Has Christopher Nolan Turned the 3D Argument? 381
brumgrunt writes "Not only has Christopher Nolan resisted pressure to make his third Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, in 3D, but his explanation is very much centered on it being the right decision to suit the film. With Harry Potter (temporarily) abandoning 3D too, has Hollywood's latest bandwagon hit the skids already?"
Let's face it (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason the studios are pushing so hard on 3D is because there is a lot of money in it. They can charge a lot more for a 3D ticket. And once the overhead on the equipment is paid (the projector for the theater, the cameras for the production, the trivial costs of some cheap plastic glasses), all that extra money is almost pure profit. The reason that Nolan is able to resist their push is because he's already established himself with the franchise. If they were appointing a newbie to do it, you can bet they would be TELLING him to do Batman in 3D.
3D has always a been dubious contribution to the art. For every James Cameron who likes to see what he can do with it, there are dozens of filmmakers who have it foisted on them by the studio (many of them after-the-fact [yahoo.com]). And while the big boys can resist [movieweb.com], I doubt the pressure will let up anytime soon. As long as there is money to be made, the studios will ride this train. The only thing that will stop it would be if audiences starting to forgo the overpriced 3D versions for the 2D versions in droves, or if some kind of studio/theater price war started on 3D tickets (making it difficult for the studios to rape us so easily).
Is this a fad that probably SHOULD pass? Maybe. Is it being overused now? Definitely. Is it going anywhere, as long as the studios can reap big money off of it? Almost certainly not.
Here's to hoping (Score:5, Insightful)
3D is great, so long as a movie is made from the very beginning with it in mind, isn't used in a gimmicky sort of way, and isn't thrown in "just because".
I've only seen three movies that meet those requirements: Avatar, UP, and Coraline.
We only see the 2D version (Score:5, Insightful)
We've skipped movies because the theater was only showing 3D. After the novelty wore off (took about two films) the greater expense and poor user experience killed it for us. If producers try to force 3D on us in theaters, I'll wait for the video release.
Re:Let's face it (Score:5, Insightful)
there isn't a lot of money in it. They think there might be a lot of money in it. There's an enormous difference between those statements.
The difference between speculation and reality is in the execution, something which 3D doesn't do well because it's gimmick.
There's infinite money to be made in selling air! Our profit margins are infinite! etc. This is what people tell themselves. And then comes the reality.
Re:Let's face it (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this a fad that probably SHOULD pass? Maybe. Is it being overused now? Definitely. Is it going anywhere, as long as the studios can reap big money off of it? Almost certainly not.
I hope that BAD 3D passes quickly. I find that imperfect 3D gives me a headache. Avatar was fine for me, but other 3D films that I've seen have me constantly squinting as my eyes try to resolve the slight blurs and imperfections in the image, so I often leave with a headache.
And, yes, I am aware that 3D viewing requires that one pay attention only to the main element of the scene (trying to look at the background when only the foreground is in focus will always result in blurring even with the best 3D).
Re:Is Hollywood leaving money on the table? (Score:5, Insightful)
"3d movies are a gimmick
3d movies are overrated
3d movies are bullshit
3d movies are crap
3d movies are annoying"
as the first 5 options.
I think the massive backlash is because many people view 3d as the first result, a gimmick to pass off lower quality films while trying to keep the same revenue. After all, the hollywood revenue stream has two factors. One being ticket prices, which can be boosted for the gimmick, and the other being production costs which can be reduced if the film expectations are lowered.
My $0.02
3D (Score:5, Insightful)
3D has come and gone in just about every decade for the last 5-6 decades.
It's pretty but there are a number of things that have never been solved:
- it doesn't work AT ALL for a percentage of people. If they don't go, your audience is lessened by their numbers plus a bit more (to account for those groups who say "Yeah, but John can't see it - let's go watch something 2D instead").
- it can induce headaches, motion sickness and all sorts of problems in others.
- it's not "true" 3D, I can't get out of my seat and look at the film from the side. I also can't "stick my head inside" an object that's coming out the screen towards me. It's usually only ever "2D plus depth tricks" which isn't the same.
