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

[ngc7293]

Right now 3D at the box office ( or for certain TV sets) is a gimmick. Until the technology matures, there is no way to expect it to be more than just an add on to the experience. Maybe, someday, there will be movies where 3D will be so integrated that it WILL be needed to move the plot. Such a device might even sign the death of the theatre. But I suspect that is a long ways off.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

I think the key difference between 3-D and color/sound is that color/sound caught on very quickly and stayed around, whereas 3-D has already failed twice. If 3-D adds that much to the movie-watching experience, why did theatergoers not have a problem with it dying out in the '50s and '80s?

 

[Trekker4747]

The 3D movies of the past were gimmicky "things coming out at you" nonsense. The 3D experience Cameron made was immersive, making the movie screen a window into the movie world and wasn't just the "jam things out into the camera" bullshit.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Whenever they get around to making another Roger Rabbit movie or a movie with a similar setup... Toons v. real people.
That will be the day 3-D WILL be the plot.

Imagine it: Everything is 3-D just like the real world only the actual toon characters stay 2 dimensional.

Or a movie that combines 3D CGI cartoons with 2D handdrawn cartoons...

Remember the Simpsons Halloween episode where Homer got sucked into 3D land?
How awesome would it have been if it had really been 3D instead of only CGI rendered?

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Flatland

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0972374/

 

[LaxScrutiny]

How about Smell-O-Rama?

 

[jefferiestubes8]

3-D tv channels

As for 3D being necessary to the plot, I don't care if it's necessary to the plot.
If it makes my movie look more beautiful and alive, therefore enhancing the experience, that's enough for now.

I agree.
I hope that with

DirecTV is starting up

a linear 3D channel dubbed "N3D."The satellite operator's N3D channel will include programming from partners AEG/AEG Digital Media, CBS, Fox Sports/FSN, Golden Boy Promotions, HDNet, MTV, NBC Universal and Turner Broadcasting System.

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.

 

[Chris_Johnston]

The 3D movies of the past were gimmicky "things coming out at you" nonsense. The 3D experience Cameron made was immersive, making the movie screen a window into the movie world and wasn't just the "jam things out into the camera" bullshit.

Absolutely. Consider what a filmmaker has to work with in order to connect with an audience: Chairs, a flat white screen, and some speakers.
Every little breakthrough can only be an improvement.

 

[DonnyBaker]

I think people need to distinguish between regular 3-d, and Imax 3-d. Now that Ive seen movies on Imax 3-d I think of regular 3-d as a joke. IMAX is where its at. Its the only true 3-d expierience. I wonder if the OP has ever seen an IMAX 3-d movie?

 

[JarodRussell]

Cinemascope wasn't vital to the plot either... but I wouldn't call anamorphic widescreen a fad. Same with surround sound. It's about enhancing the movie-going experience.

Dumb question.

Exactly.

Name me one movie where visual effects are necessary to the plot. Name me one movie where shooting on 35mm was necessary to the plot. Name me one movie where a proper lighting rig was necessary to the plot.

We can drive the silliness even further: name me one Al Pacino movie where Al Pacino was necessary to the plot. Al Pacino is just a gimmick that studios use to lure more people into the theaters.

I think people need to distinguish between regular 3-d, and Imax 3-d. Now that Ive seen movies on Imax 3-d I think of regular 3-d as a joke. IMAX is where its at. Its the only true 3-d expierience. I wonder if the OP has ever seen an IMAX 3-d movie?

Your statement is factual wrong. IMAX 3D is the oldest and worst 3D standard out there that's still in use. Can't say anything about your subjective impression though.

 

[Hyperspace05]

I think the key difference between 3-D and color/sound is that color/sound caught on very quickly and stayed around, whereas 3-D has already failed twice. If 3-D adds that much to the movie-watching experience, why did theatergoers not have a problem with it dying out in the '50s and '80s?

Bzzzt. Wrong. Color took decades to be accepted as the 'normal' film. Close to 30 years. At first only event movies were filmed and distributed in color.... Hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it?

BTW, this thread is the height of idiocy. What is this, the luddite forum?
New technology... scary!

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

We can drive the silliness even further: name me one Al Pacino movie where Al Pacino was necessary to the plot. Al Pacino is just a gimmick that studios use to lure more people into the theaters.

I don't think you know the definition of "gimmick". A gimmick is a cheap marketing tactic that adds no real value to something. Al Pacino has certainly added a lot of value to most of the films he's made.

 

[JarodRussell]

We can drive the silliness even further: name me one Al Pacino movie where Al Pacino was necessary to the plot. Al Pacino is just a gimmick that studios use to lure more people into the theaters.

I don't think you know the definition of "gimmick". A gimmick is a cheap marketing tactic that adds no real value to something. Al Pacino has certainly added a lot of value to most of the films he's made.

A gimmick is a feature that distinguishes a product or service without adding any obvious function or value.

What value does Al Pacino add?

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

The 3D movies of the past were gimmicky "things coming out at you" nonsense. The 3D experience Cameron made was immersive, making the movie screen a window into the movie world and wasn't just the "jam things out into the camera" bullshit.

So it's your contention that 3-D films coming out now aren't gimmicky in any way? Clash of the Titans was converted to 3-D six weeks before it premiered in theaters. You can't tell me the 3-D was part of the director's grand vision there. Just because you don't have a guy jabbing at the camera with a clothesline pole a la Friday the 13th Part 3 doesn't mean it's not gimmicky.

I think people are not so much reacting to 3-D as they're reacting to the extremely realistic CGI and motion capture seen in Avatar. And the only reason Avatar looks so good is because James Cameron spent 5 years and $300 million making it. There's no way a typical summer blockbuster is going to look just like Avatar, 3-D or no 3-D.

 

[JarodRussell]

I think people are not so much reacting to 3-D as they're reacting to the extremely realistic CGI and motion capture seen in Avatar. And the only reason Avatar looks so good is because James Cameron spent 5 years and $300 million making it. There's no way a typical summer blockbuster is going to look just like Avatar, 3-D or no 3-D.

Most of the time and money was spent developing the technology. Now his 3D cameras are cheaper to use.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

A gimmick is a feature that distinguishes a product or service without adding any obvious function or value.

What value does Al Pacino add?

You really think a skilled actor can't improve significantly upon the material he's given?

Do you think The Godfather would have been the same movie with Ryan O'Neal playing Michael Corleone?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think 3D was a critical component of experiencing Avatar, however it was also designed that way. It wasn't critical to the plot, though. How could it be?

Color and surround sound aren't critical to the plots of most movies, either.

 

[JarodRussell]

A gimmick is a feature that distinguishes a product or service without adding any obvious function or value.

What value does Al Pacino add?

You really think a skilled actor can't improve significantly upon the material he's given?

Do you think The Godfather would have been the same movie with Ryan O'Neal playing Michael Corleone?

Wouldn't have changed anything about the movie's plot, would it?

 

[Greg Cox]

Nothing unless we're discussing Freddy's Dead which was built around the 3D. It's a neat gimmick to get asses in the seat. Speaking of asses in the seat I wish I had been around for William Castle's The Tingler which had a cute gimmick that got asses the fuck out of seats!

I attended a special screening of THE TINGLER that was done in Percepto. Trust me, you didn't miss much. It was like sitting on a joy buzzer--or maybe a vibrating cell phone.

I actually showed up early to make sure I got one of the rigged seats--which got awkward when a couple asked me to move over so they could sit together:

"Umm, I'm sorry, no."

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Wouldn't have changed anything about the movie's plot, would it?

I think there's a lot of room between "gimmick" and "crucial to the plot".