#1  
Old 01-26-2010, 07:24 PM
3D or not

I'm kinda tired of hearing the complaints about 3D being the next fad and those people usually end their complaint in some form of Avatar bashing "ITS LIKE BLUE KEBLIER ELVES MEETS FERNGULLY THE LAST RAIN FORREST" as if its the first 3d movie, you can compare every movie thats ever came out to another film (THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL STORIES). Seriously people are starting to sound like old people who can't like the new "dang new fangled technology".

I WENT TO AVATAR, I loved it, Glad its doing great. Thank god for modern medicine!!! I'm also happy that there are more and more movies coming out with 3d technology. I don't understand the hate for the technology, either see it in 3d or not ITS YOUR CHOICE!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-26-2010, 07:40 PM
You're right that movies stories are influenced or inspired from older stories, but Avatar's problem wasn't that the plot synopsis itself wasn't original (even though it wasn't) it was simply the generic, predictable and cliched way it was told. I'm a firm believer in the idea that originality lies in how the story is told then what it actually is. I think it's still to early to tell if 3D is going to stay or not, if anything I estimate it'll mostly be a theater-exclusive event for several years down the line. Being that we're in a recession I assume most people can't afford a brand-new 3D-ready LCD at the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-26-2010, 08:08 PM
There are already like a dozen threads on this topic right now, so you can check my opinion out in any of those, but in short, 3D sucks... and I really liked Avatar. And as I pointed out in the Harry Potter thread, if you're going to make a film in 3D, shoot the damn thing in 3D. Don't shoot it in 2D and then decide later that you'd really love to charge viewers an extra $5 for a stupid pair of glasses that only cost 5 cents to produce.

Last edited by Bourne101; 01-26-2010 at 08:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-26-2010, 08:23 PM
immersion should take place on a narrative front, from emotional level. I fear with the popularity of 3D, filmmakers will replace storytelling immersion with technological immersion, rendering even less importance to storytelling in an already narratively dried up genre (the blockbuster). Even James Cameron fell prey to it.

even my phrase "technological immersion" feels inaccurate. It's not to do with immersion, it's actually the opposite- it pops out at you.

let me ask you this, has a pop up book ever drawn you in as much as a book thats well written?

has ted turner's colorized versions of classic cinema work more for you as a story than their original B&W print?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-26-2010, 08:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
immersion should take place on a narrative front, from emotional level. I fear with the popularity of 3D, filmmakers will replace storytelling immersion with technological immersion, rendering even less importance to storytelling in an already narratively dried up genre (the blockbuster). Even James Cameron fell prey to it.
Fell prey to what? Cameron without a doubt utilized full storytelling immersion in his film. He put way more emphasis on story telling than on the technology itself in the finished film, as the technology itself was required in order for the story to be told the way he wanted.


Cameron rules.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-26-2010, 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSimen View Post
Fell prey to what? Cameron without a doubt utilized full storytelling immersion in his film. He put way more emphasis on story telling than on the technology itself in the finished film, as the technology itself was required in order for the story to be told the way he wanted.
i'm sorry you believe that, as i and many others feel Avatar was nothing but broad strokes to a story we've heard reiterated a dozen times before, stitched together in the most predictable fashion with clumsy narration and putrid dialogue.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-26-2010, 09:04 PM
Quote:
immersion should take place on a narrative front, from emotional level. I fear with the popularity of 3D, filmmakers will replace storytelling immersion with technological immersion, rendering even less importance to storytelling in an already narratively dried up genre (the blockbuster)
Very good point and I agree.
But the same thing could be said about any new innovation, including computer generation and other effect-based landmarks. There will always be the stylists who look to trick and fool the audience into immersion and there will always be others who immerse through your favored means. As far as I'm concerned, those who would be tricked into ignoring all else at cost of the newest technological trick isn't worth enough to care either way. Good filmmakers won't be tricked by new tools.
But gimmick filmmakers... They can see the tools as toys all they want, because that's all they're good for.

