Name me one movie where the 3-D was necessary to the plot

[Trekker4747]

there is no reason 3D is to be considered a fad or unnecessary.

You mean, other than the fact that 3-D has already been a passing fad that came and went, twice? That's not reason enough to be skeptical?

3D on this level where it is realistic, immersive and gives the viewer a sense of depth as if they're looking through a window into the movie world has never been done. The previous gos at 3D has been the gimmicky red/blue glasses "things sticking out through the screen" 3D. The 3D used in Avatar is on a whole other, higher, level.

 

[Harvey]

3D on this level where it is realistic, immersive and gives the viewer a sense of depth as if they're looking through a window into the movie world has never been done. The previous gos at 3D has been the gimmicky red/blue glasses "things sticking out through the screen" 3D. The 3D used in Avatar is on a whole other, higher, level.

Avatar brought 3D to another level, but Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland brought that level right back down again. The cheap cash-in mentality leaves me skeptical.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

3D on this level where it is realistic, immersive and gives the viewer a sense of depth as if they're looking through a window into the movie world has never been done. The previous gos at 3D has been the gimmicky red/blue glasses "things sticking out through the screen" 3D. The 3D used in Avatar is on a whole other, higher, level.

Very few 3-D theatrical films have used the red/blue glasses, even back in the 1950s. The polarized lenses you wear today are far from being a recent invention.

And as noted above, the ultra-realistic look of Avatar was acheived by James Cameron spending 5 years and $300 million on perfecting the CGI and the motion capture. We're many, many years from your typical summer blockbuster looking as good as Avatar, 3-D or no 3-D.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Neither color, sound nor motion are necessary to movie plots either - read a book.

 

[Silvercrest]

there is no reason 3D is to be considered a fad or unnecessary.

You mean, other than the fact that 3-D has already been a passing fad that came and went, twice? That's not reason enough to be skeptical?

3D on this level where it is realistic, immersive and gives the viewer a sense of depth as if they're looking through a window into the movie world has never been done. The previous gos at 3D has been the gimmicky red/blue glasses "things sticking out through the screen" 3D. The 3D used in Avatar is on a whole other, higher, level.

So... let's say hypothetically you're in a theater that's showing this kind of 3D, and you have them freeze the image with a character in the foreground.

You are standing on the right side of the theater, looking at the character from a certain angle. (Say the character's left side, if he's facing you.) Now you cross to the left side of the theater. Can you now see details on the other side of the character (his right) that were not visible from the other angle?

 

[Smiley]

What you're describing there is essentially holodeck technology, which stands up to changing viewpoints. What the current generation of 3D movies gives is something closer to what you would see with both eyes if you were in the same position as the camera.

Like the fake IMAX screens, the moviegoing audience needs to be educated on which movies have been shot for 3D and those that have been converted in post-production or have selected scenes in 3D like Superman Returns.

 

[Silvercrest]

Exactly what I expected to hear. Which means it's still just a gimmick. Why extoll the virtues of 3-D technology that doesn't actually render things in three dimensions?

Pass.

 

[Smiley]

It is a tool that can enhance the moviegoing experience. It becomes a gimmick only when studios put out wannabe 3D films like Clash of the Titans that were not designed for it.

The films are 3D in that you have height, width, and depth visible to the audience. What you don't have is 360 degree picture, which is both completely unrealistic and unnecessary for a theatrical environment.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

3-D adding to the experience

If it's done well, you get a better shock effect. Why does a horror film get scare you? Because of a good combination of several different gimmicks. Color. Sound. VFX. 3D.

I agree. The best horror films' directors know how to use sound to create atmosphere and tension even in almost darkness.

How was color integral to the plot? People did fine with black-and-white.

Yes a radio drama can tell a story and so can a black and white film
color and now 3-D just add to the experience and creating a more believable world the story is set in. (especially in fantasy and science fiction).

What you guys are complaining about is not the 3D effect itself, it's the way it is used in movies.

All genres?

