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.
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: (Score:2)
Like I said, if people realize it's a gimmick and start abandoning the 3D versions in favor of the 2D versions in droves, that could end it. But I don't see that happening so far.
Re: (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.
Re: (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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a big fan of 3d (I've heard some people are more/less sensitive to the effect - it still looks pretty flat to me/not very impressive). But, I will agree in that I don't bother going to the movies anymore.
Back in the day, we had a 27" TV. Standard Def. It wasn't even a flat screen. When a movie came out, it came out on VHS. The speakers were whatever cheap crappy speakers they stuck in the TV at the factory.
The movie theater was *WAY* better than that. WAY BETTER. Even with the handful of anno
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't often watch movies more than once (there are a few exceptions, of course), so watching movies on a 50' screen in high-def and superior surround sound at $3-$12 a pop (depending on which theater I go to - $3 theaters rock!) is a better experience for my money than dropping $1.5k+ and spending $3-$30 per movie. Do you realize I could watch 150+ movies in the theater at $9 each for the price of a decent 52" TV? 450 if I stick to the cheap theaters (one of which is actually probably the best movie exp
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that you are wrong.
Lot's of people like it. Espcially younger people; which is where most of the movie going money comes from.
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: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Well, we can still make it up on volume!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Perri-Air?
Re:Let's face it (Score:5, Informative)
3d is no more of a gimmick then sound or color. 3d does make them a lot of extra money. Book money not speculation money.
3d is atoll that is now here to stay. It won't be used for all movies, but there will probably always be at least one or two movies using it.
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: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: (Score:2)
I've watched many 2D movies where certain parts of the picture are out of focus, or stuff is blurred due to motion, and my eyes hurt trying to focus on stuff. Heck I even think something is wrong with my eyes - since normally if I look at a moving object, it stops getting blurry, whereas the background gets blurred, but in many movies when I look at a moving object it stays blurry (hey video, movie and game makers, artificial motion blur sucks OK?).
At least with Avatar 3D, m
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:Let's face it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of the people that get headaches trying to watch this current run of 3D tech. Until we get actual 3D holographic projections, you can count me out.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Until you can lie on the floor and look up Emma Watson's skirt you mean.
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:5, Interesting)
Even DVDs, when they first came out, were supposed to be revolutionary because they allowed directors to include multiple angles for the same scene. How many movies have that? I haven't seen any. But imagine if you could re-shoot the whole thing. Even if you couldn't change the audio, sets and the action, imagine being able to muck with the lighting and camera angles and make a noir version of your favorite episode of Dinosaur Train...
Re: (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 m
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: (Score:2)
it's not the studios, it's the theaters that love it. a new revenue source other than popcorn and soda pop at 1000% mark up because they have to turn all the ticket revenue to the studios. you have to pay the $2.50 or whatever it is to rent the glasses
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's face it (Score:4, Informative)
3-D is waning. It's not they money maker they thought it was. People are not paying for the 3-D movie, they are opting for the 2-D movie instead.
Again RTFA, because Warner Bros. got their ass handed to them for Clash Of The Titans and The Last Airbender, they were not eager to push 3-D.
So yes 3-D is a fad. When DIRECTORS WANT 3-D, 3-D will take over, NOT when STUDIOS WANT 3-D.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that it's the cinemas that want the 3D, because it lets them sell an experience that's different to the home version. When I watch a DVD at home, I have it projected onto a wall and I have surround sound. When I go to my local cinema, they have a digital projector with pixels more obvious than my home screen and poorly set up sound so there's often clipping or distortion - and it's only stereo in some of the smaller screens. The experience at home is better in pretty much every way.
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Not 100% true. he reason they are pushing it hard is that they convinced the theaters that it's the best thing to make money so please buy this overpriced 3d equipment....
If they drop it because it's not really that impressive, they will have a HUGE number of theaters screaming at them for talking them into buying overpriced crap for 3d that got used for 2-3 films only.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The other significant factor here is that 3D movies really have to be watched in a theater, as opposed to Netflix or illegal download.
Let me say: (Score:5, Funny)
has Hollywood's latest bandwagon hit the skids already?
I sure as hell hope so.
hit the skids already? (Score:2)
We can only hope.
After seeing Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3D I can honestly say I don't think it gets much more hokey than that.
Is Hollywood leaving money on the table? (Score:2)
In most cases they won't. They will still push 3D. And as more consumers buy 3D enabled BluRay players and TVs, they will demand content to justify the purchase.
