Maybe someday there will be 3D cinema and TV, and that would be a good thing. But not with the current approach. 3D right now just gives you a headache.
Almost as much as the desperate cheerleading of 3D fans.
@KapStuf Fuck that rubbish--I wanna see what you generics call "movies" (more like "mooh-vee-z") projected in film...I enjoy Star Wars projected in 3D, but that's because it's Star Wars...If I ever get in the industry one day, I will go against all the sheep-like rules of "modern" cinema by shooting with film, 20th Century-era special effects, and no 3D...Besides, you can't call it "cinema" if it's in digital and/or in a multiplex--that's going to the "moovee theeder"....
3D cinema will do to the movie industry what XTube has done to the Noughties Generation. Doing your missues up the wrong 'un might look like a good idea, but in most relationships it'd just make things cold and disappointing.
Pay more money to watch the movie in a dark room wearing shades OR pay less money to enjoy the movie without having to squint and leave the cinema headache-free.
@terratrema you've not read his recent book or understood the concept of irony have you?
Saying the 3d in Hugo was ok isnt saying 3d is good in general. His line on 3d being a side show spectacle at best is very consistent, was saying the same thing in the early 90s. youtube kermode house of wax.
We all know the future is ideally IMAX or similar (now whether this happens or not is another matter entirely as it may simply never be financially viable)
I saw hugo in 3D and i didn't see what was so good about it. Until we get 3d which does not require special glasses i will always try to see a film in 2D first. If its a good story it doesnt need the gimmick, and if its over 90 minutes i dont need the head ache/eye strain. Although i wouldnt mind seeing a good monster movie/horror in 3d to see if its scarier.
Avatar, it all looked blurred from where I was sitting. Tron Legacy IMAX, it all looked burred apart from one scene. Thor, I got a migraine for the first 20 minutes. Immortals, looked very good for the most part, but I had to wear my glasses over my glasses to prevent eye strain. I deliberately did not see Fright Night 3D, because that was the only version showing. Do I have to watch Hugo?
The thing is, the other "fads" could be applicable to ALL types of cinema, wheras 3D only really works with animation and the occasional live action block buster. No one wants to see a movie similar to My Dinner with Andre in 3d (despite that, The Great Gatsby will be in 3D, but that's another rant). When it works, it's amazing, but for something so limited and gimmicky as 3D, it's hardly the future of cinema.
stick to your guns 3d-haters! all of those prior improvements were problem free, but 3d in its current incarnation is genuinely crap. why should we be paying more to see a dark, desaturated film?
I think the essential point is that sound, colour and wide screen add something without taking anything away. 3D doesn't do that. It's still a trade off. Darkness, headaches, etc. I do hope it'll become perfected, though.
@Foebane72 Just because he thinks 3D is catching on, that doesn't mean that he loves 3-D. I mean, in the past ten years he's only liked one movie in 3D, which is Hugo.
By the way, what on earth are you talking about? "Traitor"? Talk about being over dramatic.
3D is a pain in the backside. The main reason it's "popular" is that the 2D versions aren't bleeding showing anywhere. I saw Tintin in 3D a while back and depsite it being a mocap movie - which supposedly works better with 3D - it was annoying beyond belief. Personally, I will always look for the 2D version first. Equally often, I have been unsuccessful in doing so. Bah. Bah. And Merry Christmas.
The 3D of Hugo is more archaic in its nature so there is a sense of film history. My issue with 3D is most studios have decided that 3D is the way forward regardless if the audiences want it or not and even if its popularity is on the wain we the audiences still have to cough up the extra money to cover the extra costs. 3D is the euro of the film industry
Funny video, but I still have to agree with the original sentiment that making movies more expensive to watch in the theater and designing movies so more "things" rush at the foreground wildly is not a future of movies I particularly want to be part of. We'll see if enough film makers agree, but as you've said in the past, every movie is shot "in three dimensions."
I mean, it can't hurt summer blockbusters or action movies, but a David Cronenberg movie in 3D would be utterly pointless.
funny as this may be (and its always nice to be self reflective&critical) the point is for widescreen,color and sound u don't need to wear stupid glasses. i have been to showrooms with glasses-free 3d tvs and laptops. if that technology is developed there is a chance 3D might actually be worthwhile for those who can stand the eye strain. still 1/4 of the population will be left unable to experience the content.