But can it work with an intimate drama like "Precious" or a nutty comedy like "Date Night."

Apr. 12, 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100409/ent_3D_movies_100409/20100412?hub=

"Martin Scorsese, says “Precious” should have been filmed in 3-D."

April 21, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/fashion/22crib.html

Did they "need" 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?

By Roger Ebert
Apr 29, 2010
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110

read this article
Popularity of 3-D is affecting how screenplays are written
April 25, 2010

Some filmmakers fear the technology will eventually dictate which films are greenlighted.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

They are never going to film a movie like Precious in 3-D. And even if they did nobody's going to spend an extra $5 a head to see a movie like Precious in 3-D.

I don't dispute that filmmakers could use 3-D to immerse the audience more deeply into a character driven drama. But they're not going to.

More 3-D means more big, dumb spectacles. Yes, even more than what we're getting now.

 

[JarodRussell]

They are never going to film a movie like Precious in 3-D. And even if they did nobody's going to spend an extra $5 a head to see a movie like Precious in 3-D.

I don't dispute that filmmakers could use 3-D to immerse the audience more deeply into a character driven drama. But they're not going to.

More 3-D means more big, dumb spectacles. Yes, even more than what we're getting now.

Same thing has been said about CGI, and today it's used in every movie, regardless of genre or size.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Same thing has been said about CGI, and today it's used in every movie, regardless of genre or size.

It doesn't cost a family of four an extra $20 to see a movie that has CGI in it.

 

[JarodRussell]

Same thing has been said about CGI, and today it's used in every movie, regardless of genre or size.

It doesn't cost a family of four an extra $20 to see a movie that has CGI in it.

That will level out some day, too. When they switched to cinemascope, prices inflated, too.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

3-D and genres

They are never going to film a movie like Precious in 3-D. And even if they did nobody's going to spend an extra $5 a head to see a movie like Precious in 3-D.

I don't dispute that filmmakers could use 3-D to immerse the audience more deeply into a character driven drama. But they're not going to.

DirecTV is starting up a linear 3D channel dubbed "N3D.

there will be a couple 3-D TV cable & satellite channels with scripted narrative episodic TV series in primetime within 5 years not just sports or documentaries.

Imagine the budget of a 3-D TV scripted episodic series. I can assure you it's going to be cheaper to produce a character-driven drama for television in 3-D than one loaded with visual effects like Knight Rider.
It will happen, just not within 2-3 years.
Also competition-based reality TV series will use 3-D for the competitions, think Survivor...or Fear Factor. Yes television is off-topic but it goes to show how this character-drive drama will be produced sooner than for the cinema.
And if CBS Marketing really wanted to they could film a Survivor episode's competition in 3-D and offer it in 3-D digital cinemas as a promotion before the movie trailers of a 3-D Paramount Pictures film you paid to see.

 

[Yoda]

Exactly what I expected to hear. Which means it's still just a gimmick. Why extoll the virtues of 3-D technology that doesn't actually render things in three dimensions?

Pass.

What a stupid argument. Changing perspective is not analogous to 3D. I can close one of my eyes, move, and see something from a different perspective. Heck, your brain infers depth looking at something that's 2D.

But shit, stereoscopic vision gives such a convincing sense of depth, that's so amazingly useful in day to day life, that we fucking evolved it! And WTF are you talking about, rendering? We have technology that lets you change your perspective in a 3D environment, play any video games in the past decade or two? But it's not a very compelling story-telling medium.

Choosing the perspective you see things from is part of the artistry of film, ya know cinematography and all that. Having it slightly change as you move around the theater would be the ultimate in useless gimmickry.

 

[DonIago]

Especially given that I don't recall the last time I went to see a movie and spent my time walking around the theater to see different parts of the movie.

 

[Trekker4747]

You mean, other than the fact that 3-D has already been a passing fad that came and went, twice? That's not reason enough to be skeptical?

