Abrams in NYTimes

[Sector 7]

3-D movies give my brother severe headaches. We, therefore, do not go to 3-D showings and do not purchase them. I wear glasses and, although it is claimed they fit over glasses comfortably, they do not.

I had headache and dizziness problems with the old-style 3D technology (which most live action movies use now, and which virtually all 3D movies did before last year), I suspect because of the artificial viewing plane they attempt to construct, but the Avatar technology - which is based on how the eyes and brain produce natural stereoscopy - didn't cause me any problems. Unfortunately, only Avatar and several cartoons (Toy Story, etc.) have come out so far that use it. I think Resident Evil is supposed to use it, but I don't have any interest in the movie beyond the cinematography, color palate, and Milla Jovovich (who is always good in action roles).

My brother started with Coraline, then went to see Avatar because we both read articles about how much better and viewer-friendly it was. The results were the same; my brother and I had to leave during the movie when his headache became severe. The manager refunded our ticket prices and issued tickets for any 2D showing. He said about one in three showings someone is unable to handle the 3D.

While that may be a small percentage, there are those who cannot tolerate 3D. My complaint is that the glasses are not comfortable over my glasses, therefore, my eyes do not become adjusted to the view (because I am constantly fiddling with the glasses to try to make them comfortable). Home viewing of Coraline was not any better, he still got a headache.

 

[Cyke101]

And I still say color, surround sound, widescreen and other technical stuff doesn't add anything either. So why have it?

The difference is that movies started telling stories that needed color, widescreen or surround sound as a part of the story. . "The Wizard of Oz" wouldn't have been as magical if it were all color or all black and white. . . "Ben Hur" and "How the West was Won" would have lost the epicness of scope on a narrower screen (which is why pan and scan versions of videos on TV suck). . . those stories needed those innovations. . . unless Orci and Kurtzman are writing a story that needs 3-D, it would be better not to shoehorn the process onto the film. . .


~FS

Nope. The stories didn't need color or widescreen. It's an after-the-fact argument of yours.

For the Wizard of Oz, color wasn't just a special effect, it was an actual plot device, separating two worlds; the same plot point evolved into social commentary, from the world of personal and political oppression to the world of societal freedom and free will for Pleasantville; and from despair to remembrance for Schindler's List. Color often plays a major role, and those three films were really dependent on color to drive home their stories.

Now, I'm no fan of 3-D by any means and I myself don't think it will enhance anything. I think it's a cheap, cynical ploy to squeeze out more money from the audience. There's a reason why widescreen and color and surround sound have stood the test of time. But to say that films don't depend on widescreen, color, and surround sound in order to prove 3-D is just a trend does a great disservice to all the image techs, sound techs, and directors out there, as well as all the artistic decisions put forth into those efforts.

I enjoyed Avatar far more (at least visually) without the 3-D because of all the vibrant colors and shapes and fluidity of the CGI models, something I couldn't appreciate with those glasses. But there's the thing: color. The sound was great and seeing yet another sci-fi film in widescreen was a hoot. Maybe tonight I'll watch a really vibrant Pixar film like Up, and then follow it with TMP, since both movies heavily depend on color, widescreen, and surround sound (Goldsmith's score alone justifies why we need the utmost sound quality). God forbid I ever watch a pan-and-scan V'Ger... ick.

 

[JarodRussell]

The difference is that movies started telling stories that needed color, widescreen or surround sound as a part of the story. . "The Wizard of Oz" wouldn't have been as magical if it were all color or all black and white. . . "Ben Hur" and "How the West was Won" would have lost the epicness of scope on a narrower screen (which is why pan and scan versions of videos on TV suck). . . those stories needed those innovations. . . unless Orci and Kurtzman are writing a story that needs 3-D, it would be better not to shoehorn the process onto the film. . .


~FS

Nope. The stories didn't need color or widescreen. It's an after-the-fact argument of yours.

For the Wizard of Oz, color wasn't just a special effect, it was an actual plot device, separating two worlds; the same plot point evolved into social commentary, from the world of personal and political oppression to the world of societal freedom and free will for Pleasantville; and from despair to remembrance for Schindler's List. Color often plays a major role, and those three films were really dependent on color to drive home their stories.

3 movies out of a million that really need color. All others don't need color. Same goes for 3D. Or surround sound. Or...



