Is all this 3-D stuff a phase?

[Starkers]

Tron Legacy is probably the best 3D film I've seen, one of the few where it actually really worked. Probably because the bright neon compensated for the muting of colour one gets with 3D. Somewhat more bizzarely I kinda liked the 3D in Drive Angry...go figure.

Avatar..well I didn't find it immersive, there I found it distracting.

 

[arthur2sheds]

I absolutely WILL NOT go and see a film in 3D. I'm still not convinced that is the way foward for movies. I believe it is just a cynical ploy to charge higher admission prices.
My local independent cinema closed not long back and i now have to use a mulltiplex and they cant get the focus and sound balance right on a 2D film never mind 3D!!

 

[StalwartUK]

Tron Legacy would've worked better in 2D. Originally I was going to see it in 2D but that would've meant going 50 odd miles as hardly anywhere was showing the 2D version. Half the movie wasn't even in 3D and yet a notice at the start of the movie proclaims that you must keep your 3D glasses on at all times! After a while I just didn't bother with them and asides from the movie looking slightly blurry I could watch it just fine.

 

[Starkers]

^That's one of my major annoyances with 3D, the fact that often a 2D version isn't a choice. Even if the cinema is showing it, the start times are always shittier.

 

[Trek Survivor]

Definitely a phase, just like in the 1950s and the 1980s. In every occasion it's been a "reaction" to a perceived threat:

1950s. Television. Reaction - 3-D makes cinema special!
1980s. Home video. Reaction - 3-D makes cinema special!
2000s: Piracy/Internet streamuing etc. Reaction - 3-D makes cinema special!

It's a fad. I was plenty "immersed" and "absorbed" (and whatever else people claim 3-D brings) in films before 3-D came along...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Now's the time when there is some financial pressure to up the ante, go 3D and to 48 fps, in order to stay ahead of the home theater curve. Time will tell, but I think the move in that direction, and to perfect the experience so that there are fewer complaints, seems very possible. Or, which is really the alternative, the whole movie theater industry could just suddenly collapse, which in the long term is always possible.

 

[Harvey]

Definitely a phase, just like in the 1950s and the 1980s. In every occasion it's been a "reaction" to a perceived threat:

1950s. Television. Reaction - 3-D makes cinema special!
1980s. Home video. Reaction - 3-D makes cinema special!
2000s: Piracy/Internet streamuing etc. Reaction - 3-D makes cinema special!

It's a fad. I was plenty "immersed" and "absorbed" (and whatever else people claim 3-D brings) in films before 3-D came along...

The difference here is that this 3-D phase has lasted longer than any of the others, due to the level of investment by exhibitors. If they can charge an extra 2.50 to 5.00 for 3D movies (which, outside of the cost of glasses, don't cost them anything extra to show once the infrastructure is there) they'll continue to do so unless people start going to 2D movies in droves. And, although a Slate piece from a bit ago suggested that attendance of 3D was slowing, I don't think it has slowed nearly enough for anything to change.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I personally hope that 3D sticks this time, and the 3D format is a common one for the future. However, only if the following also happen:
1. 2D glasses are offered at cinemas
2. The other issues with glasses are resolved – an option is added for people who can't wear glasses due to e.g. irritation, the format for glasses is standardized so you can bring them for home, and both the 3D and 2D glasses are large enough to fit over your existing ones
3. The majority of films continues to be 2D or mostly 2D, with 3D used only in films or scenes where it makes sense, or for extra-scene imagery
4. Some issues with the formats, such as frame rate, are resolved. I've also noticed that I prefer the 2D version over several 3D formats (current 3D TVs, Dolby 3D cinemas), while I prefer the IMAX 3D version in every case where the film is shot properly. Dunno why is that, but it is suggesting something is wrong.

The 3D format offers more means of expression to the film makers, while it also takes away some, and if used properly it can be a wonderful addition to the film. Issues with it are mostly resolvable, and while some are inherent to stereoscopic images, I don't think they are in any way more significant with the issues with 2D images.

If 3D sticks and becomes something ordinary, the whole fad to make 3D films just for the 3D, including 3D conversions from 2D, will stop.

