Scorsese: I'd Consider Going 3D-only for My Movies
Hugo is the first movie Scorsese has done in 3D. Previously, the film maker said he wouldn't make a 3D movie. So, now that he has, how does he feel about 3D? Pretty positive, is the answer.
Though it has been around for a long time, 3D has only seen a surge in popularity in the last couple of years. Thanks to movies like James Cameron's Avatar, movie studios know that 3D is a profitable format and something that can be used as an integral part of a movie's story. That said, there are some film makers that just plain don't like 3D. Up until now, we had thought Martin Scorsese was one of them. After all, a couple of years ago, he was quoted as saying he had no interest in making a 3D movie. Then again, it seems Scorsese has had a change of heart. In fact, after making Hugo in 3D, he's now such a big fan of the format that he recently stated he would consider it for all of his movies.
When asked in a recent interview by Deadline if he would prefer to shoot all of his movies going forward in 3D, Scorsese said he 'honestly would' as he feels there isn't a subject matter that can't absorb 3D and the additional layer of depth as a story telling technique. He compared it to Technicolor, which was, for a period of 10-15 years, only used for musicals, comedies and westerns.
"It wasn’t intended for the serious genres, but now everything is in color," he said, adding that once 3D technology progresses, they could cut out the glasses required to enjoy content. When asked which of his older movies would have benefited the most from being in 3D, Scorsese responded with either the Aviator or Taxi Driver, the latter because of "the intimidation of the main character" and his "frightening kind of presence."
Check his full response to the question regarding his future 3D plans below:
AWARDSLINE: Recently, 3D has been knocked as an excuse for studios to charge higher ticket prices. Now we’re seeing more filmmakers like you, Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott shooting in it. Would you prefer to shoot all your movies in 3D going forward?
SCORSESE: Quite honestly, I would. I don’t think there’s a subject matter that can’t absorb 3D; that can’t tolerate the addition of depth as a storytelling technique. We view everyday life with depth. I think certain subject matters aren’t meant for 3D but you have to go back to Technicolor; when it was used in 1935 with Becky Sharp. For about 10-15 years, Technicolor was relegated to musicals, comedies and westerns. It wasn’t intended for the serious genres, but now everything is in color. And so it’s just a different mindset. Granted once the technology advances and you can eliminates glasses that are hindrances to some moviegoers, so why not? It’s just a natural progression.
It's clear that 3D has grown on Martin Scorsese. In the interview he praised James Cameron's Avatar because it made 3D 'welcoming' and because it changed the climate for 3D as a format. Scorsese said that after Avatar, 3D was taken more seriously as a narrative element and tool. Has there been any specific movie that changed your opinion of 3D? Let us know in the comments below!
- Acer, Lenovo Quad-Core Tablets Coming in Q1
- Grooveshark Had Employees Upload Illegal Music
- Lenovo Reveals Plans for 3 Tablets, Smartphone, Smart TV
- Hackers Could Trigger Your Printer to Overheat (or Worse)
- FAA May Allow Combat Drones for Nonmilitary Use
- Another Siri Clone Arrives on Android: Cluzee
- RIM's BlackBerry Fusion Will Support Android and Apple iOS
- Apps and Games to Get Rated for Violence, Sex, Drugs
- Cyber Monday Sales Skyrocket By 33 Percent
- Researchers Find That Not All Androids Are Equally Secure
- Google Nukes Black Horizontal Nav Bar for Pull-Down Menu
- Firefox 8 Could Be Coming to the Kindle Fire Soon
- Microsoft Gives a Taste of Mango on iPhones and Androids
- Print Your Own Robot: A Consumer 3D Printing Service
- Smartphones Consume 74 Percent Less Power Via Proxy
- Toyota to Create Smaller, Compact Prius C
- Apple's Siri Won't Help You Find an Abortion Clinic
- Google Brings Google Maps Indoors to Malls, Airports
- Apple: Siri's Answers On Abortion Not Intentional
I personally dislike 3D, it's an expensive gimmick that has very little real effect on how i view a film; and a majority of the 3d movies I've seen barely use the feature. It's like the first 10feet of depth from the camera really pop, and then the background looks more 2D than if the whole thing was shot in 2D.
It's nice. Avatar justified having 3D, UP was pretty nice.
But after a few more I'm less and less ready to suffer the glasses.
Glasses-free would be fine, but for now I prefer to see the 2D version.
I have not seen Hugo, but Roger Ebert says that Scorsese used 3D the way that 3D should be used in Hugo. Based on that, I may go see Hugo in 3D.