3D isn't right for every movie, and it certainly doesn't turn out well as a forced post-production conversion. But isn't exactly the devil either, so I don't understand this massive backlash either.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The backlash in the industry is mostly inertia, people are either afraid of change and rationalize their fear with bullshit arguments or they don't want the skill they have build up making the best of the old medium become useless ... the same reason we still have 24 juddery frames per second (tripple flashed so it doesn't flicker any more, but judders all the same). Another thing Cameron wants to get rid of.
Cameron is simply adventurous, where Nolan is conservative ... when making what will be a sure fire
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say Nolan is conservative. He did push to film large sequences with IMAX cameras. I also think he has tried to reinvent the summer blockbuster as something with mass appeal, but also features an impressive cast of actors and has an intelligent script.
For far too long the assumption was that you could make a popcorn flick like Michael Bay, or you could make a film for the critics, but you couldn't do both.
3D did make sense for Avatar in that Cameron wanted the audience to sympathize with the Na'vi
Re:Is Hollywood leaving money on the table? (Score:4, Interesting)
Action works just fine in stereoscopic view. Quick cuts and shaky cam not so much ... which is the greatest reason I like it, even more than the effect itself. Nothing lazier than turning the screen into one gigantic 24 Hz clusterfuck of juddering unrecognisable crap to imply action. Anything that reduces shaky cam is okay in my book.
PS. Nolan's love of shaky cam is probably part of the reason for remaining 2D ...
Re: (Score:2)
Action works just fine in stereoscopic view. Quick cuts and shaky cam not so much ... which is the greatest reason I like it, even more than the effect itself. Nothing lazier than turning the screen into one gigantic 24 Hz clusterfuck of juddering unrecognisable crap to imply action. Anything that reduces shaky cam is okay in my book.
PS. Nolan's love of shaky cam is probably part of the reason for remaining 2D ...
On a somewhat related note. How is the DVD format holding up to this wave of shaky cam cinema? MPEG-2 can only handle so much motion at DVD bitrates until it turns the picture into juddering unrecognizable crap.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the best thing 3D could have done was not "advertise" and push it in your face. You get a stupid feeling when something comes flying off the screen. I would have liked to see movies push less of the "in your face" 3D and use it to help see depth in the movie. I think too many movies are trying to break that screen barrier and they are doing it in cheesy ways.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would add Jaws 3D [imdb.com] to that fine list.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, you've seen ONE movie where it wasn't thrown in "just because". UP and Coraline were entirely computer-generated video, and re-rendering with the "camera" in a different position is a matter of tweaking a couple of settings. They could re-make ANY all-CGI film (Ice Age, Wall-E, etc) as 3D if they still had the original files and rendering programs. And probably make money on them.
(Note: Avatar used lots of computer-generated imagery...but not exclusively, and did a lot more with motion capt
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen both Up and Coraline in 3D and 2D in the theaters, I can say that 3D definitely added to the experience.
It made Up better because of the immense size of some of the set pieces. It helped Coraline because it made it feel like you were looking through a window, rather than looking at a flat surface.
As I said in another post in this thread, if all movies used 3D the way Coraline did, I'd want to see everything in 3D.
Re:Here's to hoping (Score:4, Informative)
So basically, you've seen ONE movie where it wasn't thrown in "just because". UP and Coraline were entirely computer-generated video, and re-rendering with the "camera" in a different position is a matter of tweaking a couple of settings. They could re-make ANY all-CGI film (Ice Age, Wall-E, etc) as 3D if they still had the original files and rendering programs. And probably make money on them.
(Note: Avatar used lots of computer-generated imagery...but not exclusively, and did a lot more with motion capture than is normal.)
Have you even seen Coraline [wikipedia.org]? It was produced via stop-motion, using 3D cameras. There were some digital effects, but not many. So, no. For Coraline, it wasn't thrown in "just because."
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, you've seen ONE movie where it wasn't thrown in "just because". UP and Coraline were entirely computer-generated video, and re-rendering with the "camera" in a different position is a matter of tweaking a couple of settings. They could re-make ANY all-CGI film (Ice Age, Wall-E, etc) as 3D if they still had the original files and rendering programs. And probably make money on them.
(Note: Avatar used lots of computer-generated imagery...but not exclusively, and did a lot more with motion capture than is normal.)
When a new technology of this kind hits the market you always get what we used to call ""shovelware" [wikipedia.org] back in the day. IMHO the 3D did actually add to the experience in Avatar, I know that because I went and saw Avatar in 2D just because I wanted to compare the experiences. James Cameron and his crew really did succeed in giving one a taste of the feeling that one was looking through a window into another world which is IMHO what 3D should do. I have seen a number of other 3D movies that simply did not succe
Re: (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 m
Re: (Score:2)
I caught this (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/29/2369649/sneak-peek-tron-sequels-legacy.html) in the news the other day. I can only hope they are not over hyping it for clicks. I'd love for Tron to join that list.