 

[Harvey]

the format for glasses is standardized so you can bring them for home, and both the 3D and 2D glasses are large enough to fit over your existing ones

That'll never happen. The cost of glasses (as negligible as it probably is in actuality) is one of the ways theaters justify the 3D surcharges. Of course, the surcharges were originally justified as a way of off-setting the huge initial investment of installing digital, 3D projectors, but it's hard to still buy that one.

 

[firesoforion]

It's gone away before, just long enough that people forgot about it and they could get people excited about it again. Once the gimmick value goes away, so will 3D (or so I hope).

 

[Mr Pointy Ears]

Not worry,like before 3d came and went and it back, and it will disappear again,it seems evertthing few decades or so something taht was hot and great will come back again,like the one saying everything old is new again.

 

[23skidoo]

1. 2D glasses are offered at cinemas

I keep hearing that they're supposed to come out with a 3-D format that looks completely normal when viewed without the glasses (having "2D glasses" offered won't resolve your point #2 below), and only kicks in the 3-D when glasses are worn. If they do that, then fine. We can choose to ignore the 3-D and enjoy the film properly if we wish.

2. The other issues with glasses are resolved – an option is added for people who can't wear glasses due to e.g. irritation, the format for glasses is standardized so you can bring them for home, and both the 3D and 2D glasses are large enough to fit over your existing ones.

Still won't resolve the issues. You're still looking through two pieces of glass (or glass and plastic). And it doesn't fix the headaches and other issues faced by people both 20/20 and who wear glasses. I don't see any standardization happening. In fact the reverse is more likely as theatres try to find a way for you to pay extra (remembering they make little profit off the actual movies, only the overpriced popcorn, and the glasses are the natural extension).

3. The majority of films continues to be 2D or mostly 2D, with 3D used only in films or scenes where it makes sense, or for extra-scene imagery

I have to disagree with the last part. If there's anything that takes someone out of a film more than having to wear stupid-looking glasses it's having to put them on and take them off on command. Either go 100% 2-D or 100% 3-D; don't go half and half.

4. Some issues with the formats, such as frame rate, are resolved. I've also noticed that I prefer the 2D version over several 3D formats (current 3D TVs, Dolby 3D cinemas), while I prefer the IMAX 3D version in every case where the film is shot properly. Dunno why is that, but it is suggesting something is wrong.

So far no one has shown me 3-D glasses that resolve the loss of color and brightness issue. I've seen Avatar in 3-D and in 2-D and it is far superior in every visual sense in 2-D. Ditto Hugo. And those two films are supposed to be the gold standard.

The 3D format offers more means of expression to the film makers, while it also takes away some, and if used properly it can be a wonderful addition to the film.

I've been asking this question for 5 years and no one has given me an answer: tell me one way in which 3-D makes it possible for a filmmaker to tell a story. Name me one single aspect or storyline element of Avatar, Hugo, Harry Potter, John Carter, Gorilla at Large - I don't care - that could not be told without 3-D. This is why the whole "it's the same as color and sound arriving" comparison is garbage and collapses into irrelevance. I could fill pages listing cases where color is necessary for telling an aspect of a story; certainly sound is crucial for telling many stories. But there is nothing that I have ever seen or heard to suggest that 3-D facilitates any aspect of cinematic storytelling. Therefore it's as relevant to storytelling as Smellovision (actually I take that back - you could facilitate a story using Smellovision; so that means 3-D actually has LESS relevance to storytelling than Smellovision! Too funny).

Alex

 

[Harvey]

I wouldn't say any element of film is necessary to tell a story. Indeed, the medium itself isn't necessary for storytelling; for that the written word or a good old fashion spoken yarn will accomplish your goals.

Rather, I think the question is, have filmmakers used 3-D in a meaningful way to tell their stories? Hitchcock's silent version of Blackmail got the job done, but his sound version recognized that sound could tell stories differently than silent movies (I'm thinking of the "knife, knife!" scene specifically, if anybody has seen the movie). I haven't seen that happen with a 3-D movie yet; I'm not sure that it ever will (but, I'm a cynic).