Quote:
He put way more emphasis on story telling than on the technology itself in the finished film
I enjoyed avatar, but the technology took years and years and years. The story took a few months.
It's not an even weigh.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-26-2010, 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
i'm sorry you believe that, as i and many others feel Avatar was nothing but broad strokes to a story we've heard reiterated a dozen times before, stitched together in the most predictable fashion with clumsy narration and putrid dialogue.
This is just plain wrong if you ask me, but whatever. Think whatever you want.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-26-2010, 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
Very good point and I agree.
But the same thing could be said about any new innovation, including computer generation and other effect-based landmarks. There will always be the stylists who look to trick and fool the audience into immersion and there will always be others who immerse through your favored means. As far as I'm concerned, those who would be tricked into ignoring all else at cost of the newest technological trick isn't worth enough to care either way. Good filmmakers won't be tricked by new tools.
But gimmick filmmakers... They can see the tools as toys all they want, because that's all they're good for.
Interesting observation, there are two points i'd like to make.

1. Over the generation cinema has endured, new technology has both enhanced and dented the quality of the storytelling put to screen. For example, when sound was introduced into a narrative picture, for a brief period filmmakers seemed less interested in using the camera to tell the story visually and often just resorted to two people talking underneath a microphone. This hurt cinematic storytelling, in my opinion and it took years before studio filmmakers trusted the camera to tell the story again. Same thing has been happening with CGI.

2. when sound, wide screen, color, etc. made it to the big screen it wasn't long before they became the norm in theaters across the country. These innovations were studios and theaters reacting to new consumer products like radio and television. My problem with 3D is that it has been hanging around for 50 some years. The technology hasn't changed drastically since the Dial M for Murder days and there is a reason it hasn't been- it generally doesn't add much. Now with the recession, studios are shoving it down our throats that this is the future and this will change everything. I think people are seeing 3D now for the same reason so many people saw Transformers 2- it's the current 'event' at the theaters, despite it not being all that worth while (well, lets face it- while it may not add a whole hell of a lot it does desaturate the picture quality by 30%).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-27-2010, 03:59 AM
I'll be interested in 3D the day it becomes a storytelling device. So, never.

I'll have much more devloped thoughts on this on my blog later this week.

Edit: Here's that blog article

Last edited by SAI; 02-08-2010 at 07:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-27-2010, 07:37 AM
I'll say I like 3D when it's utilized properly. Coraline and Avatar to date have been the best use of 3D in films yet. Especially Coraline though, which immersed you further into a pretty amazing litttle world to look at. It made certain scenes more fun or terrifying. If anyone saw it in 3D, I think you'll understand.

My worry is that the studios will beat this horse to death like they did in the 70's when 3D was introduced. Warner Bros. just announced they are converting Clash of the Titans and Harry Potter 7 Part I into 3D. That beating of the horse is already underway. They don't need it but the studios want to keep pushing the damn format.

The only film coming in the future that I could see utilizing the 3D well is Tron: Legacy.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-27-2010, 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearMisfit View Post
I'm also happy that there are more and more movies coming out with 3d technology. I don't understand the hate for the technology, either see it in 3d or not ITS YOUR CHOICE!!!!
That was pretty much what I thought when I read the thread title. Right on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
immersion should take place on a narrative front, from emotional level. I fear with the popularity of 3D, filmmakers will replace storytelling immersion with technological immersion, rendering even less importance to storytelling in an already narratively dried up genre (the blockbuster). Even James Cameron fell prey to it.

even my phrase "technological immersion" feels inaccurate. It's not to do with immersion, it's actually the opposite- it pops out at you.

let me ask you this, has a pop up book ever drawn you in as much as a book thats well written?

has ted turner's colorized versions of classic cinema work more for you as a story than their original B&W print?
I think it's a separate thing that's being done with filmmaking, kind of just like employing a new special effect. A pop-up book is a different experience than a novel, but so is a graphic novel. Watching the old b/w Superman serials is a different effect than watching the more modern films. What you say about filmmakers misusing it makes sense, but there's a lot of badly written movies that use all sorts of techniques or innovations. You also make a good point by bringing up the colorization, because they did come out with a TV that converts images to 3D, but I don't know much of it beyond that.

There's some filmmakers out there that can do something great with 3-D. Tron 2.0 was a good call, and I think The Wachowskis could pull it off. Speed Racer would have been awesome in 3D, but the story would have still had gone on too long.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-27-2010, 11:56 AM
3D? I'm a ginnit. No point, adds nothing to the story/movie. Yea, it adds to the "experience", but NOT the movie itself. I've seen some at the theater, and I'm done with it. You get charged $3 more, can't avoid the fee if you bring in your own pair of glasses, then they have the fucking nerve to go, "If you want, you can 'recycle' them here." as you leave? Muhwha? You charge me $3, then say I can "recycle" them after? Yea, like they're not going to fucking clean'm up, reseal them, and sell'm to the next poor sucker.

