Can we get over 3D now please?

[Tom Lowe]

If you don't like 3D, why not just watch the 2D version? A director should be free to film 2D or 3D, based on his artistic ideas.

 

[Kevin Rasmussen]

that doesn't mean Cameron is right on an aesthetic level.

Which is what I was referring to when I said I think he was 100% wrong! I completely disagree when he says "all films would benefit from 3D" because I know that almost all my favourite directors would never work in 3D because of the limitations it would put on their style and methods as artists. That alone means their films wouldn't be as good because they wouldn't be working freely they would be compromising on things to accommodate 3D shooting.

 

[M Most]

Never say never. Is Martin Scorsese on your list of favorite directors? Is Peter Jackson on it? Tim Burton? Guillermo Del Toro? Michael Bay (OK, probably a bad example....)?

Truth is that most directors, even the most artistic, are ultimately responsive to whatever the business deems necessary. They might fight it at first, and they may not enjoy the experience and resist doing it again, but all tools are there to be used by whomever wants to use them. I may not be fond of stereo 3D personally, but I've learned over the years that "never" is a term that shouldn't be thrown around lightly.

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

even Hitler on 3D
http://www.deluxe142.co.uk/latest/2011/05/deluxe-142-restores-transfers-3d-nazi-training-film/

 

[Doug Horton]

This thread and all of the complaints strain my eyes. Any person that accepts 3D as a usable tool to help drive CERTAIN stories, are probably the same professionals that gave in to that whole stupid "digital" craze. I don't want to flood this thread with any more ignorant statements, but I love 3D, I love digital, I love film and I love making movies. It's always easier to sit here and criticize than it is to plan, light, and shoot beautiful pictures

 

[Ravi Kiran]

With the 3D movies I've seen I was very aware of my own perspective in relation to the images, whereas when watching a normal movie I'm simply involved in the movie. You could say that in a 3D movie it feels like every shot is a POV shot. That could work to a filmmaker's benefit with certain films.

I saw Cave of Forgotten Dreams today. That's the first 3D film I've seen where I felt 3D was not only enhancing but crucial to the experience. It records the contours and spaces of a cave that very few people will visit. But I'm tempted to say that 3D enhances spaces and architecture on-screen more than it does people...

 

[Jake Bastian]

With the 3D movies I've seen I was very aware of my own perspective in relation to the images, whereas when watching a normal movie I'm simply involved in the movie. You could say that in a 3D movie it feels like every shot is a POV shot. That could work to a filmmaker's benefit with certain films.

I saw Cave of Forgotten Dreams today. That's the first 3D film I've seen where I felt 3D was not only enhancing but crucial to the experience. It records the contours and spaces of a cave that very few people will visit. But I'm tempted to say that 3D enhances spaces and architecture on-screen more than it does people...

I agree with this. I don't know why, but it seems like nature and documentary filmmakers have the best grip on what it takes to do truly immersive 3D pictures. Images seem to get closer to you and feel more real, I hope hollywood 3D can eventually catch up. Having said that, 3D can definitely enhance people as well - I suggest you check out Penelope Cruz in 3D, her contours were also recorded well

 

[Ravi Kiran]

Having said that, 3D can definitely enhance people as well - I suggest you check out Penelope Cruz in 3D, her contours were also recorded well

I'll wait for 3D Sex and Zen to open in the US :smilewinkgrin:

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I still don't get why most of the hardcore 3D haters won't acknowledge that most of the 3D that's been done to this point has been flawed in some key way ... either the 3D was "added" in post ... or it was shot without enough depth ... projected improperly ... mishandled in post ... the list goes on. 3D is still very much in it's infancy. And whatever you want to say about Jim Cameron, PJ, and others (including Ridley Scott) -- I don't think they would be shooting 3D if it was purely about making the studios and themselves more $$$$.

These guys are ARTISTS (yes, even Cameron!), let's give them a little more credit ....

While 3D has been flawed so far, I've seen enough promise from it (as one of many cinematic tools) to respect it and want more.

Should everything be shot on 3D? - of course not! But those who "hate" it, let's give it a bit more time before dismissing it all together.

 

[Kevin Rasmussen]

Never say never. Is Martin Scorsese on your list of favorite directors? Is Peter Jackson on it? Tim Burton? Guillermo Del Toro? Michael Bay (OK, probably a bad example....)?

Truth is that most directors, even the most artistic, are ultimately responsive to whatever the business deems necessary.