Part of the problem may be that filmmakers aren't really making 3-D movies. Sure, they might be exhibited theatrically in 3-D, but they're also going to be shown theatrically in 2-D, and on home video they're primarily being seen in 2-D. Kieślowski didn't make the Three Colors Trilogy to be primarily seen in black and white. Until that changes, this objection will probably remain (or somebody is going to make a movie that doesn't play well on 2-D home video and television, which would be a colossal financial mistake; movies still make most of their revenue on TV, after all).

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I have to disagree with the last part. If there's anything that takes someone out of a film more than having to wear stupid-looking glasses it's having to put them on and take them off on command. Either go 100% 2-D or 100% 3-D; don't go half and half.

You don't have to ask the audience to take off the glasses to switch between 2D and 3D.

I've been asking this question for 5 years and no one has given me an answer: tell me one way in which 3-D makes it possible for a filmmaker to tell a story. Name me one single aspect or storyline element of Avatar, Hugo, Harry Potter, John Carter, Gorilla at Large - I don't care - that could not be told without 3-D.

Have only seen one of those in 3D. In fact, I think I haven't seen any other 3D films, except for Toy Story 3 which I regret not seeing in 2D.

I think you're asking the wrong question here. First of all, you could probably ask the same question about colour when it was first introduced, and perhaps it took some time before some film makers started using it really creatively. Wasn't there, can't tell, but the point is – 3D is now in a fad phase, you don't really expect people to be using it creatively when the mere word “3D” is enough to yank some money? I can recall at least one director promising to use 3D in a completely novel way, but I can't remember for sure who he was.

A film is not about just telling a story, it is about eliciting emotions, putting you in the story and driving you through it. It's not a book. And 3D can be a contributing factor to that even when it's not used “creatively”. That's what this “immersion” thing is about. To quote Quentin Tarantino:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTZbp-fQDuI[/yt]

I think I would have enjoyed Avatar far less in 2D. I saw Hugo in 2D, and I think that it suffered a lot, but I haven't seen the 3D version to be certain. When Hugo was rushing up and down through the catacombs, like in the opening sequence, I truly missed the depth, though I could still feel how it was supposed to work.

If nothing else, 3D is another aid for the brain to keep the suspense of disbelief and also to help me with my difficulty in paying attention to the film. But only when it's in a good cinema.

 

[Beagleman]

A film is not about just telling a story, it is about eliciting emotions, putting you in the story and driving you through it. It's not a book. And 3D can be a contributing factor to that even when it's not used “creatively”. That's what this “immersion” thing is about.

[...]

If nothing else, 3D is another aid for the brain to keep the suspense of disbelief and also to help me with my difficulty in paying attention to the film. But only when it's in a good cinema.

This is exactly the point. 3D isn't about telling the story, it's there to make the experience more lifelike. We see the world in 3D, just like we see it in color and we can hear sounds. The sole purpose of 3D is to immerse the viewer in the movie. (Which doesn't mean there won't be creative storytelling aspects of the technology that just havn't been used yet.)

 

[stoneroses]

Yes. Till you don't need glasses. I think the cinema version can get away with it more than TV. You can't really have 3DTV on in the background while you iron or work as you can with normal TV.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Jurassic park in 2013 rereleased

Jurassic park in 2013 rereleased

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2012/03/steven-spielberg-jurassic-park-3d-july-2013.html

Ooh 20 year anniversary! Big deal.
Jumping on titanic rerelease...

 

[Geckothan]

Crappy gimmick for the easily amused.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Crappy gimmick for the easily amused.

You talking about making movies in general?

 

[FPAlpha]

I don't believe it's a phase anymore because it's been a few years and there's still a steady release of new 3D movies on top of re-released classics with 3D updates.

However i'm no big fan of it because most movies use it as a gimmick and the cynic in me tends to believe that cinemas and studios use it to mark up the price and earn some more money.

However if the 3D is actually used to enhance the story and visual appeal to really pull you into the story then i have no problem with it but those movies are still very rare. Avatar was the first example of this and Pandora just looked amazing in 3D, still does in 2D though.

The next i'm really looking forward to is The Hobbit.. i've seen a production video of the movie and one episode dealt specifically with the 3D aspect and i was amazed how early on this was incorporated into the movie (as early as concept designs and drawings) so i'm cautiously optimistic and excited to see the result.

Other than that i can live without it because most of the time i get a slight headache and those cheap glasses are just uncomfortable to wear.