" is an italian seaside theme park and has a 250-seat 3d 
movie theatre... but they don't play 3d shows, they just SHOW the 3d 
novelty (the same way they could display the fattest man in the world 
or similar phenomena). I mean: they ceasessly project every 1/2 hour 
the same 20min 3d demo film ("Pirates", a meaningless short story, 
with many out-of-the-screen effects) since 3 years!!! (I wonder how 
many copies they bought...)
Indeed A.Hitchcock apart, no famous director ever tried 3d with 
famous actors. I couldn't yet see "dial M..." in 3d, and the few 3d 
movies I could see were justified by 3d "itself" or (even worst) were 
bad 2d movies with some back-added Pulfrich sequences. Such add-on's
(advertized as "amazing 3d effects") couldn't add appeal to bad 
movies and IMO were harmful for the popularity of 3d.
Nevertheless there are many nice 3d videos around and my friends 
agree "Love can build a bridge" is worth seeing with spex.
IMHO is the general quality (story, directors, feature, performnces) 
that matters in ANY movie. Furthermore some subjects could fit 3d 
better than others, others can be better in BW than in colours, in 
stills than in motion pictures... The aim of any kind imagery (2d or 
3d, bw or colour, still or moving and even non-photographic artwork) 
is communication of messages or feelings and "3d is great!" can't be 
THE main message!
Sergio