Re: (Score:2)
That's precisely my point...it's hard for a movie to truly NEED 3D, and as I said in my OP, I've only come across three such movies. I'd put Coraline at the top of the list, though...basically, it made it look like you were observing what was happening, right where it was happening, rather than looking at a flat screen. The visual depth it added was nothing short of amazing.
If more films utilized 3D the way Coraline did, then I'd want to see EVERYTHING in 3D, even run-of-the-mill comedies (and thus violat
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad (Score:2)
As someone who doesn't really see in 3D anyway, the 3D effect has zero appeal to me. Even Avatar, which I thought was a great movie, didn't have any additional "depth" as far as I could tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't ask the monkey, ask the organ grinder (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because WB won't pay to shoot in stereo doesn't mean they won't then get some Korean sweatshop to post-processed the movies. Why invest more than they need to, when they already know that audiences paid a premium to watch Alice and Titans in "3D"?
So, no, I don't think we're seeing the end of "3D", I just think we're seeing the end of pretending to care about the quality of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's much much cheaper to shoot in 3D than to do it in post-processing. I honestly don't know why he cares - you can always shoot the film in 3D and show it in 2D if you like.
Re:Don't ask the monkey, ask the organ grinder (Score:4, Informative)
There's a lot more to it than that. Shooting in 3D limits the number of in-camera effects that are available and requires the director to make hard choices about focus and focal points. Once principal production is complete (with those limitations) all of the post-production needs to take the 3D projection into account. Having to project in 3D is going to affect every edit, effect, and color grading. It's a lot of extra work to shoot in 3D and then actually project in 2D.
Re:Don't ask the monkey, ask the organ grinder (Score:5, Informative)
Says you. A CGI professioanl says shooting stereoscopic is more expensive [gizmodo.com]. Who am I going to believe?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's more expensive to shoot in 3d. It's a lot harder to shoot in 3d. It's fairly cheap to get low end VFX companies to underbid each other to do a crummy 6 week stereoscopic conversion.
Either in camera or post done cheaply looks like shit. Post done well looks okay, but in camera done well will always blow it out of the water.
The real problem is a lack of Film crews experienced and able to shoot 3d in camera well. Combined with an INCREDIBLE variety of camera rigs and technology, shooting in 3d is no picni
Re: (Score:2)
I won't be needing the glasses again.
We'd have to reinvent drama for 3-D (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the action/epic movie genre shot in real life, rather than on a green screen heavily uses perspective effects to achieve drama.
Something like the famous contra-zoom [wikipedia.org] would be a complete failure in 3-D. The entire sequence in LoTR where Gandalf and Frodo are in the same shot would just not work in 3-D unless you went in and fixed the perspective for every frame.
Half of the hollywood real-life special effects would need to be re-invented for 3-D to work right. Or the CGI versions need to catch up to the old-school effects.
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. I want 3-D movies, but not this polarized lenses in each eye monstrosity (I wonder if I could get contacts with those).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually not so sure the contra zoom wouldn't work in stereoscopic video ... have you tried it?
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: (Score:2)
I hope not, 3d is saving me money (Score:4, Funny)
I refuse to see any movie in 3d, because it's hard on my eyes and most of the conversions are terrible. As a result with some movies being hard to find in 2d, I spend $0 on them. Hollywood is doing a good job of saving me money, and I hope they convert everything in sight so I have no reason to ever visit a movie theatre again.
I don't know anything about Harry Potter, but... (Score:2)
I did see a couple of the films (not sure which ones - there are a lot!) and there's some stuff that's obvious for 3D - such as the Quidditch (sp?) games. That's the problem, though - Quidditch seems made for 3D, but that makes it into a pure gimmick once it's in 3D!
Reminds me of the Muppets 3D (Disneyland) joke - Kermit says they aren't going to pull any cheap 3D tricks, and then something pops out right in your face. That's what the whole 3D thing has felt like so far - they say it's not a gimmick, but th
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: (Score:2)
- it's used as nothing more than a gimmick rather than an actual way to put the viewer "on-stage
In the case of Avatar, I beg to differ. But that is the only movie I know of that has done 3d well, as a way to add immersion instead of adding gimmicks (like that stupid in-your-face spinning spear in Titans, come on...)
