Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Hi Mark

I totally agreed with your point of view on 3D.
I watched Beowulf last year and couldn't remember most of the film, which is rare for me.
I felt the 3D elements distracted me from the story and did little to impress me plus, gave me a headache like the last 3D technology.
In my opinion this technology is still not ready and well overhyped the film studios.
I'm sure it will disappear as well, as it costs more for filmgoers and they only make poor select films at the moment.
But on a positive note I believe digital projection will be great for smaller budget films as it will be so much cheaper than 35mm film to produce.
So at least independent films will get a boost financially for their films, especially during these hard times.

I think the test for whether a new technology will be successful is whether it can add meaning to the artform. Sound obviously can and so when a way to achieve synchronized sound was found, it stayed. Colour can have an effect on meaning, and so that stayed. However, look at the various gimmicks that have failed over the years; interactivity always seems to fail as it actively removes meaning from a story. 3D has come and gone time and time again because it adds nothing to the meaning of a film, and in fact what it can do is very limited. We already have a sense of perspective on a 2D screen, we don't need simulated 3D for that, so the only thing is can do is throw things out of the screen at us, which gets old fairly quickly.

Hello Mark,

I completely agree with you there about 3D. At the moment the technology only really allows 2 plains - the background and the foreground with the 3D objects in the foreground spinning out of the screen in front of the background. To be truly 3D the whole image needs to envelope you and that's something that can already be found in well photographed 2D films with a good director at the helm.

Maybe Avatar will be different, we'll just have to wait and see but saying that I don't think the technology will move away from genre cinema, such as James Cameron's big sci-fi epics or horror films such as My Bloody Valentine as the whole reason to watch 3D is for the visual effects to pop out of the screen, something that you don't often see in low key dramas. One drama I'd love to see in 3D is The Wrestler. Imagine Mickey Rourke leaping out of the screen into the audience with nails, barbed wire and blood splatter everywhere. There's also Marisa Tomei's various stripteases...

Time t'chime in with my two cents. ENJOY!

3D won't be the way all films are shown, even if James Cameron's Avatar (for example) is unbelievably epic and huge and gargantuan and revolutionary and the Second Coming.

One major reason is that filmmakers seem unable to NOT make films devoid of shots specifically FOR 3D; For example, seeing My Bloody Valentine (which was too long but dumb fun)the pickaxe coming to camera...or the coins thrown AT camera in Beowulf. (In this way it may be that 3D becomes in a sense it's own 'genre' in the sense that people say animation is a genre. This isn't true. They are FORMATS. Toy Story and Waltz With Bashir are both animated. Do they follow similar conventions? Regardless, this is a different irritation of mine.)

Out of interest to see if it could work (although I remain hugely skeptical), I want to see the following in 3D:

2001 - To see if this idea of "immersion" into the film holds any water. 2001 could surely create a sense of being out-of-body if 3D is that immersive a format.

The Shining - The reason The Shining works for scares is because of the use of long shots all the time, heightening isolation. If the people stand out a little and we feel part of the Overlook, would it be more effective?

Sideways - Because there's nothing revolutionary in it's visuals, and if 3D is the "future of cinema" and all films are made this way, will low-key character driven pieces benefit as much as spectacular films apparently will?

That's...probably it from me.

There was an error there. Filmmakers seem unable to make films devoid of shots for 3D. Not the double negative.

No remake,gimmick-laden or not, can compete with the final act of the original film, which remains one of the most atmospheric of the 80's slasher genre.

Incidentally, the original has finally been released in an (almost) uncut version on DVD in the US, with 80% of the excised gore restored, which adds another element to what was already a superior example of the genre.

While it would have been nice to see the 'screwing' scene in it's entirety, it remains part of the 20% of filmed footage, that has been lost for ever more, due to deterioration of the source negative.

Give me old-school 'proper' gore-effects ( with make-up et al) over your gimmicky CGI-laden monstrosities any day.

Hi Mark,
In my mind the greatest horror film is Don't look now, I know you have a great affection for this film I would like to know what are your 5 greatest British horror films?

My local Multiplex has the following listing:

My Bloody Valentine (Not in 3D)

What's the point of showing a 3D movie without the 3D?

On 3D I think Mark has hit the nail on the head here. While there have been apparent improvements in the technology essentially its only ever going to be about things coming OUT of the screen, but thats not really 3D is it? It's 2.5D. I am not an expert on the technology, but why can't things be seen to have a greater depth too. Surely if the standard 2D is a plain, then a 3D image would both project out from it and receed away from it. I'm not entirely sure that this is not the case already but would it help if not? Who knows. For me the films and more importantly the audiences have yet to see any benefit from 3D cinema.

bossman103, Don't Look Know is a seriously creepy and disturbing film...Ever since I have had kids I have been afraid to watch it. When I was younger the scenes in Venice were creepy in their own right, but the emotional aspects of the earlier parts (now I have children of my own) will surely be heightened! Maybe its time to watch again.

I too would love to hear Mark's top 5 British horror films.