Disagree! Why do think the Coen brothers have such low budgets all the time? Because they want full artistic control over their films. Why is Chris Nolan still shooting on film and in 2D and STILL currently the most financially successful director of the last decade? I could probably list examples all day. The truth is that they get their success by sticking to the methods of artistic expression that serves them the best and allows them to tell their stories in what they feel is the most effective way, not at all what they think is a smart "business" move.

Here's a little fresh business perspective on the matter:

http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-bust-2011-5#ixzz1NxDnSnbf

Everyone saying that there hasn't been any properly made or good 3D, this doesn't exactly ring true. Most animated films these days like Toy Story 3D, How To Train Your Dragon etc. have spectacular 3D. Avatar had great 3D, Pirates used the Pace/Cameron rigs as have other 3D films recently so obviously the technical execution and quality of the 3D isn't really the problem. Ticket prices and the way people are engaged (or not) by 3D. I for one will always "notice" 3D so if I'm trying to watch a good character story or thriller and trying to get into it I'll always be distracted by the 3D and thus pulled out of the story.

The cost and technical challenges of photographing complex moving images in stereo, like a hand held chase scene involving fast pans and the necessary mobility for an operator to get the shots and repeat the shots for multiple takes for example, will in my opinion, never make 3D production practical for most productions.

Sound was adopted very quickly because people loved it and it enhanced the viewing experience, same deal with colour. Say what you want about equipment and technical challenges, 3D photography has been around for a few decades and in the year 2011, long after James Cameron showed us the true potential of 3D films, it's still not catching on.

Talking business? Go ask anyone who still owns RealD stock, they'll tell you where to stick 3D. I'd bet studio heads at Disney and Marvel would too and they have been the two biggest driving forces behind 3D. The wind in their sales (bam!) is gone.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

I love 3D. Really, I do.

It means RED sell twice as many cameras, which has to be good for their bottom line.

It means, someways down the road, there will twice as many cheap(ish) EPICs for aspiring film makers to pick up and use to make real movies.

Other than that, 3D is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

That being my *very* personal opinion.

Mike

 

[Brad Webb]

This article totally ignores the fact that Thor, Pirates 4, Rio, Rango, and even the abysmal Priest's foreign box office has been outstanding for 3D. The myth is that Foreign audience trends the same way the US audience will. The foreign appetite for 3D action and animation from Hollywood is growing like crazy. In the past the foreign box office would amount to 25 -30% of the total BO at best. Now the US makes up a less than 50% of the total BO of the bigger films. Pirates has already made 475m overseas alone (163m in the US). Some movies fail at the US Box Office and still play huge to foreign markets. Why do think we've had a dozen Resident Evil and Underworld sequels.

The foreign audience is only going to grow in the next 10 years. Places that never had cinemas are starting to get cinemas. Hollywood movies are a big deal overseas. People in South America are traveling to see movies. Spectacle sells over quality in the foreign markets, mostly because quality in one language doesn't always translate - literally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/media/30panda.html?_r=3&ref=business

FTA:
"If results are troubling domestically, they are the exact opposite internationally, where the genre is a far newer phenomenon. Indeed, 3-D screenings powered “Stranger Tides” to about $256 million on its first weekend abroad; Disney trumpeted the figure as the biggest international debut of all time.

With results like that at a time when movies make 70 percent of their total box office income outside North America, do tastes at home even matter?"

The problem isn't 3D.. it's crappy 3D movies.

FTA:
"Consumer rebellion over high 3-D ticket prices plays a role, and the novelty of putting on the funny glasses is wearing off, analysts say. But there is also a deeper problem: 3-D has provided an enormous boost to the strongest films, including “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland,” but has actually undercut middling movies that are trying to milk the format for extra dollars."

 

[Steve Sherrick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/media/30panda.html?_r=2&ref=business

The interesting thing about this thread, and perhaps audiences in general, is that support of 3D seems to be down the middle. So, like any other business, the industry will ride it as long as there is enough support from those who enjoy 3D and spend money at the box office and perhaps at home, on mobile devices, etc.

I suppose from a selfish perspective, anything that keeps people employed in this industry is a good thing.

As long as there are 2D and 3D versions of films, I guess both camps get what they want. I suppose if theaters went all 3D, then things would get interesting. For now, I can choose to see Avatar in 3D or 2D. Options are good. Why not keep everyone happy.

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

This thread has been bugging me for days because i've seen this debate played out here seemingly countless times. And I want to say [again] that I agree wholeheartedly, lets get over 3d because I like many others feel passionately that it sucks balls.

But haven't added to the conversation because i'm mindful, and have observed many times, that making such comments will inevitably draw criticism from those in the filmmaking community who see resistance to innovation or new technology, such as this 3d revival, as being negative and/or non-progressive and somehow unenlightened.