- it's more expensive than 2D
- it requires more specialist hardware than 2D (and often requires people to don some sort of equipment THEMSELVES to do that)
- it's used as nothing more than a gimmick rather than an actual way to put the viewer "on-stage".
Even a simple theatre is more "3D" than "3D TV" and they can do all sorts of tricks that makes you think an elephant has disappeared, that actors are smaller than they actually are, and that there's a ghost hovering mid-stage. I can't name a single work of art that uses "3D technology" to its advantage and yet an awful lot of art is designed to be 3D (e.g. every statue).
I have at least three games on my hard drive that use "3D" technology if my display supports it - some of them go back decades. Trackmania can do the red/blue glasses thing and, way back when, you could do it in Fractint too. I have "3D" pictures collected from comics when I was young. I played on a "3D" holographic game in the arcades before I was young enough to even work out what buttons I was supposed to be pressing (which, incidentally, was infinitely more impressive than anything you can get on a 3DTV). Nintendo have a console that FLOPPED despite being years ahead of its time because it relied on the "3D" gimmick. I have regularly dug out a pair of red/blue glasses from my childhood days to amuse myself with things that come in boxes of cereal. Even in my parent's day you could go watch a 3D movie at a cinema without having to track one down.
But still, the above problems are always there with any type of "3D". When you *solve* them, come back and we'll take a look. Otherwise, it's a faddy gimmick that'll disappear and be revived next decade too.
Re:Let's face it (Score:4, Insightful)
"The right decision to suit the film" (Score:2, Insightful)
This *should* be the reason you use any technology.
Unfortunately, it usually becomes "the right decision to maximize profit."
Good, I-don't-realize-its-there-because-it-seems-so-natural 3D would enhance almost any film by making them more realistic, just as realistic color and life-like sound did in years past.
Jarring, "it's obviously an effect" 3D also works well for some films, just like not-quite-realistic colors and unrealistic use of sound is the right decision for some films.
We don't have "I-don't-realize-its-there-because-it-seems-so-natural 3D" yet. Until we do, directors must make a conscious decision "does the current technology add or detract from my artistic intentions." When realistic 3D does arrive, then directors will be able to ask "is there any artistic benefit to NOT using this technology?"
Re:Let's face it (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll notice there are 2D versions of 3D movies, simply because in order to have 3D you need 2D first (ala dual camera lenses, etc)
Let's not get all stupid and think "omg lolz fight da p0wAr!@!". I sure am glad people like you didn't exist back in the days of movies getting sound, color being added, new IMAX, technicolor, new computer generated scenery. We'd be stuck with sock puppets, still.
3D is lame (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this 3D fad is one of the most poorly-executed technologies that will end up with an impact like the original laser disc or divx players. First, Avatar has been the only real 3D movie.. and it was awesome. Then, Alice in Wonderland came around and claimed 3D and it looked like a hackjob.
Every part of this '3D' technology is executed badly.
1. The content.. There is a lot of talk about content yet very little available. Where is my ESPN 3D sports channel? Where are all the 3D movies?
2. The home theater.. '3D capable' does not seem to mean shit since even techno-geeks like me don't know what exactly you need to watch 3D. I know the technology requires 120hz+ refresh rates and a 3d-capable player and glasses.. but are all brands interchangeable? If I have a 240hz TV, is that good enough or do I need to blow money a '3D' tv?
3. The glasses.. lol.. Charge me $99/pair? WTF.. Why can't we just use the cheap ones you get in the theatres at home? But seriously.. $99/pair? They're the cheapest plasticky things you can get at the electronics shop and they're $99/each? Freaking joke.. They can't cost more than $3 to make.
The technology looks impressive when watching Avatar at a good theater.. or watching the demos at the Sony store.. But getting that into the home looks like an exercise in frustration even to the most geeky of consumers.
Re:Let's face it (Score:5, Insightful)
And, yes, I am aware that 3D viewing requires that one pay attention only to the main element of the scene (trying to look at the background when only the foreground is in focus will always result in blurring even with the best 3D).
This to me is actually the biggest flaw of 3D. I love looking at the backgrounds of films - I like seeing all the effort and little details that have gone into them, even if the focus isn't on them. Which is why, despite seeing Avatar in 3D (because of the 3D and the "must see" that was going around) I was thoroughly disappointed in the technology: in a movie supposed to be all about the detail of the world, you spend a whole lot of time in scenes struggling to track the focus point because you WANT to look at the backgrounds when they're around.