As for the technology, yea it looks WAY better than it used to, but it still looks like blurry, color washed ass, especially during heavy motion. I haven't seen Avatar, and doubt I ever will. As a MOVIE, it holds little to zero interest for me. People go on and on about how, "No, THIS looks better than the other 7 3D flicks released this year." But how? It's using the same 3D technology that MBV3D, TFD3D, Coraline, Up, and whatever the other ones are.

What I'm totally, 100% against, and will boycott purchase of anykind for, are movies that shoot 2D, then decide after the fact to go 3D for the extra box office... fuck them. Yea, I'm looking at you Joss Whedon! Granted I don't know if that was his idea, but either way, I'll never spend money on Cabin In The Woods... ever. I'll download the Regular D version and be done with it. And from what I know (which isn't that much), Resident Evil Afterlife is being shot 2D, and given the 3D treatment. Ass... butt... munch. Fuck that shit.

Film in 3D cause the movie can support it? Fine! Avatar, and any other shiny happy key jangly FX flick can support it. Remake The Godfather and shoot it in 3D? Fuck no! Studios just have to know when and WHY to shoot 3D... aside from the extra $3 per ass at the theater.

We'll get on the home theater market once these flicks start flooding retail outlets, and everyone whines that their new $2000 TV isn't good enough to run 3D software.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-08-2010, 06:34 PM
I'm wondering if this might be a small reason a lot of studios are going the 3D (and IMAX) route more. Not only does it over a kickass experience at the theaters, but it's a different (and arguably better) experience than if it is downloaded on a computer. Plus, the pricks that sneak cameras into movie theaters to record movies will only get the double red and blue images.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-08-2010, 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSimen View Post
This is just plain wrong if you ask me, but whatever. Think whatever you want.


As for the topic at hand, not for me. I actually get sick watching 3-D movies; I've seen three, and each time left me with a huge headache. I had to take the glasses off throughout so as not to worsen it.

I see what draws people in (the technology has become more sophisticated since the Bwana Devil days), but it does bother me that so many films feel that they have to be in 3-D in order to get attention. More often than not, it feels like a lack of confidence, as if the filmmakers are saying, "Fuck, we made a real shit heap, Earl...Screw it, we'll put it in 3-D. Those magpies will buy anything."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-09-2010, 01:20 AM
hmm...

I'm having a hard time comprehending why some people seem to take the sudden surge in popularity that 3D has gained as a personal fucking affront to your movie-going experience. When a major theatrical release is only in 3D, then the argument becomes a bit more valid, but even then, you don't have to see the movie.

I mean, really, you don't have to watch movies at all. And certainly no one is forcing you to go see Avatar or A Christmas Carol in 3D, as the option to go see it in 2D is (for the most part) easily available.

Last edited by SoCool; 02-09-2010 at 01:21 AM.. Reason: blah'!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie_Darko View Post
You charge me $3, then say I can "recycle" them after? Yea, like they're not going to fucking clean'm up, reseal them, and sell'm to the next poor sucker.
i'm pretty sure that's the idea dude. recycling them means that they are going to give them to other movie goers instead of having to give brand new ones out, thus the theater spends less on the glasses.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-13-2010, 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAI View Post
I'll be interested in 3D the day it becomes a storytelling device. So, never.

This.


As long as they continue to release 2D versions of the films, then I couldn't care less.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-26-2010, 12:24 PM
The science of 3D explained by Mark Kermode:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermo...explained.html

So funny and so true.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-26-2010, 12:28 PM
3D should only exist if the entire film is being shot with 3D cameras and not just converted from a standard 2D format. Also, not all films should make their way to 3D. I really hope Batman 3 isn't in 3D, but it probably will.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-26-2010, 02:39 PM
Like many others here, I have already expressed my opinions on this topic in all of the other 138723 threads that are about it. But, in a nutshell:

- Ihe 3D work on Avatar was nothing short of spectacular, and it was an incredible, totally immersive and entertaining experience, even if the film lacked in the plot/screenplay department.
- I am also impressed by the 3D on animated films like Up and Coraline.
- 2D footage converted to 3D is bullshit - 3D is only worth it if the film is SHOT on 3D, and so far, there is only ONE non-animated movie that was shot like this. All the rest is crap.
- I will be seeing Clash of the Titans, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and all other subsequent 3D-converted films in good, old-fashioned 2D.
- I sincerely hope that this onslaught of piss-poor, half-assed 3D-converted films will bring about a public backlash so strong, that 3D will disappear altogether because people will start realizing that it's just a gimmick.

