Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Does Anyone Like 3d?

Jeff Kilgroe said:
I have mixed feelings on 3D... I love the potential I see with it. I'm usually not that in to what most films do with it. I'm Looking forward to Avatar, now that I've accepted it's going to look more "cartoony" and "StarWars-like" than I originally imagined.
Click to expand...

Jeff, have you seen the trailer in IMAX 3D yet?

It's a whole different ballgame than watching the 2D trailer. It's kind of hard to describe why it's so different. It feels more visceral. The jungles "come alive" and feel like real places in IMAX 3D. The cartoonishness disappears to some extent.
 
Ask yourself...

Ask yourself...

Of your most deeply loved films, how many would you prefer watching in 3D if you had a choice, and assume 3D in its best current iteration? None for me.

As for arguments presented typically:

The gimmick analogy argument fails I think - The argument that 70mm, Cinerama, 7.1 sound, etc were also gimmicks designed to fill seats is accurate, but carrying that analogy to 3d fails completely - 70mm, cinerama, dolby digital EX, are generally additive or at least benign from the perspective of the the vast majority viewers. (how many of your favorite films would you like to see in 70mm perfectly projected with well mastered 7.1 sound? Well, why not, right?) 3D on the other hand is a negative overall addition for a fair portion of users - somewhere between 10 and 80% of them. Even if its only 20% of consumers...that's too many. Either way, that analogy just does not fly.

The generational argument also fails I think - sure, who can argue about the rapid penetration of web based/pc based media and social networks by younger users. But again, comparing that to 3D - at least again 3D as we can currently imagine it with the best technology - fails. Why? Its not an additive or alternate form of the media - its again a replacement/disruption of the presentation of cinema in ways that do not enhance convenience, lower cost, increase choice, etc. The experience is very very different than 2d no matter the form, and in theaters, as Hollywood imagines it, the consumer does not have a choice between 2D and 3D. Further, the adoption of digital media/web based media is largely a function of convenience - if consumers could have both the massive choice and speed of choice of web based media with cinema quality at home, they would take it, but generally, convenience trumps quality. Again, 3D has nothing to do with such a paradigm.

As such, given the current imaginable 3D technologies, the above notes and the significant aversions to it and problems with it, I agree with the prior poster - its reserved for tentpole blockbuster action flicks where the visual fireworks usurp the emotional and artistic aspects of a vision. At home, I see the same paradigm/choice. So....not very exciting for 99% of us.

3d seems pretty unlikely to become the "next big thing" to conclude.
 
3D Stereoscopic is always improving, even though it has been around for over century. With auto-stereoscopic displays getting better, the whole glasses dilemma is not an issue. I am so glad I have two eyes instead of one. Maybe film making should just stand still and not have higher resolutions, more colors, higher frame rates, no noise, etc. Ohh wait... I guess we hate Red because its digital and not film!

Progress is choices with more technological advances. I am so tired of 3D bashing, 2D is the only way? I understand the issues with 3D, and get why people don't like it. But one is not better than the other. I still wouldn't want all films to be made in 3D, just like the opposite. I still like Black and White and Silent movies even though I like color ones. CGI movies are great, but I also like old 2D animation or FX made movies as VFX ones. My point is the more ways I can be creative or see different styles of movies, the better! :001_tt1:
 
I must confess to liking the new generation digital 3D when it is done well. As with any creative technology it will have to find its own aesthetic center.I don't think it is a substitute or replacement for 2d.
Coraline in 3d worked wonderfully well for me and seemed a very organic part of the film. It also subtly altered my depth perception for about a half hour after the film, actually improved it as most of the time my eyes don't focus in the same plane. Can't shoot pool worth a damn.
 
I agree I saw Coraline and I don't think I would have liked it as much. There was something about the stop motion being so hyper real that just gave it this fantastic otherworldliness to the story. Like I was watching it all play out inside a little box. It made me feel like it was alive.

Up on the other hand I think I forgot was 3D most of the time. Which isn't a bad thing. But it's not really a positive either.
 
Touche Mark

Touche Mark

Good data Mark, however, given the nature of the films in the list, its not at all safe to say that 3D was the reason, or a material reason, for their large box office. Rather, they were big, heavily marketed tentpoles, generally, that also happened to be in 3D. You certainly can't rule out 3D as a material impact on their sales either, in fairness.

When I say 99% of "us" I mean filmmakers, people telling stories. 3D seems limited to, again, a narrow-ish set of story types and styles, the styles that often make "big" pictures. And 99% of the stories being told are not in that category.

But heck, predicting the future is a tricky business eh? I'm just saying it looks unlikely to really supplant 2D in any significant way across all the moving image spectrum...
 
Anson Fogel said:
Good data Mark, however, given the nature of the films in the list, its not at all safe to say that 3D was the reason, or a material reason, for their large box office. Rather, they were big, heavily marketed tentpoles, generally, that also happened to be in 3D. You certainly can't rule out 3D as a material impact on their sales either, in fairness.

