The Movie Studios' Big 3D Scam 532
An anonymous reader writes "There's a lot of things wrong with 3D movies. Avatar's 3D was well executed, but Alice's 3D was really bad, like all 2D-to-3D conversions. And yet, studios are reconverting 2D movies—including classics—into 3D to milk this fad. On top of that, the theaters are not prepared for 3D, with bad eyeglass optics and dark projections. In this article, a top CG supervisor in a prominent visual effects studio in Los Angeles calls it as it is: it's all a big scam by the movie studios."
Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine how I feel about all that hype with only one eye...
Well, Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
3D does not make a bad script/actor/director/... better.
Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.
Re:Well, Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of 3D is to provide an experience you can't get at home. Nothing more, nothing less. Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater.
Perish the thought? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hollywood pursing a fad for money?!?!?
But seriously, Avatar is the only movie I've seen in modern 3D. It added slightly to the movie. A few scenes stood out for some pretty cool 3D effects, but most of the time I was thinking "This just looks like flat 2D layers set slightly above one another." But I don't see it as anything more than a novelty. Hollywood is jumping on it because it's a way to get away with charging $15 for a ticket instead of the usual $9. But it won't make a bad script better. It won't make a bad actor deliver a better performance. It won't make Michael Bay any less an annoying hack. And it won't get me into the theater to see a movie that I normally wouldn't have wanted to see in regular 2D.
Cool shades, though.
I am an audience member. (Score:5, Insightful)
I go to the cinema a lot. I watch pretty much all the new releases. I always have. I don't agree that all 2D-to-3D releases are bad. I've rather enjoyed them. Ok, Avatar's 3D effect was better than Alice's. Nevermind, I paid my money and I walked away at the end of it feeling I'd had a good time nonetheless.
I certainly wasn't under the impression anyone had scammed me. I've read the article. I'm still not. I got what I paid for.
3D is stupid anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
There is an entire art of photographic/cinematographic composition that relates to how lines, shapes and form relate to the frame. What does that mean where the 'frame' is all fucked up on the edges from the lameass "3D" effect? Better just put everything in the middle. OOh, that shark looked like he was coming right at me!!!1111
What people really want is honest-to-god VR. The full immersion kind with goggles with eye-tracking and head tracking, soundstage-shifting binaural sound. Come up with something like that and I'll take interest, but the 3D fad is just stupid, stop it please.
Re:Well, Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.
That's essentially true, but I don't think movies are simply about story telling -- movies are more about story immersion. You aren't just being told a story, you are experiencing the story through sight, sound (including the associated physical vibration), dialog, etc. In this way I think that 3D can be more than just a scam. As the summary said, Avatar's 3D really was incredibly well done. It could have been better; I read that Cameron originally wanted to film at about 60 fps but Fox shot him down, but this would have helped with both brightness and strobing issues. Once you become accustomed to the 3D picture, it really was a more immersive experience.
Of course, I think it makes no sense at all to go and "convert" older standard films into 3D, especially because what you get isn't even really 3D. You just can't present more information to the audience than you started with. Avatar was filmed with multiple cameras and therefore had the information needed to present a real 3D stereoscopic image. The Wizard of Oz wasn't.
Personally I think that well-executed 3D is a great boon to theaters because it provides (at least currently) a much needed physical reason for people to go to the theater to see a movie instead of just waiting to watch it at home. Hopefully they don't kill off this opportunity for themselves by overdoing or abusing it.
New tech (Score:3, Insightful)
3D isn't inherently bad, but it's still in the gimmick phase. The simple fact is it's a new technology (anaglyphic doesn't count) and filmmakers aren't that familiar with it (or hate it just as much as you do.) So you're going to see several movies crash head-first into that learning curve.
And, hey, if 3D makes you sick or hurts, watch the 2D version. It's cheaper.
Alice (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anyone tell me what was wrong with Alice's 3D exactly? I saw both versions and the 3D one was far, far better. I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.
I don't like the fact they encourage you to leave the glasses in a recycling bin then try and charge you for a new pair each time now. I also don't like how much more 3D films cost, but personally, 3D is about the only thing I applaud Hollywood for- all 3D films I've seen so far have been stunning, and finally, they're actually doing something to give me a reason to go to the cinema again, rather than just trying to sue pirates into giving them money without actually innovating, or trying to sell me HD copies that don't look that much better than the upscaled DVD copies of films I have already, only for twice the price.
I actually dislike this article, it's exactly what gives ammunition against the internet movement for changes to copyright because it feeds the idea that Hollywood can't win either way- they get told off for trying to protect a dated business model in the harshest way possible, and now it seems if they do something fresh to earn their money like so many people, they get slagged of for it too.
I feel dirty defending Hollywood, but is it so bad that they've decided to offer a new way of viewing movies, that for many people, like me, does in fact make the films that much more fun and enjoyable to watch, without getting rid of the classic 2D versions for those who prefer to keep watching it in 2D?
Re:Well, Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
But Avatar was designed, from the ground up, for 3D. I've read bits about the problems with 3D before. Besides the pseudo 3D problem mentioned, there is the fact no one really knows how to use the extra space yet, or the loss of focus it can cause.
