3D Love it or Hate it

i think if the film is good it doesnt matter if its 3d or 2d.

there are several things tto take into account.

avatar is the best example of 3d - it was filmed using it and really did help immerse you in the world JC created

lots of cartoons use it, bright colourful films, and it works well.

some films like up and toy story 3 are so good you dont notice the 3d though it does add an extra depth

the problem is when they convert 2d to 3d - clash of titans was horrible to look at and by all accounts last airbender is even worse

can't believe they have done this with HP7...

however there would be no need for 3d if idiots didnt download movies for free. the studios wouldnt feel they needed gimmicks to keep people coming to the cinema
 
Joking aside, 3D in the real world allows you to focus on whatever you want in you field of vision. In movies, you must focus on what the director intenRAB, or get eyestrain/headaches/nausea trying to focus on something that has false depth, but is permanently unfocused. 3D technology in films simply isn't advanced enough to work universally.
 
3d is definitely a gimmick but used well it doesnt have to be a bad thing, and can in some cases make an average film *cough*avatar*cough* an unmissable(ish) experience..
 
Yeah lets add more realism to James Cameron's smurf forest :p

I don't watch films for realism, (i'm not talking about films that portray certain things in a realistic manner here), they are entertainment, an escape from everyday life. If I watch City of God I expect to be immersed in the story, I don't want the slums of Rio in the room in spectacular 3D vision, smell-O-vision, pain-O-vision or whatever!

Actually if people want extra realism that pain-O-vision isn't a bad idea, they could deliver electric shocks in the chairs, or if somebody gets stabbed a needle could be shoved up through the chair, all to get that extra realistic cinematic experience.
 
Oh, that's been done.

Back in the 50's and 60's a director/producer called William Castle was well known for coming up with all sorts of silly gimmicks to entice people to watch his films.

He made a movie called The Tingler, with Vincent Price. A very silly story about a centipede-like creature that manifests itself from the backbone of people who have been 'scared-to-death'. At a certain point in the movie, the lights were turned out and Price' voice on the soundtrack told people that the tingler was loose in the theatre...and some of the seats were rigged to administer mild electric shocks to people, hence making them jump or scream.

He also used to fly plastic skeletons over the heaRAB of the audience on wires, and make people sign insurance waivers on the way in, in case they 'died of fright'.

I have seen some of the 'immersive' attractions in Disneyland, like the Terminator, Shrek and Spider-Man ones, which use 3D, shaking seats, water, wind, things attached to seats that touch you etc.

But as entertaining as they are, they will always be just a gimmick. As others have pointed out, why does it automatically follow that 3D must become the norm for all movies? How would drama's, comedies, documentaries etc benefit from being in 3D?

Which raises an interesting question - if 3D did actually become the norm, then what would be the point? Isn't the point that 3D movies are supposed to be event movies, something different, something tailored to specific movies?

I also wonder that if 3D viewing becomes the norm at cinemas and also at home on TV...could this possibly lead to physical, mental and possibly medical issues? We are asking the brain to completely re-evaluate it's perception of 2D and 3D images. We do not know what the long-term effects of such a drastic change could be.

Save for specific movies that lend themselves to the 3D process, then personally I am happy with a clear, sharp picture and good sound to enjoy my movies.
 
People said the same about HD being a gimmick - but look how sky-HD, blu-ray etc have taken off.

3D may or may not go the same way - but once TVs start being offered with 3D as standard - there will be little to prevent you taking the leap. Personally i'm not sold on 3D for a cinematic experience, although watching Avatar in HD after seeing it in 3D at the cinema - I did miss the effect somewhat.

I think 3D will have a much larger effect in the games industry - having played games in 3D (LCD shutter glasses for computers have been round for at least 10-15 years), I can tell you it does greatly enhance the experience.
 
I don't get the big problem most of the 3d films are offering a 2d version as well so if you don't want to pay extra don't go and watch it in 3d.
 
Whether or not they were revolutionary doesn't change with time. And The Matrix trilogy is as worth watching now as it ever was. It's not just that they used a lot of revolutionary techniques, its that they did beautiful things with them.