Maybe thats the case, or maybe 3d really just is rubbish. At this point i don't think it really matters which side of the fence you are on, if you're working in the industry 3d is for now a fact of life. Maybe it will go away maybe it won't. For the moment its a tool in the tool bag, and i guess those who don't at least learn how to use it - whether they like it or not- are taking a risk while more and more production heads that way.

But! As long as we're casting votes, my vote is that it sucks

I've seen dozens of 3d pics over the last 2 years, more than i have 2d i would guess, and i've formed an opinion after going in with what i think was an open mind, as a paying member of the audience, that 3d adds little to nothing to the movie going experience. And thats at best, at worst i think it can detract from the experience terribly. And very often i feel i am seeing it at its worse.

This is a camera forum dedicated to the bleeding edge of technology and technique and i think that naturally disposes a majority of red people to champion a thing like 3d. I don't own a red camera [someday maybe] and i don't work in a camera department but i write stories and i go the the movies to see stories told. My understanding of the filmmaking process is that everything, and its the same in writing, EVERYTHING should serve the story. Go toward creating that illusion, providing a place in which the audience can lose themselves, suspend disbelief.

And i personally find the experience of viewing a 3d film a constant disruption to that goal and therefor contrary to the whole point. Some of the pro 3d guys are using the same argument saying that 3d can enhance the story. I respect that opinion, but disagree with it entirely. I find 3d projection for the most part less visually appealing that watching standard definition youtube on my laptop at home. The combination of the cheap poorly fitting glasses, the dullness, the frequently mediocre projection.. it just amounts to an underwhelming, distracting visual crapfest. I go to the movies to hopefully see visual excellence. In 3d, i'm almost always disappointed [actually always]

I don't get the headaches or otherwise suffer from any of the physical issues people sometimes complain about. I believe i see the picture as it was intended for me to see it. And i don't really believe either than 3d is just waiting for people to learn how to use it properly, that what we are seeing is an early teething problems like phase after which 3d will hit its stride. I think maybe its true that we have yet to see the best that 3d has to offer, sure, and i think Peter Jackson will do great things with the Hobbit, but i don't think anything is going to fundamentally change the way a 3d film looks. And i don't like that look because i find that overall it detracts more from the viewing experience that it contributes.

I don't think people place nearly as much importance on that issue as it deserves. To me that is the be all and end all. If its getting in the way of story that to me is the same as bad casting, poor acting, lackluster special effects, out of synch audio or any such issue that the entire effort of making a film well is to eliminate or reduce as far as possible. With 3d its almost like taking a jarring flaw and just baking it in. Some people can accept it and look past it, some can't by why should anyone have to?

It amazes me that so few people see that way, as a filmmaking risk that has consequences that potentially far outweigh the gains. It amazes me that studios, the same ones who can be so notoriously conservative when it comes to risking anything on telling a different kind of story, are rolling the dice to the extent they have in pushing 3d onto an ever dwindling audience who were't even asking for it and haven't really embraced it.

I can accept that the studios wanted to try something new, test the waters with something different. But there seems to be plenty of evidence out there that audiences aren't really fans on the whole. I'm not fan, so i hope and cross my fingers that i am in the majority and that that'll mean studio's will catch on and we will get over 3d now. The film industry exists to please and engage audiences, hopefully out of respect for that 3d go the way of all fads- out of fashion. And if it doesn't, oh well. Yay democracy i guess

 

[Brad Webb]

I've be arguing on the pro side of 3D in this thread, and I have no problem admitting that most of the movies I've seen in 3D sucked ass. In fact, I've only seen 3D done well 3 times.

1. Avatar (which I rate as above average 3D viewing experience)
2. My Bloody Valentine 3D (the only movie I've seen do the jump out at you gimmick right)
3. The Trailer for "Born to be Wild" - Hands down the best use of 3D I've ever seen.

It's that #3 up there that gives me hope that 3D has a future. The picture was nice and bright, and while not every shot worked in 3D, the ones that did where simply breathtaking.

http://www.imax.com/borntobewild/#/video/trailer/orangutans

It was this shot, of the baby orangutan being fed, that I distinctly remember saying "wow." It's flat in 2D, but in 3D the depth of porch, and the people in the frame was amazing. I felt completely engulfed in the shot. No gimmicks here, simply using the tool of 3D to create drama.

 

[Jake Bastian]

I've be arguing on the pro side of 3D in this thread, and I have no problem admitting that most of the movies I've seen in 3D sucked ass. In fact, I've only seen 3D done well 3 times.