Right now, a director can focus my attention on something with focus, but in 3D that doesn't quite work. Either the whole scene is blurry except what they want me to look at (which can be confusing when your eyes can't pull something you look at into focus), or everything is in focus, so I can get easily distracted looking at neat thing X in the background, and not the plot point I am supposed to be focusing on.
We're still at gimmick stage. It's going to take some time before there are many movies where the 3D is actually worth something.
But the whole "take a 2D movie and fake process it into 3D" thing is nearly a scam. I understand if you want to update Gone with the Wind in 3D, you don't have an option (short of a complete reshoot). But when you are starting filming this year, buy the second camera. Either you care about making a 3D movie or not.
Re:but 3D home theater is next. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an interesting notion, but I don't think that nostalgia would sell as much as quality + novelty does.
Their current strategy is to show it first, cash as much as they can in 2 months, then launch it on DVD to cash in more, then finally go to TV to squeeze the last drops.
It works quite well, actually. The real problem is that every model has a limited growth potential, and the movie theaters have reached theirs. They're now trying to insert a new model to increase their growth: 3D.
It's not a scam. It may or may not give you more fun than 2D. If it does, and you're willing to pay the extra, then it works for them.
If you prefer to pay less, watch in 2D.
Sometimes the 3D will be good, sometimes less so. Just as sometimes a movie is good, sometimes less so. What's the big deal?
Stop calling it '3D' (Score:5, Insightful)
I kinda like the 'depth' that the effect brings to the screen. But what drives me nuts is that I can't bring out of focus images into focus. I think this is why I get headaches, my eyes try to focus on the 'close' stuff or the 'far' stuff and can't. Avatar drove me nuts with the stupid bugs 'in front' of the screen. I don't mind things flying out at me, they are gone quickly enough. But when things are made to appear right in front of my face and stay there, my eyes want to focus on them and can't. I found that my eyes were tired after the movie, and I wondered if that was from an unconscious attempt to focus on things that weren't in focus. My wife said she didn't notice it such an effect at all, and she didn't get a headache.
I saw Alice in Wonderland without the 3d simulation, and in the future will probably skip 3d simulated movies if I have an option. Although I might try an Imax version of Avatar if it's still out in a few weeks after reading some of the responses about not getting headaches at those theaters.
milking it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more of the practicality of the modern economy. When people were making closer to $45/hr, it wasn't a big concern to drop $50 on a movie. (3 tickets + snacks)
Now a lot of people aren't working, or are making closer to $15/hr. That $50 goes from 2.7% of the weekly paycheck to 8.3%. That $50 may be more important for paying rent, food, a utility bill, or gas to get to work. $50 for just over an hour of entertainment vs $50 for food, it becomes obvious which is more important.
Inflation hasn't been matched by the working wages. It's actually been working inversely. Prices have gone up, and people have less money to spend. If it's different where you are, I'm moving there. :)
i hate 3d (Score:1, Insightful)
i start getting a headache after about an hour. people that wear glasses can't enjoy it. it costs more at the box-office. it's a gimmick. i hope/can't-wait for it to die.
Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers (Score:3, Insightful)
Half the performance doesn't really have much point. I currently have two identical graphics cards in SLI, so the other card can be rendering image for right eye and the other one for left. You get quite much the same performance as with single card and no 3D.
Of course it's quite much like Hi-Fi stuff. Some people want to go the extra mile, and the extra immersion it gives is great. Those red/blue glasses, no, but polarized is quite nice already.
But whats the status on holographic 3D? What I found looks quite limited [youtube.com].
Dislike it as well (Score:5, Insightful)
I dislike the 3D movies as well. Though, in my case, it was because of how they played with the depth of field. Much of Avatar was stunningly beautiful, but half of the time my ADD mind wanted to look at things that Cameron didn't want me to look at, and were thus out of focus. The strain of trying to focus on things that my brain was telling me I should be able to focus on, but couldn't, drove me nuts.
Re:Well, duh (Score:1, Insightful)
Wait, exact same product?
Avatar did 3D right. In order to do it, they used multiple cameras. They absolutely did not deliver the exact same product, they essentially delivered twice the product - the same movie from 2 different angles.
3D Animated Films also deliver -more- than their 2D counter-parts, as all of the data from -both- viewing angles must be included in the final product instead of data from one. Same concept, "two cameras" for one movie.
And 2D-to-3D converts? You do realize it takes some non-zero amount of work to convert a movie to 3D, don't you?
They are delivering more, and they want more for it. Sounds reasonable to me - if you don't like it, don't pay.
Re:Well, Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
And colour has nothing to do with story telling, and pictures have nothing to do with story telling and audio has nothing to do with story telling.
That said, each adds its own twist on the telling of a story and changes how and what one can do as a story teller or artist for their audience.
As movies became a dominant form of media, the experience of those producing allowed for new and interesting ways of making movies that hadn't been considered before. 3D, like adding colour, or audio to those original moving pictures, adds another tweak that can be used by the director to do something different with their camera work, and at the same time, restricts them from doing others.