3D on this level where it is realistic, immersive and gives the viewer a sense of depth as if they're looking through a window into the movie world has never been done. The previous gos at 3D has been the gimmicky red/blue glasses "things sticking out through the screen" 3D. The 3D used in Avatar is on a whole other, higher, level.

So... let's say hypothetically you're in a theater that's showing this kind of 3D, and you have them freeze the image with a character in the foreground.

You are standing on the right side of the theater, looking at the character from a certain angle. (Say the character's left side, if he's facing you.) Now you cross to the left side of the theater. Can you now see details on the other side of the character (his right) that were not visible from the other angle?

Unfortuantly no. 3D hasn't quite gotten that complex... yet.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

That will level out some day, too. When they switched to cinemascope, prices inflated, too.

I think Hollywood will kill this golden goose before we get to the point where tickets to 3-D movies cost the same as 2-D.

One of the problems is that they're only now starting to put movies in the pipeline that are actually filmed with 3-D cameras. So for the next year or two it's going to be nothing but 2-D movies "upgraded" in post production, and the gimmick is going to get old very quickly once people realize that they're not going to see the next Avatar anytime soon.

This summer, the next installment in the Step Up series will be in 3-D, and I can't wait to see who pays a premium to see that shit in 3-D. Step Up 3-D might just be this generation's Metalstorm: Destruction of Jared Syn.

 

[Silvercrest]

Exactly what I expected to hear. Which means it's still just a gimmick. Why extoll the virtues of 3-D technology that doesn't actually render things in three dimensions?

Pass.

What a stupid argument. Changing perspective is not analogous to 3D. I can close one of my eyes, move, and see something from a different perspective. Heck, your brain infers depth looking at something that's 2D.

But shit, stereoscopic vision gives such a convincing sense of depth, that's so amazingly useful in day to day life, that we fucking evolved it! And WTF are you talking about, rendering? We have technology that lets you change your perspective in a 3D environment, play any video games in the past decade or two? But it's not a very compelling story-telling medium.

Choosing the perspective you see things from is part of the artistry of film, ya know cinematography and all that. Having it slightly change as you move around the theater would be the ultimate in useless gimmickry.

Not quite sure I'm following you here. I may have phrased my post badly. Or a little more cynically than intended.

Especially given that I don't recall the last time I went to see a movie and spent my time walking around the theater to see different parts of the movie.

Don't worry, I wasn't arguing that you should have to do that.

I was just illustrating the point that current 3D still isn't "all that", by giving an example of something that would be a truly major leap in 3D tech. What we have now may have evolved a little beyond red-and-green glasses, but it's still just forced stereoscopic vision (as Yoda puts it). As such, it doesn't strike me as particularly revolutionary or interesting. I don't know if ultimately it will prove to be just a fad, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Funny, I could have sworn I posted a lot of that speech already, and now I can't find it!

 

[Yoda]

Not quite sure I'm following you here. I may have phrased my post badly. Or a little more cynically than intended.

Especially given that I don't recall the last time I went to see a movie and spent my time walking around the theater to see different parts of the movie.

Don't worry, I wasn't arguing that you should have to do that.

I was just illustrating the point that current 3D still isn't "all that", by giving an example of something that would be a truly major leap in 3D tech. What we have now may have evolved a little beyond red-and-green glasses, but it's still just forced stereoscopic vision (as Yoda puts it). As such, it doesn't strike me as particularly revolutionary or interesting. I don't know if ultimately it will prove to be just a fad, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Funny, I could have sworn I posted a lot of that speech already, and now I can't find it!

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw[/yt]
I mean, that kind of window effect can be done, it's just not that interesting in the context of a movie (and this obviously wouldn't work in a theater full of people), though yeah, it wouldn't really be perfect since the content isn't really like 3D content in a video game, though I'm sure with some trickery it wouldn't look bad. But the stereoscopic stuff seems clearly more immersive than that kind of optical illusion. I would think that the Avatars of the world would probably work best with some kind of LCD glasses/headgear that blocks out everything else from your sight.