When my willy has an issue, i scratch it!
MrJizmonkey 2 months ago
Maybe someday there will be 3D cinema and TV, and that would be a good thing. But not with the current approach. 3D right now just gives you a headache.
Almost as much as the desperate cheerleading of 3D fans.
KapStuf 2 months ago
@KapStuf Fuck that rubbish--I wanna see what you generics call "movies" (more like "mooh-vee-z") projected in film...I enjoy Star Wars projected in 3D, but that's because it's Star Wars...If I ever get in the industry one day, I will go against all the sheep-like rules of "modern" cinema by shooting with film, 20th Century-era special effects, and no 3D...Besides, you can't call it "cinema" if it's in digital and/or in a multiplex--that's going to the "moovee theeder"....
Transformers2themax 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
What about popcorns?
StarbPuss 2 months ago
did someone force him to do this video? lol
frogtastic1000 2 months ago
3D cinema will do to the movie industry what XTube has done to the Noughties Generation. Doing your missues up the wrong 'un might look like a good idea, but in most relationships it'd just make things cold and disappointing.
liaminpreston 2 months ago
did this come from the conversation with scorsese who compared the 3D-fad with the invention and subsequent establishment of colour films?
mm091540 2 months ago
3D is here to stay kermode you european faggot.
themenaceanish 2 months ago
@themenaceanish I had a laughing fit after I read that. Genius.
I am european and, of course, I am a big faggot.
itsthedubchimp 2 months ago
@itsthedubchimp You're a disease then.
themenaceanish 2 months ago
@themenaceanish TWAT
Mistaken4starz 2 months ago
@themenaceanish Seems like mommy and daddy forgot to turn your NetNanny off.
Transformers2themax 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
3D doesn't work very well...i think that's all that needs to be said on the matter
frogtastic1000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
commode is a faggot
themenaceanish 2 months ago
Fuck me this is beyond hilarious. My christmas treat for sure!
VonBlade 2 months ago
Pay more money to watch the movie in a dark room wearing shades OR pay less money to enjoy the movie without having to squint and leave the cinema headache-free.
Ooooh, decisions decisions....
Fatpie42 2 months ago
Yes yes, but why isn't the good doctor wearing any pants in this video?
minderbinderas 2 months ago
Yes, it appears Kermode is becoming a 3D-supporter.
Shit.
Pretty soon I'm gonna be the only one left who hates the damn thing.
terratrema 2 months ago
@terratrema you've not read his recent book or understood the concept of irony have you?
Saying the 3d in Hugo was ok isnt saying 3d is good in general. His line on 3d being a side show spectacle at best is very consistent, was saying the same thing in the early 90s. youtube kermode house of wax.
We all know the future is ideally IMAX or similar (now whether this happens or not is another matter entirely as it may simply never be financially viable)
mytimetravellingdog 2 months ago
@mytimetravellingdog
"You've not understood the concept of irony, have you?"
Pompous little stain.
terratrema 2 months ago
It's a joke and he's just making fun of himself a little. God, you people....
astrgd27 2 months ago
I saw hugo in 3D and i didn't see what was so good about it. Until we get 3d which does not require special glasses i will always try to see a film in 2D first. If its a good story it doesnt need the gimmick, and if its over 90 minutes i dont need the head ache/eye strain. Although i wouldnt mind seeing a good monster movie/horror in 3d to see if its scarier.
hellboundblr 2 months ago
Avatar, it all looked blurred from where I was sitting. Tron Legacy IMAX, it all looked burred apart from one scene. Thor, I got a migraine for the first 20 minutes. Immortals, looked very good for the most part, but I had to wear my glasses over my glasses to prevent eye strain. I deliberately did not see Fright Night 3D, because that was the only version showing. Do I have to watch Hugo?
Morrgore 2 months ago
back-peddling??
Mistaken4starz 2 months ago
The thing is, the other "fads" could be applicable to ALL types of cinema, wheras 3D only really works with animation and the occasional live action block buster. No one wants to see a movie similar to My Dinner with Andre in 3d (despite that, The Great Gatsby will be in 3D, but that's another rant). When it works, it's amazing, but for something so limited and gimmicky as 3D, it's hardly the future of cinema.