Re:Let's face it (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, you've just described my biggest peeve about 3d movies - I don't consider that a minor nuissance, but an outright show-stopper.
In an action scene (main elements moving around rapidly) or a landscape (panfocal background shot), it doesn't so much matter; Put two people talking in a room for more than five seconds, though, and I start looking at the scenery rather than the talking heads. A little bit of blur in that, I can accept; Making my eyes hurt when I dare to focus on something other than what the director wants me to, total BS.
3d will always remain a cute gimmick until we have a truly immersive environment like a holodeck. Some films can use it well, but the other 99.5% of movies should stick with 2d.
Re:Here's to hoping (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, 3D isn't worth the resulting headache. Just not a fan of it for what it's supposed to bring to the table.
Saw Avatar twice in 3D, both times I had eye strain and a headache for a couple of hours after. My copy of Coraline came with 3D glasses -- 20 minutes into the movie, I took off the glasses, flipped the disk back to the 2D side, and never thought of it again.
I'm sure people will continue to spend the money to see 3D. Me, I'll studiously avoid it -- it's a gimmick, and it detracts from my viewing experience rather than adding to it.
On a slightly related note, I watched a Vincent Price movie last night from 1953 -- it was filmed for 3D, but broadcast on TV so not in 3D. You could see the parts of the movie that were quite obviously intended to milk the 3D effect. Quite cheesy -- and just as much of a gimmick then as now.
Re:Let's face it (Score:2, Insightful)
uh, what? People are totally up for moving forward in technology. It's just nobody gives a shit about 3d. It's neither significant nor a huge change.
Re:Let's face it (Score:5, Insightful)
with a telesync that good, or a screener dvd rip, lots of people have projectors or nice big TVs in their house and there really is no reason to go to some crappy theater where people will be hollering and the floor is sticky.
3D and IMAX movies are the only movie theater experiences that are significantly better than pirating (or waiting for DVD) for me nowadays.
I still go to other movies sometimes, but I really make time for decent 3d releases that I (or my kids) want to see.
I think the pirating problem is not as big as the film industry thinks it is, but I think anti-pirating is no small part of their push for 3D.
Re:Is Hollywood leaving money on the table? (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember using one of the first 3D shutter-glasses system with an old 3Dfx graphic card. One of the demo had that "out of the screen" effect and not only did it look like crap, trying to focus on objects in front of my screen just gave me a headache pretty fast.
The demos that tried to add depth to my screen, however, were really amazing. I seem to recall playing Quake 1 in 3D with only in-screen depth and it completely changed the game (in a good way).
When you go see a movie, the action takes places on the damn screen. If things start coming out of it, it's just stupid. You can't have the movie happening inside the theater. But if you use 3D to make the screen have depth, there is still that needed disconnection with the movie vs the theater yet you gain a perceived dimension for the movie itself.
As soon as they stop doing "out-of-screen 3D", we'll be better off.
Re:Let's face it (Score:3, Insightful)
My assumption has been that there's been a push to 3D in movies because it's an experience that's harder, effectively, to bootleg/pirate.
We're at a point where anyone with a little bit of knowledge who really wants to can download any new movie the weekend it's released and often even before. How do you fight that if you're a smart movie studio? You need to offer something as part of the theatre viewing experience that isn't easily replicated at home -- so you push big effects movies that more people will want to see on a giant screen, and you push things like 3D. Most people don't yet have 3D TVs, so (assuming you buy into the value of 3D), by offering a movie in 3D you're offering something that for most people can't be pirated.
good riddance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Went to the movies last night (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We'd have to reinvent drama for 3-D (Score:4, Insightful)
And then there are people like me who accidentally distracted by the background. I take a look at it and then my eyes sort of complain about not being able to bring a backdrop object into focus. Totally kills the immersion for me.
