Friday, April 30, 2010

DUmmies Slam 3-D

Do you want a successful career as a LOUSY FREEPER TROLL? Well, the best way to accomplish this is to get 1000+ posts in DUmmieland. Otherwise you will remain under suspicion. And the BEST way to reach that mark is to post to non-political threads so you don't "out" yourself. Post to non-political threads in which you find the topic to be of interest and with which you agree with most of the DUmmies. A very good example is this DUmmie THREAD, "'Why I Hate 3D and You Should Too' Roger Ebert." In fact, I found this subject so interesting because, like Ebert, I also HATE 3-D that I couldn't refrain from posting on this thread as my deep cover DUmmie alter ego. No chance of being caught since it was on a non-political topic. So let us now watch the DUmmies slam 3-D in Bolshevik red while the comments of your humble correspondent, slipping out of his secret DUmmie ID, is in the [brackets]:

"Why I Hate 3D and You Should Too" Roger Ebert

[I hear ya, Roger! I got all excited about a 3-D broadcast of the Grammies a couple of months ago. For some reason I thought the technology had reached a new tolerable level so I picked up a pair of free 3-D glasses at Target. Result? I had to take the glasses off after less than a minute. It was simply unbearable to watch.]

By Roger Ebert | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 29, 2010

[Ebert sounds like he is writing from another dimension when discussing politics but on this he sounds like he is from our dimension.]

"3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

[Pay extra to be annoyed. I can't even enjoy my popcorn while watching 3-D because of the nausea factor.]

That's my position. I know it's heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year's top three films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they're only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O's you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics' case, point by point:"

["Avatar" was nothing but "Dances With Wolves" done up with 3-D and lots of blue body paint. In fact, I call it "Dances With Pandorans." And now to the DUmmie Peanut Gallery (where I temporarily sat).]

I gotta agree. I saw two too many movies since this new wave has hit, and I was dissapointed both times. Now they are going to bring it into the living room? F*ck that.

[Use the F-word liberally if you want to disguise yourself as a DUmmie. However, I am NOT DUmmie Oregone. You got that, Skinner?]

Bells and whistles can turn crap into HiTech crap.

[Hi-Tech crap. Good description of "Avatar." All they did was take "Dances With Wolves" and set it on another planet with blue body paint and long tails. Oh, and with an added dimension that added NOTHING to it.]

That's what's happened to 'popular' music. Tech-generated beats and auto tuned shlock.

[My thought exactly. BTW, I am NOT DUmmie Captain Hilts! Please believe me!]

Great visuals can't save a mediocre story. That's my opinion of Avatar. As George Lucas once said, "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."

[Oh, "Avatar" had a story. The one James Cameron ripped off from "Dances With Wolves."]

Maybe some director will create a film that makes good aesthetic use of 3-D, something that raises the entire film -- story, cinematography and all; that would be pretty cool.

[You mean like "Gorilla At Large?" A 3-D cinematic masterpiece from 1954. It ranks right up there with "Casablanca" as one of the film classics.]

Hollywood is not expecting it to be a fad. They are heavily invested especially since the new 3D TVs are coming out.

[Good. Will that mean I can get a discount on 2-D TVs in the future?]

if we're gonna make all these animated 3D movies for about making glasses that actually fit their tiny heads?

[That way they can learn to enjoy "SpongeBob SquarePants" in full 3-D glory.]

I'll Wait Until "Feelies" Are Available. "Feelies: These are the popular films. Filmgoers sit in special chairs that allow them to feel, and to interact, with the movie. The plots are simple, and often involve sex. Lenina takes The Savage to one of these feelies. She enjoys it very much, but he is horrified."

[Ben Burch would certainly love "Anal Intruder" as a "Feelie."]

3-D isn't 3-D. It's flat 2-D on a few flat planes. I want real 3-D with no glasses, no headaches, no dimness, no jacked up prices, and no dumbing down of films. Until then, I'll enjoy the occasional sci-fi 3-D movie, but for most good movies, it's a distraction at best.

[Exactly right but am I quoting myself here?]


Anonymous Jerome Goolsby said...

Well, I have to admit, I'm shocked, stunned and amazed...the Troglaman clones actually said a bunch of stuff that not only I can agree with, but actually made sense.

Better bookmark this for posterity - odds of it happening again rank right up there with me seeing the center of the sun.

2:06 PM  
Anonymous Elrond Hubbard said...

"As George Lucas once said, 'A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing'"

Who would know better than Mr. Skywalker? The man who made "The Phantom Menace".

But the DUmmies are right on this one, 3D movies aren't worth the nut. Democraps and Rethuglicans agree.

Good God! I'm old enough to remember the first 3D fad back in the 50s! I was nine years old and got a 3D headache watching "It Came From Outer Space". 3D flopped then and I think it'll flop now; it's not worth all the inconveniences (except, maybe, 3D porn).

"Avatar" was a inferior movie, all special effects with a banal story line. The effects were spectacular, all eye candy, no nutrition.

2:40 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

What? Lame 3D?

Everyone knows the key appreciating 3D is good reefer. And peyote. And a couple of shots of this or that doesn't hurt either. Foot comfort (Birkenstocks) can enhance the experience to a surprising degree, as can granola...and tea. And being clothed in natural fibers can make one feel as if they're REALLY a part of the action.

It's funny you mention "It Came From Outer Space", elrond. Shit. I remember my mom swaddling me in a blanket of freshly sheered yak hair then marching off to the bus stop. We met dad near the theater. Before a hearty dinner of mixed greens and beetle larvae, we immersed ourselves in a mud-bath (mixed with cattle urine and Thai basil) at the nearby YMCA (hey...we're in Seattle).

After finishing the family spleeb (Maui Wowi) and reading a few passages from "Mein Kampf" in the ally behind the YMCA, we made our way to the theater, strapped in, and put on the glasses. What a night. I'll never forget it.

All I can say is this - It DID come from outer space.

Thanks for the memory, elrond.

2:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think dislike of 3D has to do more with the story genre than with the medium. Avatar is Dances With Wolves/Pocahontas/Ferngully/Whatever IN 3D, we know that.

But then again, all of those movies sucked without 3D. They just sucked more quietly.

If the story would benefit from what 3D does, then use 3D. This would be good for horror movies, action movies, and generally movies that are already supposed to be spectacles.

Cosmos would also be awesome in 3D. I'd invite Trog over and we'd eat shrooms and smoke weed and watch Carl Sagan IN 3D.

2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3D...anything to distract the audience from how shitty the writing is.

8:08 AM  
Anonymous DumbAss Tanker said...

Isn't that how it works?


And don't let the screen door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

8:16 AM  
Anonymous krazy kat said...

Get a grip troggy, take a Midol.

3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jumpin' Jehosephat troglaman. Get a blog and link it if you want to write a book. Or, better yet, write a book. You're "I told you so" tirade rings hollow, might as well do it in an echo chamber of your own creation.

When you write about any number of the irrelevant tangents you mentioned above (in your new blog), I'll be happy to comment about 3D movies. That should make you feel at home.

12:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home