LowBudgetLurker 2 months ago
I have to say that with Hugo, I might be ready to change my mind about 3D.
BPReviewer 2 months ago
stick to your guns 3d-haters! all of those prior improvements were problem free, but 3d in its current incarnation is genuinely crap. why should we be paying more to see a dark, desaturated film?
WeirdUniverse 2 months ago
sounds like a lot of back-pedalling kermode...explain yourself, seems like hugo and a convo with the director was enough to shift you
8alih 2 months ago
Does this mean Mark has changed his stance on 3D? =O
ec123456789able 2 months ago
You've managed to preserve your good looks, whats your secret?
Animationgatecom 2 months ago
{gasp} Does this mean he's onboard with 3D?
ThorFan4Life 2 months ago 2
I think the essential point is that sound, colour and wide screen add something without taking anything away. 3D doesn't do that. It's still a trade off. Darkness, headaches, etc. I do hope it'll become perfected, though.
ChristopherDone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Foebane72 Just because he thinks 3D is catching on, that doesn't mean that he loves 3-D. I mean, in the past ten years he's only liked one movie in 3D, which is Hugo.
By the way, what on earth are you talking about? "Traitor"? Talk about being over dramatic.
123rockfan 2 months ago
Comment removed
123rockfan 2 months ago
don't backtrack mark...it doesn't suit you
frogtastic1000 2 months ago 2
3D is a pain in the backside. The main reason it's "popular" is that the 2D versions aren't bleeding showing anywhere. I saw Tintin in 3D a while back and depsite it being a mocap movie - which supposedly works better with 3D - it was annoying beyond belief. Personally, I will always look for the 2D version first. Equally often, I have been unsuccessful in doing so. Bah. Bah. And Merry Christmas.
Lessdeth14 2 months ago
i always knew 3d was here to stay kermode, and right now most movies do it right.
RETRONGAMES79 2 months ago
It's not the future we deserve, but it's the future that Cinema bosses need right now.
DannyBoy777 2 months ago 2
@DannyBoy777 So we'll hunt them, because they can take it. Because they are not filmmakers. They're sleazy gits, witless prats. Dopey klutzes.
6000mphx 2 months ago 2
The 3D of Hugo is more archaic in its nature so there is a sense of film history. My issue with 3D is most studios have decided that 3D is the way forward regardless if the audiences want it or not and even if its popularity is on the wain we the audiences still have to cough up the extra money to cover the extra costs. 3D is the euro of the film industry
MrBronzefonz 2 months ago
Funny video, but I still have to agree with the original sentiment that making movies more expensive to watch in the theater and designing movies so more "things" rush at the foreground wildly is not a future of movies I particularly want to be part of. We'll see if enough film makers agree, but as you've said in the past, every movie is shot "in three dimensions."
I mean, it can't hurt summer blockbusters or action movies, but a David Cronenberg movie in 3D would be utterly pointless.
TheSamuraiGoomba 2 months ago 14
@TheSamuraiGoomba David Lynch?
SethHesio 2 months ago
So is he recanting his statement in light of the other 'fads' taking hold?
mightlife 2 months ago
@Foebane72 thanks for your useless unput
LucasW180 2 months ago
Hee hee hee...
vrooomuk 2 months ago
'Holodecks will never catch on...'
DimmedDiamond 2 months ago 24
Nice one, Kermode.
bordarboy 2 months ago
To be fair, 3D isn't totally comparable to these, but great little video
Tinkererer 2 months ago
Funny! Nice work Dr kermode
paparen 2 months ago
Good video, but obviously the situations aren't comparable.
St4rdog 2 months ago
@St4rdog If you read up on film history there have always been people complaining about every tech advance out there.
spugesdu 2 months ago
funny as this may be (and its always nice to be self reflective&critical) the point is for widescreen,color and sound u don't need to wear stupid glasses. i have been to showrooms with glasses-free 3d tvs and laptops. if that technology is developed there is a chance 3D might actually be worthwhile for those who can stand the eye strain. still 1/4 of the population will be left unable to experience the content.
phoelscher1 2 months ago
Nice bit of self-effacing there.
drplbiftin 2 months ago
Surprisingly self-critical.
SittingOvations 2 months ago 2