I don't follow. How is that different to having surround sound? Does the fact that you are immersed in the sound experience distract you?

Well, initially perhaps it did. I expect when it first came out, surround sound got over-used, with noises whizzing from left to right behind you etc. And if you've just installed a brand new 5.1 system for the first time, you'll probably be hypersensitive to where the sounRAB come from and be distracted. As time goes by, both directors and audiences will get used it. It'll then stop being a distraction and simply contribute to the immersive experience.

One thing that critics seem to miss when they make such comparisons is how much the technology has moved on since then. The comparison isn't valid.

If anything, the repeated past failures and yet willingness to try, try again shows how much 3D is desired. It shows it is not a fad, but an enduring need which only now can be fulfilled.

Well, let's compare it with Cameron's previous film, Titanic. That was in 2D, but it still did pretty well. In my opinion it was a weaker film, with many of the same faults, an entirely predictable ending (and I don't just mean that the boat sinks) and shallow characters. However, it was a love story that seemed to resonate with audiences. Avatar is the same. The people who like it, don't just like it for the SFX. They like it for how the SFX were used. They want to live in Pandora, and they want to hate evil corporations, and they want their metaphorical legs back.
 
The new systems don't drain colour. There is a slight reduction in the brightness that means the screens have to be coloured silver to compensate for, but colour isn't affected.
 
I hate it, totally ruined UP for me. I just though meh and now I have a crashing headache as well as looking a complete buffoon is dumb glasses. I'm thinking it will be a fad, or at the least that 2D will run in tandem with 3D releases. There is no way it can become the only platform as opinion is too polarised.
 
I think 3D neeRAB to be divided into categories: films that are intentionally filmed that way, with good reason (Avatar, to make you feel a part of the world... I haven't seen it yet, so can't comment much... hoping to see it when it's re-released), films that are intentionally filmed that way, using the gimmick to carry the film (The Final Destination), and animations that use the effect to merely enhance the graphics (Toy Story 3, Up). There's really nothing wrong with the latter or the former, but the middle option taints the concept of both. The fact that people are commenting that nothing in Toy Story 3 'leapt out' is really bothering me... it's as though there was no actual depth in the film (which, of course, there was). In a way, they're not to blame, it's the way the poster advertises 3D as part of the film's effing title...

Actually, on behalf of my friend who is blind in one eye, I hope the craze doesn't last :)
 
I saw Monsters Versus Aliens in 2D, and it suffered from the problem of being made for 3D, namely, things popping out of the screen at you. It didn't have the 3D effect, but you could tell the moment was added for 3D audiences.
 
It's a gimmick it has been here before and will come round again, it is another way for Hollywood to re-market itself when the content is pretty dire and they are struggling for cash.

If you watch Dial M For Murder (1954) then you can see the deliberate 3D shots that were created just to sell it in 3D, it is a slight distraction when watching now in 2D as the shots feel contrived.
 
Oh, come now, the use of 3D in cinemas goes way back before the Internet. It's just a gimmick for the sake of claiming to be doing something "new" (especially for those who weren't around during the last attempts), not anything to do with downloading, etc.
 
yes they used it first in the 50s to tempt people back into cinemas and aware from tv and then in the early 80s to tempt people back into cinemas away from videos

they started using it again to tempt people back with something they wouldnt get illegally downloading a film
 
But that's just one justification for 3D that they use, but hardly the most important one (in fact, I'd dispute that they seriously think it's a good reason at all). The fact is that they're appealing to a new audience with something that appears "new" and different. Sure, cam screeners can't compete with 3D films (for that matter, they can't compete with 2D in a quality sense), but the idea about 3D is to appear to innovate your product, as the worRAB "new and improved" are so ubiquitous in marketing. The fact that it might lessen the impact of downloading is a by-product, not a reason for 3D's existence. Even with no downloading, 3D would have happened, and other innovations will also happen in the future, too, whatever the supposed impact downloading has.
 
Back
Top