Warner Bros. Calls Off 3-D Version of `Potter' Film

[Rudi Herbert]

...and, according to you guys, and I'm not being sarcastic here, what is it exactly that 3D can achieve, or better yet, the "real" 3D you talk about? I'm totally against the meat processing plant mentality of the studio suits in Hollywood that are so disrespectful as to dismiss 3D as nothing more than a cheap trick and shower us with horrible post production conversions, but given the fact that right until now, ONLY one film (Avatar) has really set out to use 3D as a serious story telling tool and, within the known limitations, or rather degradation, that customary 2D methods such as 24 fps, shallow DOF, shooting WFO, etc, etc, succeeded rather brilliantly, I really wonder why it is that so many people proclaim the death of the rebirth of an art that hasn't even finished taking its first newborn gasps yet? And given that for however many incarnations of 3D we've had, film makers always had to deal with known and unknown limitations, where are these new rules you guys talk about that nobody seems to be willing to respect? How were these rules arrived at, forged on what type of experiences, proven on what projects, derived from what specific failures? Given the fact that I shoot 3D almost on a daily basis, and that I for one believe in it being way more than a trick or a fad, I sympathize with those who demand respect for 3D, but I'm a bit puzzled as to all these "golden" standards that some people seem to know as gospel that apparently nobody else seems to want to respect or even know about...

 

[roryhinds]

pretty much everyone that I know would rather watch a 2D film over a 3D film.
People don't like having to wear glasses and some people it makes feel sick.

For the home, I don't see having to wear glasses to watch the screen a good thing, if someone enters the room they have to find a set of glasses to watch what is on the screen. I can't see this taking off in bar's for sports events unless the glasses are disposable and even then people don't like wearing them.

IMO 3D is a fad.
Its good that it's pushing tools to be much better at 2D.
3D is nice to watch every now and again in the cinema or better in the Imax but not everyday... I just don't see it flying
But I understand that companies need new marketing hooks, which is pretty lame really.
The vast majority of the masses still have DVD and haven't even crossed over to BRay

 

[mike ogden]

It's a spacial storytelling. You're not in Kansas any more. "Canvas" is going bye-bye.

Explain 'spatial storytelling'. Seriously. Are you just making these terms up? I can appreciate that it's a young(ish) technology but can you cite an example?

Has additional creative abilities for a cinematographer for which he has to trade in a lot of existing ones. Same as a director. And editor. And sound department. And...

Okay. I've been around the block a few times. Some would say too many, but I digress.

3D camera systems are usually a simulation of how our eyes function and use this psychological starting block to make us believe that what we are experiencing is '3D'. It's not an excuse to throw out 100 years of cinematic language just 'cause we got a new filter in our camera cases. It's merely a depth of field trick it immerse us further in a make believe world which is the primary reason why it gets used in fantasy movies where there's a lot of extreme movement. Can you imagine how this would get used in something like 'Pride and Prejudice' or a comedy like 'Four Weddings and a Funeral'?
Me neither. It would add nothing.

It looks like a gimmick because it's misused and treated as a gimmick. It brings nothing to a story because:
- technical aspects are not perfected yet
- story is not told in a way which benefits the most from added depth
- poor adaptation distorts the balance which distracts rather then merges

Would you go up to Tim Burton and tell him he misused it? Jim Cameron?

Technical aspects are pretty perfect. It's just the unwieldy-ness of the cameras and data flow that scares producers. I doubt it'll ever be simple but then, what is?

Why do we suddenly have to think of stories as 'ways of portraying visual depth'? Are we going to see film reviews that say 'the narrative was poor but the depth was fantastic'? Sounds like 'never mind the quality, feel the width' to me.

Claiming that it's a whole new set of rules just dismisses the fact that (as someone pointed out previously) 3D has been around a long time, it's just the technology that got more capable.

It is a gimmick. Sure, it's interesting and I'll see what Scorcese makes of it with his next movie. Revolution it isn't.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

where are these new rules you guys talk about that nobody seems to be willing to respect? How were these rules arrived at, forged on what type of experiences, proven on what projects, derived from what specific failures?

When there will be proper public projects, mostly not influenced by studios, there will be a showcase to discuss the validity of "rules", as well as a fertile ground for establishing new ones. Any discussion prior to that will just boil down to theories vs. theories.

