Hot Trailer: ‘Anchorman 2′ 
2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From … 
Time Warner Cable Sued For Passing Lakers-Dodgers Costs On … 
Jonah Hill Signs For Management With LBI 
TOLDJA! ‘Dumb And Dumber To’ Proves No-Brainer … 
Salma Hayek’s Animated Passion Project ‘The … 
Relativity Moves Scott Cooper’s ‘Out Of The … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Lego Movie’ 
Comedy ‘I Didn’t Do It’ Gets Series Order … 
Liv Tyler To Co-Star In Damon Lindelof’s HBO Pilot … 
DreamWorks Animation Launches Effort To Re-Position Itself … 
‘Pacific Rim’ Sequel In Planning Stages, … 
Legendary “Down To Handful” Of Studio Suitors: … 
UPDATE: Dan Harmon Apologizes For Comments Slamming … 
Deadline Expands: Hires Washington Post Journalist Lisa De … 
MGM & BermanBraun Sign TV Production Deal, First-Look … 
EMMYS: ‘Big Bang Theory’s Science 
‘Client List’ Season 3 Pickup In Limbo Over … 
Amazon Orders Cop Drama Pilot Based On Michael … 
Lionsgate Acquires Pulitzer Prize Winner ‘Devil In … 
ABC Executive Quinn Taylor Moves To NBC To Head Longform … 
Directors Martin Scorsese and Ang Lee don’t seem fazed by theater owners’ concerns about the expense of installing the technology to show movies in 3D, and moviegoers’ objections to higher-priced tickets and the glasses needed to watch them. 
“Absolutely it’s the future,” Scorsese said in a joint interview with Lee today at the CinemaCon Filmmakers Forum — an event partly sponsored by 3D technology company RealD. “The moment (film) started, people wanted three things: color, sound and depth.” Lee added that filmmakers “really need your support. It will be a good investment” to install projectors capable of showing 3D movies. Scorsese says that it was a liberating challenge to film Hugo with the extra dimension that reminded him of looking into a View Master. “There was something that transported you to another world,” he says. “There’s a scene where actor Sacha Baron Cohen leans in to intimidate the boy (the film’s lead character). It was like he came off the screen.” But that also made the movie more intimate. ”People would come back and say that they liked being in that world.” He doesn’t have a strong view yet about efforts to increase the image projection speed to 48 frames a second or more from 24 frames. Although critics say the image can look cold and too precise, “we’ve already made an adjustment from the look of nitrate (film) to acetate. So that adjustment can be made….And you could do anything you want with that image with that kind of clarity.” Scorsese’s concerned, though, about the difficulty of preserving films in the digital world. “You need to have migration, a system of every five years migrating all of the elements to a new technology so it doesn’t disappear,” he says. “We have an obligation to our culture to preserve it.” Lee, whose upcoming film Life Of Pi is being shot in 3D, added that the movie business is at “the breaking point of taking 3D seriously.” Although filmmakers still need to find excuses to make a movie in 3D, “someday we won’t need that.” It also will become more accepted as the next generation of directors studies 3D in film schools. His advice to theater owners: “Keep them open. Keep them in good condition. And keep up with technology as much as you can.”
(Photo: Getty Images)
Related:
Will Social Media Re-Invigorate Moviegoing?
Theater Owners Question The Payoff For New Technologies
Fandango Adds 1,400 More Screens To Paperless Ticketing Service
Laser Projection Is Coming, But Not In A Flash
Is It Time To Let Moviegoers Text During A Film?
IMAX Laser Projection Prototype Clears Way For Much Larger Screens
MPAA’s Chris Dodd Says Ratings Should Be “Far More Transparent”
MPAA And NATO Chiefs Pledge Cooperation After Last Year’s “Sour Note”
Movie Pirate Caught Filming At CinemaCon
Dolby Says New Technology Will Make Movies Sound More Realistic
Loading ...