Just as high definition is going to mean the end of actors with skin blemishes (imho), 3D will mean the end of certain camera angles that cause eye strain. Current 3D movie direction is still in its infancy.
Re:but 3D home theater is next. (Score:3, Insightful)
> The problem is that the business model you are talking about is being destroyed by piracy.
Nonsense.
The problem is that their business model is being destroyed by bean counter filmmakers, cinema
management that has no clue what their audience want and a healthy market in SALES of content.
I can buy the movie for less on the day of it's DVD release.
I can wait for the price to drop to half price or $5.
I can rent it from redbox or blockbuster.
I can put it in my Netflix queue.
I can wait for it to get on cable.
"theives" are the least of the worries here.
Re:but 3D home theater is next. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a treadmill that the movie theaters can't get ahead on. Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill, they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etc
That's a nice thought, but we live in an age where people answer their phone while watching a movie. I'd be all for a cinema that disciplined or ejected these people for disturbing other patrons. Unfortunately, those people seem to be in the majority now, so by pissing off the cellphone talkers, they would be eliminating their major source of income. It seems like an intractable problem, unless etiquette somehow becomes trendy all of a sudden.
Re:Bigger scam for 1-eyed viewers (Score:5, Insightful)
You're an idiot. I don't know where this myth came from that the eye has some set limit on framerate, but I'm tired of seeing it from people who apparently never play games. The human visual system doesn't work in terms of discrete frames, it's a continuous information flow (with a lot of processing done on it). For your information, I can tell the difference between a 60Hz and 85Hz refresh rate on a monitor displaying a still image (the former gives me a headache on most monitors), let alone moving graphics. The only reason 24FPS looks remotely acceptable for movies and the like is the motion blur that comes from the relatively long shutter speeds (the time the shutter is open per frame) of movie cameras, something that cgi artists have learned to replicate artificially, otherwise the sequence of crystal-clear rendered images animating at such a low framerate looks really janky. Higher shutter speeds can be used for effect, as seen in some scenes in Saving Private Ryan and the like (moving objects look clearer but seem to jump across the screen in discrete frames), but there's still some blur. Pause a movie during a fast action scene sometime and notice how blurry moving objects are (it's not just from digital compression, it's an artifact of the slow shutter speeds they have to use to make the movement look continuous). Remove the motion blur, and no, the image isn't remotely smooth at 24FPS. Ideally the framerate would be high enough that the individual frames could be perfectly clear (for cgi, or as close as you can get with high shutter speeds on live action), and any motion blur would come naturally from the human visual system (it would be lessened since our eyes are specifically designed to track moving objects to avoid blur), leading to a smoother, clearer picture, but the current framerates aren't up to that. I've always thought that, say, Michael Bay movies would be far more tolerable visually at something like 120FPS, because he seems to ignore the limitations, shaking the camera around and moving objects past it at speeds that turn everything into a blurry mess at 24FPS (which is a technological artifact that never should have remained as long as it has, really).
There's a reason developers on modern consoles brag when they get their games running at 60 instead of 30 FPS (if it made no difference, they could lock it at 30 like most games and get more detail onscreen). There's a reason PC gamers like to have a framerate at least as high as their monitor's refresh rate. There's a reason for 120Hz TV's (although those are using interpolation to "fake" the extra frames, and would provide better results if the original video was taken at 120Hz). The reason isn't that all the above people are deluded, it's because higher framerates look demonstrably better.
Do me a favor sometime, and find a CRT monitor, set the desktop to its highest refresh rate, and wave a finger in front of it without moving your eyes. You see those individual finger-images? That's from the strobe effect of the refresh rate (this doesn't work on most LCD monitors, since the natural lag time provides pretty much constant illumination, similar to how most lightbulbs hide the 60Hz AC rate). The faster you move your finger, the bigger the gaps between the finger images. If you can find a refresh rate at which the gaps are small enough that it appears to be a continuous movement even when moving your finger extremely quickly (hint: you can't on any consumer monitor I'm aware of), I'll accept that as something approaching the limits of the human eye. Until then, shut up.
Re:Well, Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that number is terribly skewed.
90% of the population aren't actively collecting unemployment. You only count as "unemployed" if you are collecting unemployment. Those who don't, either because they couldn't (the company fought against unemployment benefits), or have fallen off the books because their unemployment ran out, don't count. They also don't count if they seem to willingly be unemployed. Like, a housewife or retired person isn't counted in the unemployment figures, because they chooses to stay home. The real unemployement number is closer to 25% unemployed but looking.
"underemployed" don't count either. If you were a senior IT person for years making 6 figures, and have a wealth of experience, but can't get a job doing IT, and went to work for McDonalds making minimum wage, you aren't unemployed. You may not be able to afford your bills, but you're not unemployed. Those count for a very substantial number, probably 15% to 20%.
There are groups who assemble the more realistic numbers, and they really aren't pretty. Of all my friends, who were gainfully employed a few years ago, less than 10% are working now. The rest are sending out resumes every day, and spending their unemployment money driving around to find work. That includes myself.