Whilst wrtiting the above I came across a little nuance of mine. I hate using the word 'Movie', it is and always will be (in my world anyway) a 'Film'. Why is this? I don't know anything about the origins of the word it just sounds like an Americanisation and I don't like using it (though I do catch myself sometimes.)

Does the good Dr. know the origins of the word and more importantly am I being a bit odd for not liking the term?

Cheers for the comments - I largely agree that 3-D is a dead end, though I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

I think you've just stopped short of hitting the nail on the head, whilst implying what the real problem is. As you say, 3-D tries to immerse you in the film, but fails to do so. You don't specifically say why, but to me, having thought a little more, it's becoming increasingly obvious.

Impressive 3-D shots are apparently quite difficult to set up and stage. You can't/don't just point a 3-D camera at everything, and HEY PRESTO!, you get a few shots that look good in 3-D, you have to plan and execute them carefully. The problem is that you can only do this so many times in a film. Any more and it'd take years to make.

Now here's the problem. As the 3-D effect tries to immerse you in the film, and draw you in, for maybe 4 or 5 minutes out of 100, all it really does is to remind you of how flat and far away the rest of the film is. With any well-shot 2-D film you should be able to be immersed in the image, but with 3-D this illusion is shattered when the pick axe (or whatever) flies out of the screen, reminding you and drawing attention to the fact that the film is just a film, and not the real world.

Even if you had something flying out of the screen every other shot, that’d just amplify the problem.

It's like watching a play that you're really getting into, and all of a sudden the actor turns to face you and says "Hey, you know I'm only an actor, and this is a play, not real, right?".

And that's the problem. The items flying out of the screen don't draw you into the film - they push the screen further away, constantly reminding you that you're watching a film, and reducing the chances of being able to suspend disbelief.

Steve W

Cheers for the comments - I largely agree that 3-D is a dead end, though I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

I think you've just stopped short of hitting the nail on the head, whilst implying what the real problem is. As you say, 3-D tries to immerse you in the film, but fails to do so. You don't specifically say why, but to me, having thought a little more, it's becoming increasingly obvious.

Impressive 3-D shots are apparently quite difficult to set up and stage. You can't/don't just point a 3-D camera at everything, and HEY PRESTO!, you get a few shots that look good in 3-D, you have to plan and execute them carefully. The problem is that you can only do this so many times in a film. Any more and it'd take years to make.

Now here's the problem. As the 3-D effect tries to immerse you in the film, and draw you in, for maybe 4 or 5 minutes out of 100, all it really does is to remind you of how flat and far away the rest of the film is. With any well-shot 2-D film you should be able to be immersed in the image, but with 3-D this illusion is shattered when the pick axe (or whatever) flies out of the screen, reminding you and drawing attention to the fact that the film is just a film, and not the real world.

Even if you had something flying out of the screen every other shot, that’d just amplify the problem.

It's like watching a play that you're really getting into, and all of a sudden the actor turns to face you and says "Hey, you know I'm only an actor, and this is a play, not real, right?".

And that's the problem. The items flying out of the screen don't draw you into the film - they push the screen further away, constantly reminding you that you're watching a film, and reducing the chances of being able to suspend disbelief.

Steve W

I don't know if it's just me but I find that HD currently has a similar distancing effect on me as 3D does. What happens with both is that you spend most of the time concentrating on looking for the effect (be it 3D or High Definition) rather than paying attention to the film itself. You're waiting, or looking for, the bits that are in 3D, or the special effects that will appear so clear in HD. I found myself, for example, watching The Dark Knight at the IMAX, and during the poignant scene where Alfred reads the letter thinking "that glass of orange juice looks amazing". I think I enjoyed the film more when I watched it on DVD and was more focused on the story. I think it will be the same with 3D, at least until we're all used to it, by which time it will be nothing special to us.

I have to join in and agree with the brilliance of 'Don't Look Now'. It's easily one of the greatest horror movies of all time and quite possibly one of the greatest movies ever.

But while we're on the subject of horror, let me also fly the flag for the 1983, almost completely unknown Belgium horror film 'ANGST'. One of the oddest, yet most mesmerizing movie going experiences I've ever had. Imagine 'Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer' but even nastier and (in my opinion) even better. Very few people have seen this film, it's extremely hard to come by but just look it up on the IMDB and check out the praise it has been given by the fans.

My question for Mark is: Have you seen the movie, and if so, what did you think about it?

THANK YOU for the review of My Bloody Valentine, because I was really disappointed when you ran out of time on last weeks podcast. I agree with you about this 3D film: the 3D effects are all about pointing things and throwing things at the audience. But I'm not sure you're right about 3D in general. 3D does have the ability to immerse you in the drama, but so far no director has managed to take full advantage of it. There were moments in Beowulf when I truly felt part of the setting, and similarly in the recent Journey to the Centre of the Earth. But just moments and maybe it's not coincidence that they're both CGI films. I'm still waiting for a 3D director skilled enough to sustain that effect. Possibly the technology isn't quite there yet, but I believe it will come.