I’m a 40-year-old adult who has never gone to see a 3-D movie in the theater, only at a theme park. I may not be the current target market, but I’m willing to bet there are a lot of people who don’t care about 3-D. I’m kind of disappointed in Scorsese for being such a shill for the industry. Certainly nobody (meaning adults) cares to see his movies in 3-D.
There are many people out there, like myself, of all ages who cannot see the 3D effecs properly. We aren’t going to pay an extra price for something that doesn’t enhance our movie going experience.
If the future belongs to 3D, then the future also belongs to me keeping my family home & watching something at a lower cost using media I have control over.
History, or more specifically the box office tally for “Hugo”, would seem to disagree with Marty’s vision of the future.
Does anyone know if movie goers generations ago had to pay a premium to see a talkie or color movie?
I think they would bet a better turnout if the industry ate the extra cost. I would imagine that they would quikly get return on their investment.
9:30am showing at the ArcLight for the 3D showing of “The Adventures of Tin Tin” for me and and my daughter. There were two other people in the theater. I don’t like the future.
I wouldn’t expect to see a lot of people at a 9:30 AM showing of ANY movie that isn’t some sequel to a massively successful movie, like Twilight or Dark Knight.
I am guessing you must not have kids, Lone Fedora; 9:30am showings are pretty popular with the young ones.
Did you people not read what he said? Depth to the image, intimacy, and realism, when done right (and Hugo was as good as 3d gets right now). I have a 3d tv set at home and some 3d is done right and most is converted improperly thus far. But all you purists need to stfu and stop watching a flat lifeless image simply because you want your ART to remain unchanged and because you think the glasses are silly. 3d is not needed for all films, but summer popcorn movies were tailor made for 3d. Also stop complaining that the 3d sucks cause it doesn’t pop out of the screen. Stereoscopic 3d is more about the depth in the image than it is about the gimmicky sword or bullet hitting you in the face, all you 3d haters really just hate it cause you have simple minds that don’t understand how the illusion enhances the film and makes you feel like your in the same room with the characters on screen. But what do I know? Enough to know that Cameron and Scorsese are geniuses.
The brainwashing has begun.
whether 3D is the future or not, Scorsese is 100% correct for pointing out the shot where Cohen’s character leans in to intimidate Hugo. That shot, with all its subtlety, is the best use of 3D i’ve ever seen. Truly immersive. It trumps any shot in Avatar or the flying sequence in How to Train Your Dragon or other examples of great 3D. Makes me excited for 3D in Life of Pi and Gatsby
If that’s the case, then the future sucks.
Mr. Scorsese is a smart businessman in a business he understands: he said the right thing. Sure, 3-D primarily sucks right now, and it may not get better in our lifetime. But the medium is here to stay, like rap music. Yes, EXACTLY like rap music.
I disagree with that assessment. I don’t think the memory of the 3D portion of the moviegoing experience generally lingers long enough for it to make an impact. That’s the reason I generally feel like I don’t need to spend extra money for my experience. What I generally remember are the stories, characters and whatever emotional resonance they feel from a movie.
Scorsese used 3D amazingly well, especially that shot of Cohen he’s referring to, but he’s just one example, not to mention the fact that “Hugo” was not a box office bonanza. Most of the movies released in 3D don’t seem to make good use of the technology. “Wrath of the Titans” got hammered for its 3D, and you’d think since its predecessor was considered one of the worst examples of the current uses of 3D, the filmmakers would have taken care to make sure the crowds were pleased by the effect in “Wrath.”
This is about money, plain and simple. If audiences stopped paying for 3D tomorrow, studio interest in the technology would be out the window.
Ang Lee’s hulk was unwatchable and Hugo was a waste of film. Both of these directors have their best work behind them so what they say doesn’t mean much.
AMEN.
I don’t buy that Scorsese is somehow an industry shill as he has expressed a strong interest in 3D films for years now.
I do think it would be smart idea for theaters to reduce the surcharge to the $2 it was before Avatar or the $1 extra IMAX charges instead of the $4 or more it is now, if not eliminate the surcharge completely. If theaters want to compete with TV/Blu-Ray they should be looking for ways to add value to the experience, not just a try and get more from tickets.