1. Avatar (which I rate as above average 3D viewing experience)
2. My Bloody Valentine 3D (the only movie I've seen do the jump out at you gimmick right)
3. The Trailer for "Born to be Wild" - Hands down the best use of 3D I've ever seen.

It's that #3 up there that gives me hope that 3D has a future. The picture was nice and bright, and while not every shot worked in 3D, the ones that did where simply breathtaking.

http://www.imax.com/borntobewild/#/video/trailer/orangutans

It was this shot, of the baby orangutan being fed, that I distinctly remember saying "wow." It's flat in 2D, but in 3D the depth of porch, and the people in the frame was amazing. I felt completely engulfed in the shot. No gimmicks here, simply using the tool of 3D to create drama.

That preview is hands down the best 3D I have ever seen. I'd pay money just to watch the preview it was so good. I'd say you left out Under the Sea - that movie made it seem like the sea life was swimming right up to you and looked real enough to touch.

What I don't understand is how we can say that 48% of ticket sales generated by 3D is a strong rejection of 3D by the American public? Al Gore got 48% of the vote in 2000 and people still say we were robbed of him as president

 

[M Most]

What I don't understand is how we can say that 48% of ticket sales generated by 3D is a strong rejection of 3D by the American public?

I don't think it's that hard to understand. Less than a year ago, that percentage was over 60% on nearly every 3D release. The considerably lower percentage on recent releases to me clearly indicates that either the novelty is wearing off, the audience doesn't feel the ticket price premium is worth it, or both. Personally, I think it's both, along with the fact that much of the moviegoing public has now experienced stereoscopic 3D at least once, and just didn't find it that compelling. Or, in some cases, found it distracting and annoying. Once again, take your pick.

I don't think it's going away. I do, however, think that you're likely to see fewer, rather than more, releases in the future, with the studios less likely to order every picture to consider it regardless of the merit based on content.

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

I guess a nature documentary that takes you into the jungle to look at exotic animals you will never see in the wild would be served better by 3d capture than something like a feature film with a narrative. One is trying to present to you a picture as a representation of itself. The other is presenting to you a picture as a representation of a fiction. In the second type there is a greater consequence from making the audience aware what he is watching is not real than the former. In documentary you might [mostly] want that, if fiction not so much.

Th jaded cynic and conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the whole point in pushing 3d is to transition the audience away from forming a connection with a story when they go to see a movie and get them used to the idea that the whole point is just that: to watch what is happening in front of you as if it were a video game or a football match or real life and engage in a whole other way. Where the financial success of a film really can be measured by the effectiveness of its special effects and action set pieces.. which is better for business, no more unexpected flops because the damm story didn't work

Hmm, maybe 3d will really catch on. It could see that happening. But if it does my guess is that it'll be through a continued and deliberate erosion of the kind of great storytelling that made people go to the movies in the first place. And that could be fun, i enjoy those high adrenaline thrill rides. But they would also no doubt feel completely soulless [ahem, just like Avatar i guess]

 

[Patrick Wells]

I seriously just don't understand how so many cinematographers and camera department people in this thread can willingly subscribe to a technology that completely limits their craft and doesn't offer anything that 2D can't do. You can still play with 3D perspective in 2D! I mean, just watch Last Action Hero (it was just on tv here). Yes, it's a terrible and cheesy movie, with everything, including the cinematography, going way over the top. But look at the kind of shots they did. Deep focus, objects constantly coming out at the audience, exaggerated depth. You don't need 3D to play with these aspects of space!

And like I said, just walk around all day wearing an eye patch. Do you still get an accurate rendering of 3D space or does the world look like a Super Nintendo game? We aren't gaining anything with 3D.

And I say this all as someone who originally a big supporter of 3D. But the novelty just wears off fast and I have now become aware of its limitations. I'm a realist. Just like when the digital revolution was beginning, I always said "It may replace film one day, but it's nowhere near good enough yet." Now we have the REDs and digital is good enough finally to do an artistic high quality project on. But when it wasn't good enough in the past, I said as much. 3D will never be good enough. It will always be too limiting.

I am constantly frustrated by the number of camera people on this site and in the field who are too content to be technicians, rather than aspiring to be artists who are about serving the greater work. That's really what it is all about.

One person here said that the market place and industry sets a standard and we are all just supposed to play by those rules and exist in them. So if 3D becomes the standard, then we should all be fine working in it. What kind of way to look at ART is that? Seriously. Again, the reason anti-3ders are so adamant is that we can't stand the thought of 3D becoming a standard.

 

[Steffen Vala]

Avatar was the last 3d film I will ever intentionally see.

I like your Avatar