Personally, I thought that 3D added nothing to Avatar. Avatar was equally as good without 3D, and in no way did 3D, to me, add anything to the movie.
Many 3D movies have used 3D as a marketing gimmick, and I believe that is their downfall. The more 3D is a marketing gimmick, the less moviegoers will appreciate it. For the most part, there have been few movies, two in fact - Hugo and Cave of Forgotten Dreams - where reviewers have said that 3D has added anything to the movie. In my opinion, two movies in the recent spate of 3D movies where 3D has added something to the movie not even remotely a good track record given the number of 3D movies that have been released in the time frame.
Having one or two artists out there that are capable of using the medium in a meaningful manner is not going to drive 3D into the forefront of the market place even though movie studios like it because it siphons the cash from the moviegoer's pocket into the studio's pocket.
When I go to a movie, I am not looking to be on a theme park ride. So far, that is what the vast majority of 3D movies seem like they have attempted to create. It adds nothing to the film, and even 3D cannot make a bad movie good. Personally, I would not miss the medium if it were to disappear.
I make every effort to avoid the 3D versions of movies. They add nothing to the film and in many cases detract from the viewing experience. I don't want to wear the 3D glasses and pay $14 instead of $10 for a movie ticket. The 3D effect actually makes the movie look lower quality to me. I'd much rather the movie be focused on the quality of the plot, acting, and visuals than be focused on making crap fly out of the screen at me. The only 3D movie I've seen in the past few years was Avatar in IMAX 3D. After 2+ hours of watching the 3D version I was getting a bit of a headache. I enjoyed watching the 2D version much more.
I really hope this recent resurgance of 3D dies soon. It's a total waste of time.
How about making a good 2D film first? He's hardly a Powell, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa or Lean.
Yikes, Cumulonimbus incus!
He might not be your personal cup of tea but COME ON!
Surely he's earnt his place as a respected filmmaker.
And POWELL? REALLY???
Personal taste, I suppose...
I'd consider not seeing any of his movies if I have to pay $15 for them.
People often use 3D as a gimmick, but that does NOT mean that 3D itself is a gimmick. 3D is best used to add depth, not to have something pop out of the screen. The best scene for me in Avatar was a short shot in a troop transport where you were looking down the line of men. That sealed it for me. 3D can be awesome. Since I'm poor, I'll even play around with anaglyph 3d now.
I don't like 3D. Avatar was a very good 3D movie. I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D, waste of money. Everyone said you HAD to see Transformers 3 in 3D, waste of money. I refuse to watch any 3D movies or pay +$3.50 for every ticket to see it. My wife can't watch the movies without being "distracted" by the 3D and she gets a headache, I find myself feeling the same way. The 3D fad is annoying, I make a joke every time I see a movie trailer, I say "In 3D" before it ends just to see if I guessed right.
Saw a few movies in 3D, the last was the Green Lantern 3D. I have not seen another 3D movie since then and I refuse to watch in movie that is displayed in 3D.
I agree with all the statements in this forum. The day we have the movie shooting from the floor to make a real 3D / Holographic movie where objects will be in the way of other objects depending on where you are seated in the theater and no glasses required is the day I'll see a 3D movie. It will be just the 3D chess in Star Wars but on a large scale.....Can't wait. JMO
I'll take 3D any day over 2D. If a game can't support 3D I won't play it. If you have a good system powerful enough to support it (high performance and little or no ghosting) and you have knowledge on how 3D works technology wise and knows how to use and set it up properly (few seem to do) there is no going back. At least for me there wasn't. For me 2D is as putrid as black and white feels for most today, at least game wise.
I can't stand the 3D effect in movies though since the effect is subtile at best and does nothing to represent 3D the way it comes out in real life. So I rip my 3D movies and then run them through pure 3D players where I can adjust parallax to my liking. Avatar 3D in the theatre was crap in my opinion but ripped and then set up to resemble the size and expancive views of that movie here at home it's god like. Absolutely phenomenal. Showed it to a couple of friends who "hate 3D". First I showed it "the way it was meant to be seen director's style". Then I switched to my own settings and they honestly freaked and we ended up watching the whole thing. They said it felt like they where trule "there", hardly something you can say about the default settings of any 3D movie I've seen.
3D is a "perk". It can definitely add to a movie... but I HATE it when they make a movie and put it in 3D just for the sake of saying its in 3D... it adds NOTHING and makes the movie actually worse.. I saw Avatar in 3D and 2D... 3D was by far a better way to watch(except it blurs the action sequences) but 2D was great as well... cloudy with a Chance of meatballs was horrible, and 3D did not help...