I think the problems with 3D are firstly that most cinemas can only show the flat version as they apparently need a special screen, and only a select few have that installed (happily I'm close to one in Milton Keynes); and secondly that the process doesn't work very well on home video (I understand they either release it flat, or use the old red/green technique).

Thinking about ANGST - I haven't seen that one in years but I did like it. If we're talking about obscure European horror of the era, I really like DER FAN (at least that one has had a UK DVD release).

Hi Mark

As a Brit living in LA, (working in the 3D movie business) I love to hear a bit of Brit style movie reviews on the podcast.

Well I have to agree almost completely with your comments except that it is not the 3D technique that is at fault but the use of the technique by the film makers (that includes me I guess).

Yes 3D in is most popular form does continually poke things out at the audience which results in a distancing, not an immersive effect. It would be the same for color or sound if we had not learned to stop the gimmicks

Take a look at Charlie Chaplin's 'Modern times' and pay attention to the use of sound. Sound in 'Modern Times' is exactly like 3D today - self conscious and unsure of its purpose. Chaplin continues to pantomime his performance with title cards providing the words but when he plays with a radio turning the volume up and down the 'sound effect' is pure gimmick. But is is not sound that is the problem but the lack of experience with the medium.


The question is can 3D movie making last long enough for young directors to develop who want to make 'spatial movies' not 2D + depth.

U23D has been the most immersive so far. Did you see it?

cheers...phil mcnally

I spent the holidays in America where 'My Bloody Valentine 3D' was being heavily advertised.

However, the thing that they advertised it as over there, even more than the 3D was the idea that it was a 'Date Movie' I believe the phrase was something along the lines of "Nothing says Date Movie like My Bloody Valentine in 3D."

Now I don't care much for 3D personally, but I thought it was completely ridiculous that they couldn't advertise a film based on its merits (Assuming that it has any) and resorted to telling potential audiences when a good time for them to see the film would be.

Suffice to say I spent my money on Benjamin Button instead, which was far more worthwhile.

captain3d, don't ask Mark anything about U2 unless you're prepared for a 10 minute gasket blowing! I don't know how much you read, watch or listen to the Good Doctor but U23D, which claims to virtually take the audience on stage with the band, is his idea of hell. Mine too actually, I couldn't stand to be near that half-sunglasses half-man.

Mark blowing a gasket is the best bit of any podcast ;-)

Agree with this. To be honest, If found the 3D slightly annoying after 10mins. After a while my brain adjusted and I was just seeing a flat screen, only with a slight squint and some funny looking glasses on. It's a gimmick and will only ever be a gimmick.

also there are is the abundance of semi-popular new levels of quality to home flat screen. HD blu-ray and everything custom in-between.
I am not one for caring TOO much for how impossibly immaculate the picture quality of the film im watching is, but even to the people who do, surely a level of quality higher than 'HD' or Blu-Ray will just be unnecesary and quiet frankly pathetic. So maybe the only other level that would seem acceptable is 3D, and at home and ready for purchase in your local HMV soon too?
I really hope not.
Yet there will ALWAYS be films that are made to simply furfill peoples certain needs, for example MBV-3D is here to do nothing more than give us naked people being sliced'n'diced, yet with films like Bride Wars, American Pie; Band Camp and Disaster Movie being made, its clear that films furfill needs of stupidity, tastelessness and gullibility to pathetic marketing are also made. So i dread a day 3D ventures into any other genre, which i can only see happening in the near future.
Just imagine some of the incredible scenes, along with the amazing atmosphere, in There Will Be Blood; and now picture them in 3D......i don't think so

another thing i may add is that, this film seems to have had more time spent and money spent on advertising than creating the film itself.
And as for the advertising, it took me a while to even know what kind of film was being advertised when i saw the ad for the first time.
The wayyy over-the-top grunt of the narrator splurring out "AMAZING..FANTASTIC..3D....3D.....3D!!" and so on, just shadowed the film itself.
For a slasher movie, especially a remake of such a notoriously nasty one, id expect a much different show of marketing techniques; the ads were epic and cover din gleaming orange and gold titles in a bold hollywood style font. I didnt know what the hell to expect from this film to be honest, it was like buying a pink sparkly dvd case with "unholy satanic blasphemous demon sacrifice" written on the front.

I'm rather worried about this whole '3D revolution' especially with people working on 3D televisions.
My partner can only see properly out of one eye, and thus cannot see in 3D.
If the only option in a cinema is to see the 3D version, we won't be going as he cannot enjoy it.
'2D' cinema is much more viewer friendly especially to those who have vision difficulties. Both myself and my partner wear glasses, and we would have to put the 'sunglasses' over them in order to see.

3D still feels gimicky to me, I can't see how it's changed much from the @bristol Imax days when you'd go to see a film composed of various shorts just showing off the way things fly at you. And I don't particularly have any desire to see homer's computer rendered face pulled into a black hole from the comfort of my home.

What really annoys me about 3D is the assumption by film makers that we want to be part of the film and feel as if we were there. This may be true for some people but for me cinema, especially horror cinema, is more about the voyeuristic experience.