A few things are different in this round of the 3d fad. The hardware to deliver 3d in cinemas has gotten a lot cheaper and better. Extensive use of CGI (especially in movies where doing 3d also makes sense) makes adding 3d throughout relatively cheap. And perhaps more importantly, fo
HP (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason that Harry Potter has "abandoned" 3D is because they couldn't retro-fit it into the latest instalment in time for the planned release date. They're still fully intending to go back and 3D all the old films plus this latest one and re-release them to cash in.
Too much is too much (Score:2, Interesting)
2D ought to be enough for anybody (Score:2)
"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-real
Re: (Score:2)
If people weren't such sheep, the two things would coincide.
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:3D is lame (Score:4, Informative)
You seem to be conflating options two and three. Theaters can use cheap polarized glasses that indeed cost a couple of dollars at most. But the type of 3D where refresh rate matters requires glasses that can switch between black and clear perfectly in sync with your television, which as you say must be 120hz or more. THAT hardware isn't going to be cheap. (And to use the polarization-type 3D at home you'd need a special screen that I don't think you can buy at this point.)
Re:3D is lame (Score:4, Informative)
Theaters can use cheap polarized glasses that indeed cost a couple of dollars at most. But the type of 3D where refresh rate matters requires glasses that can switch between black and clear perfectly in sync with your television, which as you say must be 120hz or more. THAT hardware isn't going to be cheap.
No, those glasses with switching are very cheap indeed - I got them for free with an old ATI All-in-wonder graphics card. I still have them in a cupboard in the corridor.
Re: (Score:2)
with regards to point #3...
Movies at the theater - even 3D ones - are shown on film. Essentially, two images are displayed, and the polarization of the glasses are designed to isolate one image from the other. The film is designed to use the same polarity as the glasses, and all is well.
3D televisions still rely on refresh rates. They may not use interlacing as the old NTSC/PAL systems did, but it still requires refreshing at a rate and starting point that isn't necessarily a given. If you fast forward five
Feel Around (Score:2, Interesting)
3D: old and busted. Feel Around [youtube.com]: new and hotness.
Why do it anyway? (Score:2)
W
Re: (Score:2)
Why, again, are they pushing 3d?
No more "telesyncs" ? It's got to be harder to record bootleg copies of these 3D flicks in theaters, right ?
Re: (Score:2)
1.) My guess is that your cocktail napkin math and the number crunchers' copies of Excel yield two different sets of numbers.
2.) Because $12.50/ticket for a family of four grosses $50, while a first-run DVD release of a movie will gross $20, tops - and the studios net more from the theaters than the disc release. The trick is getting people to opt for the theatrical release rather than a Netflix rental.
Why do I have pay $15 a movie and rent 3d glasses? (Score:2)
Why do I have pay $15 a movie? and rent 3d glasses? Why can't I buy then and save the $3+ rent fee? What happens if I just keep them and not put them in that box when they just get reused and maybe not even cleaned.
The Last Harry Potter's "3D" (Score:2)
Really? I paid extra for that? Not again.
Unfortunately the answer is "No" (Score:2)
99% of directors don't have that kind of clout, though; if the studio says jump on 3D, those guys/gals will be forced to say "How high?" with no room for challenging the judgment of the studio.
good riddance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Went to the movies last night (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not want (Score:2)
Even if it was cheaper, I wouldn't want to watch it in 3D. It's a gimmick, and one that gives me headaches at that. If there were no screens showing it in 2D, we would have skipped it and waited for it to come out on video. This will forever be true for m
The reason 3D is not used well (Score:2)
Movies cannot use 3D in any way that makes it required for the movie, because rentals and DVD sales are still a big part of the revenue for a movie. People don't have 3D TVs yet, so the films in 3D can't really need to be seen in 3D.
All 3D stuff will be bland until film makers assume that the entire revenue chain can see it in 3D.
Give it time.
Lots of time.
I can't wait (Score:2)
i'm waiting for 4D (Score:3, Funny)
with the fourth dimension being TIME
get this: the 3D image CHANGES over time such that the illusion of...
um, nevermind
Re: (Score:2)
We have that already, it's called "life". Pretty interesting concept, but it contains no pause and rewind buttons.
Re: (Score:2)
It is called Theater
So when you go to a broadway show the people on stage don't mind when you walk into the scene on stage, look at objects, pick them up, manipulate them, and put them back while having the characters react to that manipulation? Neato...
Re: (Score:2)
I challenge you to try that at a theatre production of a Shakespeare play. It would be interesting to hear back the reaction the characters have to your manipulation of the props.