After all, while there are some films where the 3D is totally useless (such as Up, Priest, Dolphin Tale), and there are others where the 3D is so well-used it feels like a very different experience without it (such as Avatar, Pina, How to Train Your Dragon, and even the re-release of the Lion King which makes it hard to go back to the 2D version for me), I find with the majority of 3D titles (including Scorsese’s own Hugo, which I adored as a movie itself) the effect is kinda cool and adds to a few parts, but isn’t something that fundamentally change the experience; and while I don’t regret having seen those movies in 3D I also can understand why others don’t want to pay siginificantly more for that.
I personally LOVE seeing 3D movies – but in 2D. All that nonsense shooting at the audience is truly hilarious.
Mr. Lee’s and Mr. Scorsese’s “shilling” might be not for the industry so much as to try to drum up enough enthusiasm for 3D to enable them to make the kind of movies they want to make and arguably are good at. The more a big technology like this becomes an industry standard, the easier and cheaper it is to do. And when I first heard that Mr. Scorsese was doing a 3D picture (I haven’t seen any of the recent 3D releases yet.) it made sense to me, because he always uses a lot of forward movement of the camera to bring the viewer into the action, to move along with it, whatever. I could imagine him using the technology as well as anybody around these days.
That said, my own interest in 3D is almost nonexistent, for what I want to see in movies, though I am a fan of both these directors’ work. But Mr. Scorsese’s remarks about movie preservation now that the programs are on digital media hit home. It is similar to the question of whether the industry should go heavily into 3D.
Now that it has gone virtually all digital, the question of who shoulders the costs of all kinds of activities appears. Who determines what standards for archives are, and migration schedules that he talks about? How is all that quintennial migration going to be funded? Will I have to pay more for tickets and DVDs today if I want the shows I enjoy now still to be available in ten years? Or is the idea to let them all become truly as fragile as dreams, rather than artifacts?
These sound like big questions, 3D or no. What can audience members have to say about them? Maybe anyone who brings the issues before us should be thanked for doing at least that much, agree with them or no.
Hugo was excellent in 2D.
The current competing 3D processes will wither away like Betamax –
as the earlier versions (red and green anaglyph or polarized lenses) always have.
Darker images, headaches, ghosting and incompatibility with corrective lenses are all problems.
I saw Pixar’s UP in 2D because I didn’t want to see less color in a darker image.
The technology will be here to stay when it evolves beyond wearing 3D glasses.
“Enough already. It’s a gimmick for Christ’s sake! Doesn’t anybody notice this? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”
Mainstream cinema is already suffering a lack of visionary directors. Cinema can’t afford to lose the few that are left to absurd propaganda. All we need now is for great directors to say texting in the theater is good too. It’s getting desperate.
Theaters and studios don’t need to come up with technology to bring added value, they need to stop making decisions based on corporate economics and support films that have a voice and touch people. I guarantee the box office and attendance will rise when they do.
Painting did not die because sculpture was in 3D. Fictional cinema is an emotional medium, and in my experience 3D, not only does not enhance emotional involvement, but continually reminds me that I’m in a theatrer. ‘Hugo’ was the first Scorsese picture I couldn’t immerse myself in – and being my favourite living director – I did try to be immersed.
The medium is the most powerful art form we’ve got – as is – 3D does not make it better. If you want more reality, how about engaging in real life with real people. Cinema is for dreaming.
I’ve tried 3d too many times and was disappointed every time. I now always opt for the 2D version with the exception of Hugo, because of all the praise its 3D received. Well it was terrible too.
3D Is a gimmick and it looks like one that is going to take a while to die. But it will. And Scorsese and Lee may be great directors but they are hawking a product here, not making movies.
“There’s a scene where actor Sacha Baron Cohen leans in to intimidate the boy (the film’s lead character). It was like he came off the screen.”
That scene made me throw up . . . in my mouth.