Phew.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-26-2010, 05:14 PM
I'm disappointed I never got around to seeing Avatar in 3d because I loved the effects and it would have been a good introductory experience for me. As is, I have no good opinion one way or another because I've yet to see a 3d film and yet to care that I haven't seen a 3d film.

But I am disappointed I didn't get to see Avatar in 3d. That's supposed to be the best example of the form.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-26-2010, 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
I'm disappointed I never got around to seeing Avatar in 3d because I loved the effects and it would have been a good introductory experience for me. As is, I have no good opinion one way or another because I've yet to see a 3d film and yet to care that I haven't seen a 3d film.

But I am disappointed I didn't get to see Avatar in 3d. That's supposed to be the best example of the form.
Watch the video in the link I posted a little while ago. It sums Avatar's 3D and 3D as a whole very well.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-26-2010, 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
The science of 3D explained by Mark Kermode:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermo...explained.html

So funny and so true.
Hahaha that was funny. I almost spat my water out.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-27-2010, 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewolf View Post
i'm pretty sure that's the idea dude. recycling them means that they are going to give them to other movie goers instead of having to give brand new ones out, thus the theater spends less on the glasses.
And therein lies the grubbing. If I can't bring my own pair of glasses in, I already paid for, they why give them the pair I just purchase back, so they can sell them to somebody else, and make even MORE money? I hate the policy, and will not support it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-28-2010, 04:58 AM
Wait... are you telling me that when you go to 3D films in the US, you actually get to keep the glasses? Wow. Over here, glasses are handed out at the entrance to the theater and collected in a bin at the exit. They have these big metal detectors too (or plastic detectors, whatever they are) that beep if someone tries to leave the theater with his glasses! Damn, you guys have it easy! When I go see a 3D film, I have to wear glasses that I know have spent time on many other faces before mine.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-28-2010, 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monotreme View Post
Wait... are you telling me that when you go to 3D films in the US, you actually get to keep the glasses? Wow. Over here, glasses are handed out at the entrance to the theater and collected in a bin at the exit. They have these big metal detectors too (or plastic detectors, whatever they are) that beep if someone tries to leave the theater with his glasses! Damn, you guys have it easy! When I go see a 3D film, I have to wear glasses that I know have spent time on many other faces before mine.
There's a bin to put them in after the movie, but they don't check to see if you actually put them in there. But you still have to pay for the glasses every time you go.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-29-2010, 07:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
There's a bin to put them in after the movie, but they don't check to see if you actually put them in there. But you still have to pay for the glasses every time you go.
Well, I mean, we have to "pay" for the glasses too, but it's just an increased ticket price, it's not like you buy the glasses separately. And over here they are REALLY strict about putting them back in the bin. They won't let you out of the theater with them.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-29-2010, 12:36 PM
My feeling is Hollywood is jumping into this too fast if Avatar is going to be the benchmark for 3-D films. I still wasn't impressed because of the panning movement in 3-D. It was extremely choppy at times. I can't believe with all the new technology they haven't figured out how to make 3-D without the glasses yet.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-29-2010, 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monotreme View Post
Well, I mean, we have to "pay" for the glasses too, but it's just an increased ticket price, it's not like you buy the glasses separately.
Yes, yes, tis what I meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monotreme View Post
And over here they are REALLY strict about putting them back in the bin. They won't let you out of the theater with them.
Yeah, that sucks. Means you don't have the opportunity to make some Kermode 2D Specials. They actually do work BTW.

The biggest problem with 3D for me though (besides the fact that I don't think it adds anything to the experience, it results in 30% color loss and often makes filmmakers focus more on action than story) is that because of its increasing popularity, 2D screens simply aren't profitable for theatres, which means that theatres are starting not to offer the 2D versions of certain films that are in 3D. From what I've heard, this is less of a problem for those living in bigger cities, but watch out.

Last edited by Bourne101; 03-29-2010 at 07:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:42 PM
3D should be left to only certain films and mostly to animated films.

After being blown away by How to Train Your Dragon and its 3D majesty, I'm a big believer in it if only for the entertaining, "the film feels like a ride that's telling a story" effect which only really works for animated films.... or films like Avatar which are quite unique regarding the completely artificial world and creatures it created.

