The problem I have with 3D films

[Dar70]

Im starting to get a little irritated with 3D films. Ever since the release of BEOWULF, (Which was a true 3d film and very good to say the least) seems like many big budget films the last 3 years (this year especially due to Avatar's success) are being released in 3D. The problem is that several are only being converted and were not made with 3D in mind. The problem with that is you will get next to nothing coming out at you from the screen. What you probably will get are the title cards in 3D and a sense of depth with some of the objects on the screen.(characters will seem to pop out a little, the ground may seem to pop out a little etc) Thats it. But you wont get what was in BEOWULF and MY BLOODY VALENTINE. Those has some geat 3D effects.

Now some major films this year are being converted at the last minute to cash in on the 3d craze.(several were relased last year as well.(UP and Aliens VS Monsters, which had nill 3d effects, but supposedly were shot and planned for stereoscopic 3d) The POTTER films are being converted as well as CLASH OF THE TITANS. These IMO will not be worth the extra 3 bucks just to see some depth to the picture.

NOW some may be asking, "Why dont you just go see the regular 2d version." I would except my dorky GF wants to see every flipping movie with the 3D tacked onto it. I tried explaining to her that Im not going to continually pay extra for title cards popping out towards me and the extra depth to the screen. I dont think she understands though because she said I was just being CHEAP.


Again I dont mind 3d as long as the film was produced with it in mind. What I do mind is studios converting every damn big event movie this year to cash in on the 3D craze and costing me an arm and a leg.

After this year though Im sure most 3d films will be true 3d.

 

[Mike Farley]

Every 3D movie should have a sequence with a guy playing paddleball.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b96x2Qdm5E[/yt]

 

[Trekker4747]

I hate the "coming at you from the screen" 3D.

That's gimmicky nonsense 3D it adds nothing to the "realism" of the movie and is nothing more than "Ooohh! I can almost reach out and touch that thing coming out at me!"

I love the depth 3D as that's how 3D should be used in TV and movies. To give a real feeling of what the third dimension is. Depth.

Avatar's 3D was beautiful, it felt like looking through a window into this other world. Perfect.

 

[TheSeeker]

^Agreed. Although I have to admit I do enjoy the occasional thing flying right at me.

 

[Trekker4747]

I do enjoy the occasional thing flying right at me.

Well, whatever satisfies you.

 

[Marc]

Personally I hope they never become the mainstream - they literally give me a headache

 

[Canadave]

I'd watch more 3D movies if they were all more like Dr. Tongue's 3-D House of Stewardesses.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4[/yt]

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Personally I hope they never become the mainstream - they literally give me a headache

Do you wear glasses usually? If not maybe you need your eyes checked. They used to give me headaches too, then I had an eye check up and after I got glasses I stopped getting headaches.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

I have zero interest in 3D movies. I never have and never will pay to see them, and I love gadgets, movies and spending money on crap.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Although I have to admit I do enjoy the occasional thing flying right at me.

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!! /Squiggy

 

[Marc]

Personally I hope they never become the mainstream - they literally give me a headache

Do you wear glasses usually? If not maybe you need your eyes checked. They used to give me headaches too, then I had an eye check up and after I got glasses I stopped getting headaches.

yeah I normally wear glasses and have an astigmatism.

 

[broberfett]

I hate the "coming at you from the screen" 3D.

That's gimmicky nonsense 3D it adds nothing to the "realism" of the movie and is nothing more than "Ooohh! I can almost reach out and touch that thing coming out at me!"

I love the depth 3D as that's how 3D should be used in TV and movies. To give a real feeling of what the third dimension is. Depth.

Avatar's 3D was beautiful, it felt like looking through a window into this other world. Perfect.

What about a movie like My Bloody Valentine? Tits "coming at you"? I missed it and didn't see the 3d effect, but I'm sure that bit was interesting.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Personally I hope they never become the mainstream - they literally give me a headache

Do you wear glasses usually? If not maybe you need your eyes checked. They used to give me headaches too, then I had an eye check up and after I got glasses I stopped getting headaches.

yeah I normally wear glasses and have an astigmatism.

Same here. I slip the 3d glasses on top of my own glasses and haven't had a problem after that.

 

[Nardpuncher]

The thing I don't like about 3D is that it doesn't in any way make the movie feel more real to me.
It does look neat, of course, but I've already suspended my disbelief and let the story unfold on the silver screen in front of me. Making things looks like they're 2 feet closer to me than the other stuff doesn't do any more for me.

 

[23skidoo]

3-D is no substitute for story. The problem I have with 3-D is that 100% of the 3-D films I've seen (and yes I'm blanketing the lot, including Avatar) are all about the gimmick and the story suffers. That's fine for the occasional novelty film, but it's going to to get old really fast for people who want original, intelligent stories.

If someone comes up with a film like The Road in 3-D, or 2001 A Space Odyssey, or Blade Runner, then we'll talk. So far I'm not seeing it. (Yes, Avatar is better than most, but even it's plot is nothing more than a minestrone of a dozen other films - and more obviously so than other films - as has been noted.)

I'm also not a big fan because it's a distraction to wear the glasses (especially if you ALREADY WEAR glasses like I do). And while Avatar's 3-D did indeed work for me (other recent 3-D films haven't, such as Journey to the Center of the Earth) the fact is I still had to remove my glasses every 15 minutes or so to give my eyes a rest and stop the vertigo from setting in. And that took me out of the movie. It is likely why I do not consider Avatar the immersive experience others do, because I was constantly reminded that I was in a theatre wearing awkward glasses and getting woozy every so often. At one point I considered taking the glasses off completely and just watching the film (unlike early 3-D not everything looked color-separated) but I was stubborn and kept to it. I didn't get sick or anything, though.