When I say 99% of "us" I mean filmmakers, people telling stories. 3D seems limited to, again, a narrow-ish set of story types and styles, the styles that often make "big" pictures. And 99% of the stories being told are not in that category.

But heck, predicting the future is a tricky business eh? I'm just saying it looks unlikely to really supplant 2D in any significant way across all the moving image spectrum...
Click to expand...

Precisely. I can't imagine 3D adding anything to "Burn After Reading" to be honest.

The potential is there for a lot of films, just the main argument here is that it shouldn't be coined as "The next thing" for cinema as a whole. It'll just be another "option" like different film formats have been and still are; ex: The Wrestler VS The Dark Knight. One on 16mm, one on IMAX.
 
Craig Ryan said:
Not every story will need 3D. For the ones that won't, it would be annoying and distracting.

For a lot of summer blockbusters and IMAX style films, the benefits are obviously, but for the majority of films released every year, it just doesn't seem logical.

Now scent is an entirely different story..imagine the use of scents as motif in film...the reminiscent perfume of "girl that got away"...etc.
Click to expand...

yup, the future of movies stinks.

I was talking to my crew the other day, a couple of the guys really want to make 3d. I said we should make Co-Ed Food Fight 3(d). They said be serious.

I said we should make Co-Ed Food Fight 3(d)
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Well ... based on these numbers ... I'm happy to make 3D movies for the 1%
Click to expand...

The question is how much do those movies make with the same amount of marketing if they were released in 2D? Did 3D really get anymore people to go than were going to go anyhow?

I think it's pretty questionable personally. It's something to talk about from a marketing perspective. I'll grant it that... and to that degree it has some value for a few movies.

It's just not a pleasant viewing experience generally. Perhaps it's well suited to action movies... maybe Transformers etc. But I'd hate to imagine Silence of the Lambs in 3D.
 
Johnny St.Ours said:
They said be serious.

I said we should make Co-Ed Food Fight 3(d)
Click to expand...


Exactly. I'd see "Bikini Carwash Cross Country Adventure" in 3D. I can understand stuff like Coraline working well in 3D. Stop motion is already other worldly.

Having said that, I got a call yesterday asking if I'd be interested in going to RED 3D training for a potential project. Hell YES. I love trying something new. :-)
 
Now scent is an entirely different story..imagine the use of scents as motif in film...the reminiscent perfume of "girl that got away"...etc.
Click to expand...

DCC Erickson said:
The stench of the undead as they march around stiffly in yet another zombie movie ...
Click to expand...

I hosted Les Blank as part of a museum film series once. He was doing a series of films on food and culture. We showed the one on New Orleans Cajun and Creole cooking. It was presented in "Smellaround". Les and I prepared some of the dishes shown in the movie and they were simmering on a buffet in the back of the theater during the showing. Everyone got to sample them after the film.
Great fun.
 
Johnny St.Ours said:
yup, the future of movies stinks.

I was talking to my crew the other day, a couple of the guys really want to make 3d. I said we should make Co-Ed Food Fight 3(d). They said be serious.

I said we should make Co-Ed Food Fight 3(d)
Click to expand...

"Wet T-Shirt Pie Eating Contest 3D" would make more money I think.
:coolgleamA:
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
I'm with Joseph.
Click to expand...

Semantics aside. I'm not saying there is not an audience for 3-D Mark. I just don't care for it personally. Nor do my kids.

Shawn was merely asking people's thoughts on it. No big deal.

I also found Ebert's virulent review, really funny and got caught up in the moment. :wink5:

I am all for people wanting to rent my gear and facility to do 3-D work.
I just can't seem to enjoy the novelty of it for more than a few minutes.
Thanks to the glasses. Oakley's or otherwise.

Bring-on the year 2020 and Holographic Red Ray
 
Ace said:
it is the way of the future as far as mass entertainment goes.
Click to expand...

You mean because it will be so much better than 2d or because all the grey suits I saw at IBC will force it upon us?
I want to be careful with my opinions because I haven't seen much 3d yet, I'm just wondering: making it look more and more like real life never did much for painting, the superrealistic paintings of the 70's were a sidestep and little more than that. I understood that 24 fps is so much more appealing than interlaced material because the brain has to work a bit to fill in information. In short: how far do you go with making it more realistic before it becomes uninteresting? (Ofcourse I don't know if 3d will really make it more realistic or just different)
 
I really enjoyed the 3D portion in the last Harry Potter flick. The smoke effects looked more magical I think. I was left wanting more by the time the 3D segment was over. Plus it didn't feel like all those 3D releases in which it is obvious the camera placements and action were desperately trying to show the 3D effect off.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
I'm with Joseph.
Click to expand...

I think finally we got it - you`re doing/offering 3D.

At a time where most of the 2D movies suck big times it hardly makes sense to me watching the same or even bigger crap in 3D, as most of the makers (like some posters already stated) rather concentrate on this gimmick than the actual story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top