Bottom line - Certain movies SHOULD be in 3D... most should not.. period.
I guess I wont be seeing any of his movies if they are 3D only. I have a vision impairment... and while in the minority, many people have impairments that prevent them from seeing movies in 3D or 3D comfortably.
Yikes, Cumulonimbus incus!He might not be your personal cup of tea but COME ON!Surely he's earnt his place as a respected filmmaker.And POWELL? REALLY???Personal taste, I suppose...
Mmmm...taste...
Peeping Tom
Ill Met by Moonlight
The Battle of the River Plate
The Tales of Hoffmann
Gone to Earth
The Small Back Room
The Red Shoes
Black Narcissus
A Matter of Life and Death
I Know Where I'm Going!
A Canterbury Tale
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
One of Our Aircraft Is Missing
49th Parallel
Contraband
The Spy in Black
The Edge of the World
I believe Scorsese reckoned Powell to be genius of cinematography and with Pressburger they spun a mean story.
Not one of these films (perhaps with the exception of "A matter of Life and Death") would have been more creative in their day had they been shot in 3D.
Everyone has a price.
Overall, I like the 3D movie experience. I wouldn't go too often due to price. I've enjoyed all of them to date except one.
A bad example of a 3D movie is the recent "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader". I saw this in 3D at the theater and I honestly felt claustrophobic. The 3D effect actually made the movie feel really small to me.
I recently went to see Immortals at the theater. I was very disappointed that all the theaters near me gave the standard 2D showings the short end of the stick. They only had 3 showings for the new release in 2D. Two were before I was off of work and the third was late at night (10-10:30). This frustrated me so much. I refused to see the 3D one out of principle. The movie industry is angering me so much by forcing 3D down our throats and jacking up their prices so I don't want to go to the theater anymore. I'll just wait for rentals, I guess.
Hmmm could this have anything to do with the massive amount of extra money that 3D films generate? Money talks.
There's really little sense in NOT filming a movie in 3D. If you want it to be 2D, that's simple - but if 3D display technology is greatly improved, it's much more difficult to convert a film originally shot in 2D into 3D.
Avatar is still the 3D movie that impressed me the most until now, it really was a different experience watching it in 3D
But one thing I don't like about 3D is that image loses color and sharpness... I watched Kung Fu Panda 2 in 3D at the theater, and it was impressive, specially Shen's tail (the peacock villain).
But the film lacked some sharpness, clarity, and color definition... I've recently bought the movie in BluRay (I'm from Brazil, the BluRay has been released here already), and the difference in image was striking compared to watching it in 3D.
For Avatar it was the same thing. The movie in BluRay has a definition and color that I simply didn't see at the theater.
3D has the immersion differential, but stil has to catch up in image quality
James cameron wants to do Avatar 2 in 60 fpc or better format , I have seen examples of this and it makes a "Huge" diffrence from the orignal 24 Add the detail of a native 4K format , and the experence is simply amasing , 3D does have one limitation , Perspective is Frozen in the scene, unlike the real world where the object of intest can be any object, only one object on film is in proper perspective looking at the others causes visual stress as what we see cant be brought into proper perspective , Good 3D film makers are well aware of this rule and create content that draws (by using focal depth) the eyes naturly to the proper object so we dont try and look at the objects that wont add up and the viewing experence is low stress.
So long as they have a 2D version for the few of us that 3D doesn't work on. Definitely not paying extra for that.
When 3D movies are done right... they are worth it. With Avatar, James Cameron didn't make it a gimmick... with junk jumping at you. He made the world in 3D and used the best 3D tech to make the movie. I paid to watch it in theaters at least 3 times.
TRON : I didn't care for its 3D, it looked weak... I liked it in 2D.
Cars 3 : stupid movie, but looked good in 3D
The Owls of blah blah : Excellent 3D
Harold and Kumar's 3D Christmas movie : we did it for the hell of it... its not better because of the 3D, but it funny because they are using 3D as a gimmick.
I'd say that most movies do not need 3D.... but in a few years, if they can do 3D without the glasses or out-rages prices, it can be used more. And of course for some people with eye-problems, they cannot WATCH a 3D movie (it would be like watching a 3D movie without the glasses; un-watchable)
I'm not impressed with Hollywood sticking 3D onto any movie... A good (bad) example is Clash of the Titans, in which it was tacked on... and won't fix a crappy movie.
Just give us a way to continue watching things in 2D for those of us that feel motion sickness with 3D video.
I love 3d. Hugo 3d is a must see for me.