I'm a bit puzzled as to all these "golden" standards that some people seem to know as gospel that apparently nobody else seems to want to respect or even know about...

There is no gospel. It's too early for "knowing" or "golden" standards, mostly because of:

... art that hasn't even finished taking its first newborn gasps yet

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Explain 'spatial storytelling'. Seriously. Are you just making these terms up? I can appreciate that it's a young(ish) technology but can you cite an example?

Since I've never heard anyone use it I must be making terms up.
It's a storytelling. Unlike 2D it uses space. It's a spacial type of storytelling.



Example:

It's not an excuse to throw out 100 years of cinematic language just 'cause we got a new filter in our camera cases.

100 years of cinematic language has been developed on, and optimized for - storytelling on canvas. Brain perception of 2D plane and perception of space are not the same. Some parts of the language will have to be translated.

Can you imagine how this would get used in something like 'Pride and Prejudice' or a comedy like 'Four Weddings and a Funeral'?

Do people imagine paintings as sculptures ?

Would you go up to Tim Burton and tell him he misused it? Jim Cameron?

Don't know about Tim Burton, but Cameron obviously knows what he's doing. With Avatar he started an avalanche proving the potential of spacial storytelling. When he asks for high fps it's because he knows why he needs it, regardless of 100 years of cinematic language. If there's one guy who keeps pushing the envelope it's him.

I'm pretty sure that even he later noticed what he would do better, or was even aware at the time but circumstances didn't allow otherwise. He has the sensibility from the start, and I'm convinced that, with Avatar being best yet, his next 3D movie will be even better immersive experience, with better adaptation of the story.

And yes, if I felt someone misused something, given the proper time and place I'd voice my opinion respectfully, and in reverse situation I'd gladly consider other's.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

I'm willing to be patient and see if 3D truly adds to the emotional and aesthetic experience of watching a film (the way sound and color do) or if it is merely just an extra visual thrill.

Shots in 2D films often contain enough visual cues for us to get a good enough sense of the space of the shot that we don't literally need to see the depth. And even then, why should a film's visual language be limited to showing us the depth of a given setup?

So far I am unimpressed by 3DTV. When I'm watching normal TV, I don't think, "look at all the tiny people." But since 3D is simulating depth, everything looks dolls inside a diorama, and I'm aware of the size of the objects. The demos I've seen had a miniaturizing effect, which is against the point of 3D in the first place.

I see 3D as here to say for films with impressive visuals (Avatar, Tron), fun and goofy films (Jackass, Piranha), horror films, and for video games at home. And I'm sure occasionally there will be films made outside these genres.

 

[Stronz Vanderploeg]

I think the best part of 3D right now is that it's "cool" to hate it. That leaves a pretty big void for people to step up and make a name for themselves in 3D. I think about what it must have been like at the early stages or cinema and when people were figuring out how to light a scene and how to frame actors. The early film makers didn't know exactly what to do but now we look back and marvel at their achievements. I look at 3D and see the same opportunity. People can hate 3D or they can love it. Doesn't really matter either way, the public decides what they will and won't pay for. I say look at 3D as an opportunity to make your own rules and set the standards for the future.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Since I've never heard anyone use it I must be making terms up.
It's a storytelling. Unlike 2D it uses space. It's a spacial type of storytelling.

"Spacial Storytelling" as a term makes perfect sense to me and didn't need any translation or definition here. It's simply what it says -- "spacial" as pertaining to space or having extensions into space.. And storytelling.. In fact, I believe that exact term has been used before by John Lasseter and Lee Unkrich of Pixar.

100 years of cinematic language has been developed on, and optimized for - storytelling on canvas. Brain perception of 2D plane and perception of space are not the same. Some parts of the language will have to be translated.

And viewing 3D via special glasses, only to see a gimmicky set of tricks where things poke out at the viewer, has been the sad state of affairs for stereoscopic vision for nearly as long.

Also agree on everything else you said regarding Burton and Cameron. I do think Burton knows what he's doing. Alice getting shifted to 3D came as a late decision and it's probably the best 3D conversion I've seen to date. Not without it's flaws and I really didn't feel that it added much of anything to the film. A fun film in most regards, I enjoy watching Depp do his wacky thing. I do think that Disney and Burton, while Alice was very successful, missed an opportunity to not only make the new Alice, but to re-tell the story of young alice as well. Instead of just making what amounts to a sequel to that older animated installment. I also wished they had nixed a few of the action and filler sequences in exchange for some more substance and detail. But this is really a discussion for another thread...