If they come up with a non-glasses 3-D option, call me, otherwise I'm sticking to 2-D for now because I simply get lost in the movie easier in a 2-D environment. Now, to James Cameron's credit, Avatar was released in a 2-D version as well (and despite my criticisms of the film, I do want to see it again in 2-D). Unfortunately most theatres aren't showing that one, and I doubt SpiderMan 4 by the time it comes out will be offered in a 2-D version in the theatres either. Hopefully the home video versions will, otherwise a bunch of viewers and potential ticket- or Blu-Ray-buyers are going to be disenfranchised.

I'm not against 3-D per se, but when I hear people making comments like "all films will be 3-D after Avatar" it makes me wonder if we aren't hearing the death knell for films like An Education, Slumdog Millionaire, Precious, and Crazy Heart. Are theatres only going to want to bring in the Avatars and Monsters Vs. Aliens and Spider-Man 4 3D movies? Are non-SF/F filmmakers who want to make the next Up in the Air going to be forced to make their films 3-D?

Alex

 

[T'Baio]

Some movies are shot in anamorphic, some are not.

Your Slumdog Millionaires shot in regular 2D are always going to be around, sharing the cineplexes with Avatar 5 in quadrovisuophonic super sensory surround. Don't worry.

 

[Marc]

Read on Slashdot that Sony have release Blu-ray firmware that will allow new and existing players to play 3D movies so this is probably going to encourage them.

 

[The Evil Dead]

I think studios are making the mistake of thinking 3d is easy. In my opinion 3d needs filmmakers like James Cameron to get the most out of the technology, it's not as simply as just taking any movie and making it 3d, these things need to be storyboarded and photographed for 3d. Say what you will about Avatar, it is a gorgeous movie, an unmatched treat to see in 3d IMAX.

For example, Clash of the Titans is coming out a week later than it was originally intended so they can give it the 3d treatment. After the fact. I will absolutely be seeing that film in 2d because that's the format the Director and Cinematographer shot the film for.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't think the point of 3D is to have things "coming at you" out of the screen; that is the old 1950s gimmick. The point is to bring depth and dimension to what you're watching. Avatar uses it very well to create vast, open spaces as well as great close-ups of the actors.

I've seen the preview for Burton's "Alice In Wonderland," which I understand is an example of "converted" 3D, and I'll probably see the movie on the strength of that ad alone. So I don't think it's that much of an issue.

 

[Trekker4747]

3-D is no substitute for story. The problem I have with 3-D is that 100% of the 3-D films I've seen (and yes I'm blanketing the lot, including Avatar) are all about the gimmick and the story suffers. That's fine for the occasional novelty film, but it's going to to get old really fast for people who want original, intelligent stories.

If someone comes up with a film like The Road in 3-D, or 2001 A Space Odyssey, or Blade Runner, then we'll talk. So far I'm not seeing it. (Yes, Avatar is better than most, but even it's plot is nothing more than a minestrone of a dozen other films - and more obviously so than other films - as has been noted.)

I'm also not a big fan because it's a distraction to wear the glasses (especially if you ALREADY WEAR glasses like I do). And while Avatar's 3-D did indeed work for me (other recent 3-D films haven't, such as Journey to the Center of the Earth) the fact is I still had to remove my glasses every 15 minutes or so to give my eyes a rest and stop the vertigo from setting in. And that took me out of the movie. It is likely why I do not consider Avatar the immersive experience others do, because I was constantly reminded that I was in a theatre wearing awkward glasses and getting woozy every so often. At one point I considered taking the glasses off completely and just watching the film (unlike early 3-D not everything looked color-separated) but I was stubborn and kept to it. I didn't get sick or anything, though.

If they come up with a non-glasses 3-D option, call me, otherwise I'm sticking to 2-D for now because I simply get lost in the movie easier in a 2-D environment. Now, to James Cameron's credit, Avatar was released in a 2-D version as well (and despite my criticisms of the film, I do want to see it again in 2-D). Unfortunately most theatres aren't showing that one, and I doubt SpiderMan 4 by the time it comes out will be offered in a 2-D version in the theatres either. Hopefully the home video versions will, otherwise a bunch of viewers and potential ticket- or Blu-Ray-buyers are going to be disenfranchised.

I'm not against 3-D per se, but when I hear people making comments like "all films will be 3-D after Avatar" it makes me wonder if we aren't hearing the death knell for films like An Education, Slumdog Millionaire, Precious, and Crazy Heart. Are theatres only going to want to bring in the Avatars and Monsters Vs. Aliens and Spider-Man 4 3D movies? Are non-SF/F filmmakers who want to make the next Up in the Air going to be forced to make their films 3-D?

Alex

Mmmmm. Minestrone.

Ahem, anyway.

I mostly agree with you, 3D, right now, is a gimmick. And while I think non-glasses 3D is possible implimenting it would probably require an overhall of all elements in the system, the screen, the projectors, etc. So it may be a while before we see it.

I wear glasses too and the 3D glasses are distracting as I, too, am too aware of the 3D glasses.

I doubt the 3D gimmick will be the death knell to more substansive films, as 3D gets used more it'll be cheaper to do and we'll soon see more worthy films in 3D. This has been the case for all advancements in film in history from sound to color to the use of SFX.