Dawn of the Dead 3D Bluray? Anyone watched it yet?

[bassman]

Hence why I said lost footage. Well....my main point was that it might not even exist. And if it were readily available it probably would've been in the Ultimate Edition. You ass.

[DubiousComforts]

I think when you see Fran stand outside of the helicopter that last time, waiting to see if Peter shows, that was supposed to be the beginning of whatever she was going to do. That would have been her hearing the offscreen gunshot of Peter killing himself. The person to ask about this is Michael Gornick. He knows more details about how these films were made than anyone and loves to talk about it. His next convention appearance is at Cinema Wasteland in April. I'm constantly amazed at these shows by the fans that come up to a living encyclopedia of Romero film knowledge like Mike Gornick, pay for a signature, take a photo with him and then walk away without asking the guy anything.

[darth los]

All this means is eventually I'm going to have to upgrade to 3 D. I mean the tech is cool and all but this spending 5-10 thousand every 5 years or so in order to have a first rate viewing experience is getting to be a bit much.

[bassman]

I believe Rubenstein's idea is to release it to theaters. A midnight cult film sort of deal. If that's the case, I'll definitely check it out in theaters but I have no intention of upgrading to 3D if they later release it on blu ray. At this point i'm wondering if it will ever be released at all. It's been years without any updates. Surely it will see the light of day after he's spent so much cash on the conversion?

[Mr.G]

Dumb question, would one need to purchase a 3D tv to view this movie or would the glasses be enough like in NOTLD 3D or F13?

[Danny]

All this means is eventually I'm going to have to upgrade to 3 D. I mean the tech is cool and all but this spending 5-10 thousand every 5 years or so in order to have a first rate viewing experience is getting to be a bit much. 3d is not a first rate viewing experience. it is a novelty. in many ways it is the antithesis to HD, its a fad that actively detracts from the experience. In an attempt to turn it into some form of amusement park ride it turns the piece from a story that draws you in to a sterilised stage show that expects you to ooh and aah at only what it wants you to, focussing the 3d on that. any chance for subtlety or nuance in the scene is lost because you are not allowed to take in what you wish, only what the 3d will allow. 3d sucks.

[Neil]

3d is not a first rate viewing experience. it is a novelty. in many ways it is the antithesis to HD, its a fad that actively detracts from the experience. In an attempt to turn it into some form of amusement park ride it turns the piece from a story that draws you in to a sterilised stage show that expects you to ooh and aah at only what it wants you to, focussing the 3d on that. any chance for subtlety or nuance in the scene is lost because you are not allowed to take in what you wish, only what the 3d will allow. 3d sucks. I'm not so sure... And I'm sure the same thing was once said about 'colour'... And the arguments you apply above could just equally used with that subject too surely? ---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 AM ---------- Dumb question, would one need to purchase a 3D tv to view this movie or would the glasses be enough like in NOTLD 3D or F13? I believe it's hardware! 3D player + 3D TV!?

[Danny]

I'm not so sure... And I'm sure the same thing was once said about 'colour'... And the arguments you apply above could just equally used with that subject too surely?[COLOR="Silver"] But 3d actively affects what you see, colour, like HD is a transition which only makes what the artist has created become clearer to see, 3D does the opposite, you see less. its not an advancement or next step at all, its a novelty that we already got tired of and discarded once and was brought back for its kitsch value to bring more people back into the theatres. which worked for a time but thats already in decline.

[Neil]

But 3d actively affects what you see, colour, like HD is a transition which only makes what the artist has created become clearer to see, 3D does the opposite, you see less. its not an advancement or next step at all, its a novelty that we already got tired of and discarded once and was brought back for its kitsch value to bring more people back into the theatres. which worked for a time but thats already in decline. Really don't see it as black and white as that... Just like colour, 3D can be used garishly, or to add to a scene. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm still not sold on the technology, and I think they still need to do some work on improving it, but I'm not ready to write it off yet

[Danny]

Really don't see it as black and white as that... Just like colour, 3D can be used garishly, or to add to a scene. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm still not sold on the technology, and I think they still need to do some work on improving it, but I'm not ready to write it off yet no, it is that black and white. when i watched avatar, the 3d acted like the cameraman could not use a focus lens properly, everything around the 3d became a poor blur to accentuate the 3d effect and it ruined shots which later looks amazing in normal video. it did not make the scene better in any way, it made the piece literally harder to watch and was a step backwards.

[babomb]

Then in the following 34 years Romero smoked it out of his memory. Hahahahahahahaha

[Wrong Number]

I can't believe 3D has taken off as much as it has. I remember when I was a kid going to see House of Wax in 3D (it was a revival) and even at that age thinking it was a silly, lazy way to make a movie. Though the tech has greatly improved, I still feel that for the most part it's "lazy" story telling and a great way for studios to suck more dollars out of the public. It's really done a lot to keep my out of the movie theaters. WN

[bassman]

no, it is that black and white. when i watched avatar, the 3d acted like the cameraman could not use a focus lens properly, everything around the 3d became a poor blur to accentuate the 3d effect and it ruined shots which later looks amazing in normal video. it did not make the scene better in any way, it made the piece literally harder to watch and was a step backwards. I think it varies from person to person. I've heard many people say the same thing you just described, but on the other hand it didn't blur for me at all. Sort of like blu ray/HD. I still meet people that claim they can't notice an improvement from SD. I guess it all depends on what set of eyes you're working with? Avatar in 3D at the theater was AMAZING. At home? Not so much....

[Gryphon]

I think it varies from person to person. I've heard many people say the same thing you just described, but on the other hand it didn't blur for me at all. Sort of like blu ray/HD. I still meet people that claim they can't notice an improvement from SD. I guess it all depends on what set of eyes you're working with? Avatar in 3D at the theater was AMAZING. At home? Not so much.... A lot of people just don't like new things (or can't afford them), so they put them down. Anyone that can see clearly should be able to tell the difference between HD and SD. Hell, even with a movie as old as Dawn78. I had the DVD (admittedly not the director's cut), and now I have the Blu Ray. Heck, just the background detail alone is sharper... walls, rocks, the lettering on the chopper, the rednecks running around below the chopper before the "I'm a Man" scene, etc. If you can't see those things more sharply in HD, you need (better) glasses As for 3D... it's great in the Theatre, IMO... but I don't need it at home. HD is just fine for me Besides, without the 3D at home, I can pay attention to background details I missed in the 3D experience in the theatre

[bassman]

A lot of people just don't like new things (or can't afford them), so they put them down. Anyone that can see clearly should be able to tell the difference between HD and SD. If you can't see those things more sharply in HD, you need (better) glasses I dunno. My wife claims she can't see the HD and just recently had a visit with the optometrist. And obviously if I have it, she can afford it. Go figure. I agree with you that anyone SHOULD be able to tell the difference, but strangely I've had many claim they couldn't...