Other than that : no. And definitely not when they are not intended for 3D originally. I'm definitely seeing Clash of the Titans in 2D for example. Alice in Wonderland sucked in 3D and UP! was nothing really special in 3D apart from a few neat effects.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-30-2010, 04:00 AM
I'm 50/50 Avatar is the only 3D film I've seen and I LOVED it. I like 3D and I think it's cool but I could also do without. If they keep it where we can choose between 2D and 3D then hey it can stay as long as it likes. I don't see why people get mad when a movie is announced in 3D. People are flocking to see these movies in 3D so if it's what the majority wants let them have it. As long as I can choose whenever I go to see a movie I see no problem at all.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-30-2010, 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
The biggest problem with 3D for me though (besides the fact that I don't think it adds anything to the experience, it results in 30% color loss and often makes filmmakers focus more on action than story) is that because of its increasing popularity, 2D screens simply aren't profitable for theatres, which means that theatres are starting not to offer the 2D versions of certain films that are in 3D. From what I've heard, this is less of a problem for those living in bigger cities, but watch out.
This is really becoming a problem. Alice in Wonderland, for example, is ONLY showing here in 3D. I'm starting to worry that all these future 3D releases are going to be released only in 3D, like Clash of the Titans and Harry Potter 7, and I REALLY want to see these movies in 2D! I think it's bullshit that they are releasing them only in 3D.

That said, 3D looks amazing on animated films, there's no doubt about it. It's because these films are all digital and so the digital data is very easy to manipulate into good-looking 3D. So to any doubters like kru3ger, for example - go check out an animated flick like How to Train Your Dragon or the upcoming Toy Story in 3D to see how good it looks and how much potential it has, at least in the animated film medium.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-01-2010, 09:08 PM
I just saw Alice in Wonderland in 3d. It was my first experience with the gimmick and I got a kick out of it. I wear glasses already and the 3d glasses fit over mine comfortably. I didn't notice any issue with the colors or tones. It didn't give me a headache and most of the immersion was distracting then entertaining. It was good clean fun. The price I paid for my 3d viewing was only 3 dollars more than the normal 7 dollar price tag, so it wasn't a killer.
Too bad I never caught avatar..!

But it did make me rethink the gimmick of it all. I wonder I wonder how many more plunders like Clash of the Titans. Still, there are possibilities. Maybe some films could shoot certain delirious scenes in 3d to compliment the effect. Who knows. I think it's an interesting technique. It's going to be 'spammed' a lot at first, but there will be better developments and I bet it's going to be a great tool in the future as long as directors are creative with it (and they will be creative with it).
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-03-2010, 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie_Darko View Post
And therein lies the grubbing. If I can't bring my own pair of glasses in, I already paid for, they why give them the pair I just purchase back, so they can sell them to somebody else, and make even MORE money? I hate the policy, and will not support it.
I agree - this call for controlled anarchy...BREAK THE FUCKERS before returning them..scratch the lenses with your car keys, better yet, unfold a paperclip and use that..

If people want 3D go see a fucking PLAY with live actors. Wearing glasses to have to enjoy something is a GIMMICK
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-03-2010, 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
I can't believe with all the new technology they haven't figured out how to make 3-D without the glasses yet.
They have..as a matter of fact its been around BEFORE the creation of motion pictures...

Its called THEATER...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-03-2010, 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
But it did make me rethink the gimmick of it all. I wonder I wonder how many more plunders like Clash of the Titans. Still, there are possibilities. Maybe some films could shoot certain delirious scenes in 3d to compliment the effect. Who knows. I think it's an interesting technique. It's going to be 'spammed' a lot at first, but there will be better developments and I bet it's going to be a great tool in the future as long as directors are creative with it (and they will be creative with it).
When I went to see Journey to the Center of the Earth (apart from the movie sucking period) the biggest 3d effect wasnt the dinos or the middle earth..but A stupid friggin YO YO comming at me from Brendan Frasier. PATHETIC

The best 3d effect I had was when they added that crap to Nightmare Before Xmas...and it wasnt even from the movie itself. The Pumpkins and smoke coming out of the screen BEFORE the movie were the most impressive...STILL A GIMMICK
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-03-2010, 12:29 PM
Our theater in town never gets 3D prints of films...
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-03-2010, 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Frankenstein View Post
Our theater in town never gets 3D prints of films...
You're a lucky man.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-03-2010, 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Frankenstein View Post
Our theater in town never gets 3D prints of films...
I'll second that. You are lucky.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump