Thread: Hobbit in 3D
   >>
What do you think? if you dont like 3D just watch the normal screen.
Avatar was great.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/03 ... versation/
Actually, Tolkien in his time didn't think Fantasy could be well done on film, but that was due to the limited technology of his day (if I recall correctly, I think he referred to it as something like "cheap pantomime". I think he would be very pleased if he could see how excellent his works were visualized with Modern Technology.
3D is still a gimmick, but it's now also caught studio's attention as an easy way to increase ticket prices (sometimes up to double! ). It's [b:116zljrd]not[/b:116zljrd] immersive: having things float in front of your face or look like they're going to hit you in the eye when you're watching a movie merely remind you that you're watching a 3D film. They're technological gimmicks so that you remember why you've paid extra and feel that you've gotten your money's worth, but at the end of the day, that's all it is. It's not art, and it's not realistic. Besides, 3D picture quality is fuzzier than 2D with current technology.
If they do this in 3D I really hope there will be a 2D option, but I'm worried. Even today, when not all theatres have 3D screens, the 2D Avatar has been pulled in favor of the 3D version in a lot of places. It makes sense from a business standpoint - you'll make more money if you force audiences to see a movie for 150-200% of the price - but for movie-goers (especially those who don't like 3D), it kind of sucks.
PS: I didn't have any "blurriness" issues with the current 3D format. But I suppose that may vary from person to person.
I guess I just don't want to pay twice as much money so I can see a few illusion-breaking technogimmicks while wearing uncomfortable glasses.
Great story, Great dialogue, Great characters, AND AWESOME CGI.
I often find 3D shows to have messed up colors, and give me headaches, for a few unneeded extra effects. I don't even see how they'd incorporate many 3D effects into The Hobbit, other than useless things like throwing a dagger at the screen. No, I think The Hobbit is best left as an original Fantasy movie made with normal CGI.
I find movies have been completely abusing the 3D effect. Avatar was a bit more responsible with it, but I saw it both 3D and normal, and the normal version had far more fantasy-like colors. I feel that 3D takes away from the overall experience because you constantly deal with the seizure-inducing red-on-blue.
although is they did in 3d and [b:2faqp2ed]still[/b:2faqp2ed] managed to get the screenplay as close to the book as they did in lotr i would be really happy(if only they used it to make the action bits more exciting!! )
As a result, all 3D movies that come out after Avatar (I am most concerned about The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Hobbit), are just shameless efforts to get some of the cash that Avatar got. Especially VDT, which was filmed in 2D and is now going to be shown in 3D as well. That is just a mistake.
I think that, if GDT keeps his head on (perhaps gets some tips from Cameron ), he could pull it off. I'd still watch both (I'd watch 2D first), but I think that GDT is very committed to the story, and that he wouldn't ruin it for special effects. Plus, he has Peter Jackson as an advisor, and Peter Jackson KNOWS how to keep the effects in line. So, if they [i:5gqoczxd]start out[/i:5gqoczxd] planning for 3D, I'd be ok with it. If they "pulled a VDT" and filmed it in 2D and changed it to 3D afterwards, that'd be disgusting.
However, I do think that it's here to stay, since movie theatres can charge two to three times as much for 3D tickets. I'm not particularly happy to see prices rise so much just so I can have my experience of the story interrupted by unnatural and jarring technological gimmicks while wearing uncomfortable and picture-quality-decreasing glasses.
No, but EVERYONE remembers the chandelier falling in Phantom of the Opera. They still have it fall when they play it on stage today. That's 3D for you, and that's what makes you feel like you're part of the action. And that's the feeling filmmakers are trying to reproduce. James Cameron was determined to do it right (on a huge budget, haha), and, in reality, he didn't "use the technology the least." He pretty much invented new technology for [i:19vcreov]Avatar[/i:19vcreov]. He just knew how to use it, and how to tame it. It's an art form, and Cameron is a true artist.
Also, I've never seen The Phantom of the Opera, so I don't really understand your analogy. In any event, I find 2D films far more immersive since they lack the jarring technological gimmicks of 3D. When you watch a 3D film you're continually being reminded of the fact that [i:1sq7b7dy]you're watching a 3D film made with cool new technology[/i:1sq7b7dy], whereas with a 2D film you can simply sit back and enjoy the story, the characters, and the world.
In any case Eldo I get your point that 3D seems like a "Distraction" from the story for YOU and people that share your views. But it isn't a distraction to ME and many others that share my views. And no matter what you say, 3D [b:26bvbbuy]IS[/b:26bvbbuy] an "Immersion Technology". It is a step towards the Ultimate Virtual reality goal: The Holodeck. A Virtual Environment that we can fully interact with and IMMERSE ourselves in. With 3D screens coming to home systems, we will be another step closer when we are playing our video games in 3D.
This complete Immersion Technology has been a dream of mine ever since reading Ray Bradbury's The Veldt as a child. And this 3D tech is a leap forward towards the Holodeck.
Art is a means to reflect back aspects of existence and society in a new light that leads the viewer to a new understanding. Cameron does not do this. The social commentary in Avator is almost childish in the way it is portrayed and about as deep as a shallow puddle on a hot day. Frankly if your the sort of person whose social or political views would be influenced or altered by a Cameron film then you should probarbly not be allowed to vote!
That Cameron would be at the forefront of new 3d technology is no surpise, its a tool for even greater spectacle, which is fine, but you could have given someone like picasso a couple of rocks and he'd have scrapped you out a masterpiece without the need for the latest technological breakthrough in brushes and paints!
There is nothing wrong with pure entertaining nonsense but lets not go around calling it art. A spades a spade.
Art is Art, no matter what form, or how popular (or not). That which connects with more people is arguably more effective. Those that aren't popular jealously declare an "elite" status.
As to the theological point, not being a Christian I can't speak for Beren. But in Hinduism and other Eastern philosophies, The Primal Life Force embodies both Creative and Destructive Energies. Indeed, the act of Creation also involves the act of Destruction as one form is destroyed when another is imposed. There is some precedent for recognizing this principle in the Abrahamic religions also, but it is not accepted by most Monotheists.
Technology and the advancement of Knowledge in Western Theology is often portrayed as having been "stolen" from God or the Gods, whether Prometheus who stole fire or Eve who stole the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Regardless, there is theological precedence for Knowledge coming from the Gods, and Knowledge has always been a two edged sword.
So, with that said, the Christian God is an extremely complex God, and since men are made in His image, we can create complexity too. Humans are made in His image, so humans are art. What humans create is a reflection on God (because God enables us to see beauty and express beauty), and thus is art too. Sadly, too many people take their ability for complexity and use it for selfish reasons. This is a reflection on our fallen state and Satan's influence on us.
Did I answer the question? haha
One can debate endlessly what constitutes Great Art vs Poor Art (and it's relatively subjective), but it's ALL Art. Art Snobs always trot out the "lack of significance" in popular artistic expressions because it either makes them feel superior, and/or because they secretly wish they could produce art that resonated with the "unwashed masses".
Sometimes Poor Art receives more attention than it deserves because of Commercial Hype, and believe me, when it comes to a lot of Pop Music I can be just as "Snobby" as the next guy . But I would NEVER say it wasn't Art. And in the end, one definition of Effective Art is Art which resonates with the Majority (whether I think it's any good or not).
Are they not art?
I decided simplest way to find out was to ask an actual artist. Fortunately I have one in the family, an uncle. He s officialy an artist (it says so on his passport!).
His name is Ronnie Ford, you can look his work up on google.
According to him art was only defined during the reanssaince and in the subsequent decades following it and was originally very narrowly defined as works which had appeared in a select number of galleries. If you hadn't got your work in one of those what you did was not art.
Modern artists have a broader view but the general tenant for what is called 'art' remains- the showing of work in particular gallerries around the world. As well as the recognition of your peers (established artists in this case).
Now even I find this a very narrow view of art. The other definition he offered was that art is something which is produced for reasons besides commercial gain (although obviously it can be commercial as well, that just should not be the reason for it) hence a spoon, which is created, is not art.
On the point of snobbery perhaps it is reverse snobbery to claim everything is art, thereby making whatever film etc you hapen to like art and making yourself feel good about it. If we accept that art is the product of an act of expressive creation as you say GB then we have no need for a word such as art, as almost everything falls into the category. We'd be better off just calling it stuff people do.
On your point Eldo, see above for how early art was classified, apprently the fact its in an art gallery makes it art!
Beren, yes that does help clear things up, as a believer in 'there's more going on than I know about' but not a follower (I find it hard to accept any group of humans posess anything called Truth) I'm always interested in how religion works in practice and philosophy.
The fact is Art has existed since humans began cave-painting, banging on stretched skins with sticks, telling stories and singing around the campfire. Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others." By this definition of the word, artistic works have existed for almost as long as humankind: from early pre-historic art to contemporary art. Not to mention that the original LATIN (you know, the language that ROMANS spoke back in [b:2xwjs0gq]ancient[/b:2xwjs0gq] times ) term for Art referred to SKILL or CRAFT. Hence any act of Expressive Creation can be said to be an Art. You might have heard of Martial Arts.
Renaissance Artists didn't invent Art, nor the word "Art" they just got better at it. What a surprise that some of them would try to reinvent the definition of Art to their advantage . I think your Uncle should ask a Linguist or a Historian before spouting rubbish like that. Art has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "being shown in galleries". Yes some things are created simply for utilitarian purposes, but to the extent that expressive design is put into a utility product, such an item also becomes a work of Art. Having dealt in some highly decorative antiques, I can attest that even SPOONS can be a work of Art.