I'm wondering, did the story of Star Trek 2009 need shaky cam and lens flares?

 

[Tom Servo]

And I still say color, surround sound, widescreen and other technical stuff doesn't add anything either. So why have it?

The difference is that movies started telling stories that needed color, widescreen or surround sound as a part of the story. . "The Wizard of Oz" wouldn't have been as magical if it were all color or all black and white. . . "Ben Hur" and "How the West was Won" would have lost the epicness of scope on a narrower screen (which is why pan and scan versions of videos on TV suck). . . those stories needed those innovations. . . unless Orci and Kurtzman are writing a story that needs 3-D, it would be better not to shoehorn the process onto the film. . .


~FS

Nope. The stories didn't need color or widescreen. It's an after-the-fact argument of yours. You think Ben Hur is epic, and conclude that it must be because of the widescreen. And of course pan and scan versions suck because it wasn't filmed in for a 4:3 screen. Had it been filmed that way, it wouldn't suck.

And watch Star Trek 2009 in black and white. You won't miss a single thing.


"Write a story that needs 3D" is also a phrase that makes no sense at all. You don't write scripts that need technicalities, because that's not the business of the scriptwriter. The Wrath of Khan script did not need widescreen, it did not need color, it did not need stereo sound. Those technical processes are always shoehorned into a film.

For once I am in total agreement with you JarodRussell. 3D is just another addition to cinema try and immerse the viewer in the world, just like widescreen and stereo sound. The story and film should be able to stand on it's own without that.

 

[Hythlodeus]

3D is just another addition to cinema try and immerse the viewer in the world.

_The problem is: 3D actually takes me out of that world. It's a cheap gimmick, nothing more. and repeatedly saying that it adds to the movie is laughable and absolutely untrue.

 

[JarodRussell]

3D is just another addition to cinema try and immerse the viewer in the world.

_The problem is: 3D actually takes me out of that world. It's a cheap gimmick, nothing more. and repeatedly saying that it adds to the movie is laughable and absolutely untrue.

Repeatedly saying that it is a cheap gimmick is laughable and absolutely untrue. See, I can do that, too.


Why is 3D a cheaper gimmick than any other gimmick? Surround sound? Shaky cam? Widescreen? Slow motion? Color? Lens flares? Lens flares take me out of a movie every time.

 

[Jeyl]

Why is 3D a cheaper gimmick than any other gimmick? Surround sound? Shaky cam? Widescreen? Slow motion? Color? Lens flares? Lens flares take me out of a movie every time.

Don't forget the camera shaking. Nothing sells an action movie more than the constant banging of a camera even when there isn't any action going on.

 

[M'Sharak]

Why is 3D a cheaper gimmick than any other gimmick? Surround sound? Shaky cam? Widescreen? Slow motion? Color? Lens flares? Lens flares take me out of a movie every time.

Don't forget the camera shaking.

He didn't.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Tom Servo]

3D is just another addition to cinema try and immerse the viewer in the world.

_The problem is: 3D actually takes me out of that world. It's a cheap gimmick, nothing more. and repeatedly saying that it adds to the movie is laughable and absolutely untrue.

It may take YOU out of the world, but to say it's a gimmick is 100% untrue. In fact, adding 3D to a film, especially one that begins as a 3D film like Avatar, takes a lot of work, and has taken a lot of time to get right. Hell, there is a whole new world of Visual Effects compositing that that involved the 3D aspect of the shot. No longer will there just be 2D compositing, it will be 3D, because there is a whole new dimension that one has to account for.

If you don't like it, thats fine, but calling it a cheap gimmick is not even close to the truth.

 

[Sector 7]

3D is a gimmick, just like any other gimmick. The 'immersion' effect does not work on everyone. Avatar was a showcase for James Cameron's new 3D technology, but the film has been much more enjoyable in 2D for my family. To each their own.

 

[Geckothan]

My brother started with Coraline, then went to see Avatar because we both read articles about how much better and viewer-friendly it was. The results were the same; my brother and I had to leave during the movie when his headache became severe. The manager refunded our ticket prices and issued tickets for any 2D showing. He said about one in three showings someone is unable to handle the 3D.

Avatar? No wonder he had a headache. Terrible movies give me headaches too. I don't know about Coraline though as I haven't seen it.

Also, finally J.J. Abrams has said/done something sensible! 3D is a pathetic gimmick.