That's a bigger problem than you make it out to be, and it affects everyone, from the directors to the viewers. Use of selective focus for dramatic purposes is an incredibly widespread and effective tool in film. However, it just doesn't work at all in 3-d. The 3-d director must make a choice between two bad options: 1) use normal selective focus, eliminating the point of a 3-d scene and going 3/4 of the way toward collapsing the illusion, or 2) allow the eye to focus anywhere, giving up the most successful technique in the artform for drawing the eye to a particular point. Even Avatar had this problem, and it's the main reason it was better in 2-d.
Re:Let's face it (Score:5, Insightful)
A bunch of us happen to like it. I preferentially select watching a movie in the theater when it's in 3D; otherwise, I'll more often wait until it is available on DVD.
Eivind.
Re:Let's face it (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you really want to be pedantic, it is 3D with stereoscopic projection. All movies have been in 3D. A 2D movie is not really a movie. We call those still images. Your description of walking around the movie display and able to see the back of Batman's head, that's 4D.
Re:Let's face it (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with 3D as it currently stands is that I never forget that I'm watching a 3D movie. I never feel immersed in the effect, I always am aware of it and think "Ohhh, they did a 3D thing here." It feels more like a gimmick than a natural part of the experience.
Re:Let's face it (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. Movies already have a lot of depth to them... On top of which nobody has really figured out how to work with the medium yet, and until that happens...
Your first statement is right on: it is now being recognized that a 2D film is more realistic than a 3D one, which adds an artificial theatrical effect that pulls you right out of the storytelling. This is why so many directors hate it.
Your second statement contradicts your first one. Whether you know how to work with it does not change a thing: this is a gimmick and we should not expect it to get better, we should shed it. Otherwise, our cinema is going to get more circus like than it is already.
Re:Let's face it (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is why Jackass 3 is perhaps going to be the best application of 3d for a long time. Its all about making you squirm as shit gets thrown at you (literally). It fits 3d naturally and perfectly.
Re:Let's face it (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with 3D as it currently stands is that I never forget that I'm watching a 3D movie. I never feel immersed in the effect, I always am aware of it and think "Ohhh, they did a 3D thing here." It feels more like a gimmick than a natural part of the experience.
When they start showing romantic comedies and chick flicks in 3D, then you'll know it has stopped being a gimmick and has become a natural part of the experience.
Re:Let's face it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it's worth noting that our brains use a lot of different cues to decode a 3D scene, and stereoscopic vision is just one of those cues. We also use light and shadow, motion, perspective, and parallax, for example. Shadow and perspective are available in traditional "2D" films, and we do in fact decode "2D" pictures into 3D scenes without stereoscopic vision. However, eve the stereoscopic "3D" movies lack the ability to move your head and "look around" an object the way you could if you had real parallax.
So in general I'd say the distinction between "2D" and "3D" films is not as meaningful as most people believe. It's not as though the "2D" films are actually presenting you with a 2 dimensional scene without any depth, and it's not as though the "3D" films are actually giving you a full 3D representation of the scene.
Re:Let's face it (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember when I saw Toy Story, thinking, "Wouldn't it be cool if, in addition to a normal DVD release, they released a version with all of the model, action, sound and lighting information, but where you could grab the "camera" and move it anywhere in the story's defined universe?" With live action films, stereoscopic projection is as good as it will realistically get, but there's no reason that 100% CG movies couldn't allow for some more immersive features.
I like that idea. I wonder if the multi-million dollar render farm that each person would have to install in their home to make this would might be a slight limitation?
Re:Let's face it (Score:3, Insightful)
"I remember when I saw Toy Story, thinking, "Wouldn't it be cool if, in addition to a normal DVD release, they released a version with all of the model, action, sound and lighting information, but where you could grab the "camera" and move it anywhere in the story's defined universe?""
The rendering process occurs after the movie's shot script is finalized, the reason for this being there's no reason to texture / shade / colorize / animate objects that aren't in-frame for any given shot. It would be a monstrous waste of time and resources.
A perfect example of this is, at Blizzcon this year the WoW dev team spotlighted the new login screen, then rotated the camera 180 degrees through the Z-axis to show you how it was all put together; you realized that all of that beautiful animation, from the back, was held together with placeholder images, JPGs and, essentially, toothpicks and gum.
Believe me. You don't WANT to see all the other stuff. Be hapy with being shown the stuff they wanted you to see.