And yes, Gangsta Rap and Cheap Formula Films are Art too, even if I think some of it is rubbish.
And finally, "reverse snobbery" is an utter oxymoron, a impossible phrase that is devoid of all meaning in the context in which you are using it. "Reverse snobbery" can only be applied from one group of Art Snobs to another, say in a feud between Expressionists and Cubo-Futurists, or between Neo-Classicists and Dada-Surrealists.
As to reverse snobbery "the lady doth protest to much methinks" I seem to have struck a nerve! The point was if everything anyone does is 'art' the word itself is meaningless. Fish have no need for a word for water. We would have no need for the word art in this context if it was all art.
[i:36wjqiq3]No 3D for hobbit flick[/i:36wjqiq3]
[i:36wjqiq3]Please GDT no[/i:36wjqiq3]
[i:2c3fz056]"Once upon a time there was a Haggis,
Among Haggises he was a Magus,
He tricked his tribe with clever diatribes and hefty bribes,
To think Gandalf's Beard did sadly saggus;
But it weren't true I'm telling you,
Gandalf's Beard was was stiffly prickled,
On Friday nights, yes somewhat pickled,
His girlfriend said his every part tickled.
His folicles stiff like icicles riding bicycles,
That's how I think of Gandalf's Beard -
That Haggis was Trouble - as I feared.
(This line is added for a sense of balance).[/i:2c3fz056]
See Mr Tyrant, even Robbie predicted the likes of you. GB may be a damn Liberal, but as Beards go... he's okay.... I guess...
Mmm GB you seem not to have actually read what was said. I never (nor my uncle) claimed that art was invented or that the word had no existence before hand- only that it was 'defined' during the renaissance and our modern idea of art comes from this definition when applied to paintings, sculpture or even film.[/quote:2m8uiu75]
Actually, I did read your words VERY carefully Petty. And you claimed your Uncle stated that Renaissance Artists defined (REDEFINED is more accurate) Art to mean works that ONLY THEY put in Art Galleries. Quite Self-Serving, and indeed a de facto claim that Renaissance Artists invented Art.
According to him [b:2m8uiu75]art was only defined during the reanssaince[/b:2m8uiu75] and in the subsequent decades following it and was originally very narrowly defined as [b:2m8uiu75]works which had appeared in a select number of galleries[/b:2m8uiu75]. [u:2m8uiu75]If you hadn't got your work in one of those what you did was [b:2m8uiu75]not art.[/b:2m8uiu75][/u:2m8uiu75][/quote:2m8uiu75]
Frankly, I'm disappointed you would resort to such a disingenuous tactic to weasel out of what was a circular argument to begin with (Artists in Galleries say only their work is Art; therefore only Art displayed in Galleries is Art), and THAT is what strikes a nerve.
Most of the later great art movements, from cubists to da-daism were in fact a response to this by people such as yourself who thought art was much broader and fought to have new ideas accepted. The irony of their situation was that whilst they were fighting the very definition you have taken such umbrage to they judged their success on getting their work shown in galleries! (In fairness to them without the modern media outlets or mass printing they didn't have a lot of choice).
And it is wilful on your part to continue to insist I claimed art was invented in the renaissance when I did not, and have clearly stated so at least twice now, I said it was defined (or even standardized if you like) during the renaissance and for better or worse (and it is probably for worse) we are still largely stuck with this model. At best you could say they 'invented' a new definition of art.
Tracy Ermine (I think that's her second name!) is a good example of this with her unmade bed. In her bedroom where it belongs its just her bed, but when she displayed it in the Modern Art Gallery it [i:37es10mz]became[/i:37es10mz] officially art. And the same could be said for the pile of bricks, which you can see in building sites around the world and where they are just a pile of bricks, but when put in the gallery it also [i:37es10mz]became[/i:37es10mz] art. So it is still happening today like it or not.
This is not a circular argument it is simply what happened historically and how the notion of 'art' in the modern sense and art galleries arose. You don't have to agree or like it but it doesn't make it any less true.
On a less argumentive note congratulations on getting some of your own work published. Any chance you could post a bit so we can have a look? (I can judge if it's art!!! ).
Do you like Calvin and Hobbes GB? There is an excellent bit it in where Calvin points out that his comic book is low brow, mass commercialism and therefore [i:37es10mz]not[/i:37es10mz] art, but a panel from a comic displayed in a gallery is post-modern and ironic and therefore [i:37es10mz]is[/i:37es10mz] art. Highlighting the absurdities of the very system I have been trying to point out to you.