I think the best part of 3D right now is that it's "cool" to hate it. That leaves a pretty big void for people to step up and make a name for themselves in 3D.

I have to disagree here. I don't know too many filmmakers or people within the industry who hate 3D or the potential it holds. The dislike is mostly focused on what is currently being done with 3D as a tool. Also there's some resentment and resistance to 3D due to what it can't do at this time. Lots of people jumping all over 3D right now, trying to make a name for themselves. It's very competitive out there and nearly everything is being shot in 3D -- even romantic comedies and various documentaries. Ah, whatever... The new 3D camcorder from Panasonic may still be over $15K for what amounts to a stereoscopic HVX. But the porn industry is buying them up as fast as Panasonic can ship them. ...Just sayin'

But you are right and I do agree that 3D is an opportunity. There is an untapped creative form here, of which I think many have not even begun to contemplate the possibilities. Too much effort being spent on trying to adapt 3D as a process or a glossy finish over current production and presentation standards and expectations. Massive untapped potential, if you ask me. That is why it's so frustrating, for me, to see "blah-blah 3D" this and "Yada-Yada 3D" that... Enough is enough... It's all just the same old 3D turd that rolled around in the '80s, in the late '60s, in the early '50s, etc.. Same thing now, just prettier to look at, better turd polish with the latest digital projection and visual FX to map onto that turd. Time for something new. You would think that after nearly 100 years of the same old crap, someone would try something new. Yeah, I've got a few ideas. I honestly don't know if they will work or not, but I'm willing to try them. No I'm not going to share them publicly. Hire me as a creative consultant and I'll clue you in.

 

[mike ogden]

I think 3D will just sit alongside conventionally shot films as a way for studios to make extra $$$ and for some film makers to do some interesting work. There's no way it'll ever become the norm. Saying that studio pictures will never explore the more creative side of 3D (whatever that is) is just insulting to the likes of Scorcese. Point of reference - there's not much sense in using the term studio picture these days anyway. An independent producer like Graham King seems to be pumping out more pictures than any studio.

Showing a picture of a Roman ampitheatre is not an example' of spatial storytelling 'ON FILM' (which I think is what I asked). It's what's more commonly known as a cop out answer. Jeez guys, stop swallowing this creative revolution bs. 3D is just another filming technique that allows an audience to be more immersed. Period. Get a grip. Come back down to Earth :smiley:

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

That was Greek Theatre.

It is also where Drama was invented. In space.
About 2500 years before 100 years of cinematic language.

We disagree, which is fine.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

It's very competitive out there and nearly everything is being shot in 3D -- even romantic comedies and various documentaries.

I wouldn't pay extra to see a romantic comedy in 3D, though if it was the only option and cost the same as a regular ticket I'd see it. I don't dislike the experience of watching 3D films, but I'm very picky about what I see in 3D because of the added cost. Even if it is a CG movie like Toy Story 3 where they render out both eyes, I wouldn't see it in 3D unless the shots were composed for and the editing paced for 3D.

I'm quite curious to see what a master like Scorsese will do with the 3D medium in Hugo Cabret. I also want to see a 3D movie in which the 3D is integral to the film the way color is to The Wizard of Oz. This is a subtle distinction from 3D being the only reason to see a movie.

Documentaries? I can't imagine that using the Panasonic 3D cameras wouldn't affect the way you shoot too much, though the monster two-camera 3D rigs would be unwieldy in doc situations. The closest I've seen to a 3D "documentary" was Jackass 3D, but those 3D shots were probably just as carefully plotted as a 3D fictional film. The truly doc stuff (the hidden camera stunts done in public) were 2D.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I'm quite curious to see what a master like Scorsese will do with the 3D medium in Hugo Cabret. I also want to see a 3D movie in which the 3D is integral to the film the way color is to The Wizard of Oz. This is a subtle distinction from 3D being the only reason to see a movie.

I totally agree about this. Even though it's the Alexa -- I'm also excited to see
a 3D film shot with the new Cooke 5i lenses.

The only bummer is that it's not until December 2011. :cuss: