Movie 3d: Winner or Flash in the pan?

[No Wikipedia Cites]

Roger Ebert hates the 3d format; he predicts that it will fade away as a fad. He also wrote that it was dying out and some filmakers decided not to go with 3d.

Another source I read mentioned something like "This movie was great in 3d, only Roger Ebert would object". I also heard that the new Star Trek 2 is being filmed in 3d.

Ok enough of my poorly remembered Ebert quotes, is 3d in the movies going to last or is it a flash in the pan?

[Shawn1767]

I see it as a crutch. Instead of getting audiences in the theaters with a quality story, they're merely promoting movies as "3D!" to get people in. If it's a good story, I don't care if it's in B&W, Technicolor or 3D, but it seems as if they're just doing 3D because A) they can and B) to make more money from a crappy product.

[Tangent]

I like 3D movies that have an interesting story and good direction and cinematography. It can add to the visual experience. But I won't go see a movie just because it's in 3D. It is not a draw in itself.

Is it a fad that will soon pass? I doubt it. Last I looked, 3D movies are still making plenty of money. Theaters have invested a lot in 3D equipment, and innovations and improvements in 3D cameras and filming techniques are ongoing. Home 3D viewing options are also a rapidly growing business. There is plenty of incentive to keep making and releasing 3D movies.

There are some big name directors making 3D movies now: Scorsese, Spielberg, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, and Tim Burton to name a few. There are also some popular movies that are being converted and rereleased in 3D (The Lion King, Finding Nemo, Titanic, possibly the Star Wars prequels).

I've never put much stock in Roger Ebert's opinion in the past, and even less in recent years.

[Bryan Ekers]

I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D, and it was enough to put me off the format, as it was a distraction and a headache-inducing nuisance. I saw the movie again on cable some time later, and the story was good enough to have never needed a gimmicky enhancement.

[RickJay]

It's worth noting they said the same thing about movies with sound and movies with color.

I don't think many people would disagree that visually, 3D is absolute shit right now. All the 3D movies I've seen looked awful. 3D TV looks awful. It makes the movie worse.

But, it's a new element of filmmaking and sooner or later people will start getting it right.

[Oakminster]

I've seen Captain America and the latest Harry Potter movie in 3d. I found the experience visually impressive and well worth the extra buck or two (don't remember the price difference). 3d is not enough to make me buy a ticket for a movie I would not otherwise see, but if there is a 3d version of something I wanted to see, that's the version I'd pick in most cases.

[Cubsfan]

Originally Posted by Shawn1767

I see it as a crutch. Instead of getting audiences in the theaters with a quality story, they're merely promoting movies as "3D!" to get people in. If it's a good story, I don't care if it's in B&W, Technicolor or 3D, but it seems as if they're just doing 3D because A) they can and B) to make more money from a crappy product.

I don't think many movies are hard selling the 3D aspect any more. Yeah the kids movies are all about the 3D but most mainstream blockbusters don't seem to have much other than a cursory "3D" somewhere at the end of the ad now. In fact I have yet to be forced to see a movie in 3D. Even Avatar was available in 2D in it's theatrical release.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Cubsfan

I don't think many movies are hard selling the 3D aspect any more. Yeah the kids movies are all about the 3D but most mainstream blockbusters don't seem to have much other than a cursory "3D" somewhere at the end of the ad now. In fact I have yet to be forced to see a movie in 3D. Even Avatar was available in 2D in it's theatrical release.

Yeah, when the fad was in full bloom you'd get trailers like "Coming Friday IN 3DDDDDDDDDDDDDD!" "Also in 2D"

You don't see that anymore.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by RickJay

It's worth noting they said the same thing about movies with sound and movies with color.

They also said it about movies in Smell-O-Vision and Cinerama. Sometimes (in fact, usually) "they" are right.

They've been trying to promote 3D off and on for decades. The substantial difference now is that theaters had to invest a bunch of money into it rather than just handing out cheap cardboard glasses.

[RealityChuck]

I predicted in 2009 that 3D would last no more than five years. I'm still on schedule -- there are fewer 3D films being made, and people don't see why they should pay extra.

[Tangent]

Originally Posted by Jophiel

The substantial difference now is that theaters had to invest a bunch of money into it rather than just handing out cheap cardboard glasses.

Well, and that the technology has been largely improved upon so that--when done right--a modern 3D movie can look better than a 3D movie of the past. Sometimes much better. In particular, the anaglyph (red/blue) 3D systems--sometimes used for feature films and the primary method of home viewing in the past--is awful compared to polarization or shutter-lens techniques (which are not new, but are improved and are now more readily available for home).

[Grumman]

I've got two problems with 3D movies - using them on the wrong sort of movie, and half-assing the implementation. Proper 3d (and not just flat planes added in post production that make it look like a pop-up book) in a movie with the right sort of setting is great. Anything else and you're better off with 2D.

[Gukumatz]

Mod

This is probably better suited to Café Society.

Yoink.

- Gukumatz,
Game Room Moderator

[Chronos]

I don't think we'll ever see 3D go away for computer-animated movies, since it's almost no extra effort to make those into high-quality 3D. And it adds a lot to the experience of action-adventure movies, which tend to be pretty heavily effects-driven anyway, in any number of dimensions. But I don't think we'll see it much in romcoms, dramas, etc. until and unless they manage to come up with some technology that doesn't need special glasses (which I can't see anywhere on the horizon).

[Bryan Ekers]

Porn hasn't embraced it, so I don't see it having a future.

[Snickers]

Whoa. Porn in 3D. Bryan, you have a point: if anyone was going to run with it as a film-making technique, you'd absolutely think it'd be porn.

[Dr_Doom]

My girlfriend and I are sick of wearing goofy goggles to watch a movie at the theater that turns out looking roughly the same as a 1080p broadcast on my LCD TV would.

Surely we can't be the only ones.

If the tech is so amazing that consumers would rather not do without it, then it ultimately succeeds.

Is 3D so amazing?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Dr_Doom

My girlfriend and I are sick of wearing goofy goggles to watch a movie at the theater that turns out looking roughly the same as a 1080p broadcast on my LCD TV would.

But you'll keep wearing your goofy goggles at all other times, right? I understand that's what the injunction required.

[Skammer]

I've avoided seeing movies in 3D where the 3D seemed to be tacked on. In fact the only ones I've seen in 3D have been Avatar and Toy Story 3 I think. I might see Hugo in 3D because I trust Scorcese.

All the superhero movies, Harry Potter, whatever, 2D was more than adequate. I don't expect I'll shell out the extra $$ to see Star Trek in 3D, as much as I like Trek.

I don't hate the format, but it seems to me to just be a way of jacking up ticket prices an extra $3-4. Totally not worth the price increase. If the tickets cost the same I'd have no problem with 3D.

[Prelude to Fascination]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I don't think we'll ever see 3D go away for computer-animated movies, since it's almost no extra effort to make those into high-quality 3D. And it adds a lot to the experience of action-adventure movies, which tend to be pretty heavily effects-driven anyway, in any number of dimensions. But I don't think we'll see it much in romcoms, dramas, etc. until and unless they manage to come up with some technology that doesn't need special glasses (which I can't see anywhere on the horizon).

Coming Summer 2012! My Dinner With Andre--in 3D!

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Snickers

Whoa. Porn in 3D. Bryan, you have a point: if anyone was going to run with it as a film-making technique, you'd absolutely think it'd be porn.

Yeah, but in no time at all all of your viewing customers have an eye put out and you are right back to 1 eyed 2D.

[Dr_Doom]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

But you'll keep wearing your goofy goggles at all other times, right? I understand that's what the injunction required.

We are reducing our carbon footprints together by only wearing recyclable clothing.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

I predicted in 2009 that 3D would last no more than five years. I'm still on schedule -- there are fewer 3D films being made

No there aren't. There were more 3D films released this year than any other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

I predicted in 2009 that 3D would last no more than five years. I'm still on schedule -- there are fewer 3D films being made

No there aren't. There were more 3D films produced this year than any other of recent times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films

[Larry Mudd]

3D is only going to get better, and it has momentum now.

Previous iterations of 3D were not practical for the sort of films which benefit most from them - special effects-laden adventures and animation.

Filmmakers now have a full set of post-production tools for working in 3D, instead of being stuck with awkward kludges and "let's hope it works, and if it doesn't, too bad.." In addition to the tools, there is consciousness of the need to keep the depth consistent to avoid viewer fatigue, and tools to adjust it in post.

There is tremendous infrastructure the theatres and at home - and in the next three years we can expect the prices for home 3D gear to come down even farther.

Proper 3D movies are spectacular. They aren't going anywhere. (I do hope they stop cranking out crappy post-conversions, though - these are a waste of time.)


And I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that the pornhauses aren't doing 3D stuff. There is loads of HD3D porn out there. (Or so I have heard.)

[GuanoLad]

Originally Posted by RickJay

It's worth noting they said the same thing about movies with sound and movies with color.

But did they really? I find it hard to believe anyone credible would object to colour in movies.

I know many thought TV was a fad that wouldn't last. I know that colourising black-and-white films raised any number of objections. But surely there wasn't anyone upset by bringing colour into cinemas.

I think the objection most have with 3D is that you require the glasses, you cannot move from your seat (which in cinemas doesn't matter, but at home it does), and it gives an alarmingly high number of people a headache. Plus you're paying more for this inconvenience.

It's not so much that it's a fading fad, as it's just not worth the hassle, so will rapidly become less popular and not financially viable.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I've seen one new movie in 3D - Thor. It made the movie really dark, and the benefits of having the foreground stand out a little bit more distinctly from the background was definitely not worth it. I know more people who dislike 3D than like it. I hope it goes away, but if it doesn't, it's no skin off my nose. I only go to one or two movies in the theater a year anyway.

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

I've seen one new movie in 3D - Thor.

Thor was not shot in 3D, so please don't judge 3D movies on that basis. Go see Hugo and then let me know what you think.

[Jophiel]

This Ain't Avatar XXX

After the original events of Avatar, Jake (Chris Johnson) reveals in a video log that the Na'bi has a darker side. After sexual flashbacks which show moments in the movie which purport to show what actually transpired, the film shows what occurs after the human corporation leaves Panwhora. The Na'bi turn out to be "fetish-fueled sex fiends", who have a massive orgy after the corporation leaves, and then reveal their true purpose for keeping humans in a twist ending

And it's in 3D!

[faithfool]

I've only seen one recent movie in 3D and I was sitting in almost the exact center of the theater. Unless whatever object was headed straight for you, the effect was lost because there was almost no discernible difference with 2D. Except you paid more, had to wear the stupid glasses (awful if it's over your regular glasses) meant to be returned and the whole time you had a nagging feeling that peripherally, you were missing something.

I won't do it again. It's not that I hope it goes away, but there should always be the availability to see a movie the way God intended.... 2D.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by faithfool

Except you paid more, had to wear the stupid glasses (awful if it's over your regular glasses) meant to be returned and the whole time you had a nagging feeling that peripherally, you were missing something.

Which is ironic because peripherally, you're actually seeing more than the 2D version.

[Dr_Doom]

Originally Posted by Larry Mudd

Thor was not shot in 3D, so please don't judge 3D movies on that basis. Go see Hugo and then let me know what you think.

I don't know about "shot in 3D", but it required me to wear the glasses where I saw it. They called it "Real D 3D", and I removed the glasses a couple times and found the movie simply looked slightly fuzzy without them. There weren't any sequences with the "OMG! Duck!" effect in the film.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Dr_Doom

There weren't any sequences with the "OMG! Duck!" effect in the film.

And if there were, people would complain that 3-D is just a "gimmick". Myself included. 3-D is so much more than "the spear is RIGHT IN MY FACE!!!11". We see the world in 3-D. Seeing a movie in 3-D seems much more immediate to me than seeing it on a flat screen.

[Dr_Doom]

I do enjoy the visuals of these movies with the "laid-back" 3D, but really, they seem to be no better than a Blu-ray on 1080p. Which wouldn't bother me, except for the stupid glasses.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by faithfool

Except you paid more, had to wear the stupid glasses (awful if it's over your regular glasses)

Amen. I've seen native 3D stuff like Avatar, animated 3D like Despicable Me and 3D conversion stuff and it all looks like hell when you have to juggle those stupid glasses over your regular specs.

[Untoward_Parable]

if they can't fix he problem of it giving a significant number of people headaches and nausea it seems pretty bad for business.

[Untoward_Parable]

The hobbit is being shot in 3D =P, kind of scares me, having to amp up the saturation of the sets and makeup and costumes to compensate for the darkening, watching the film with glasses on, bleh, seems like a lot could go wrong there to make it not near what the original 3 were like in quality.

[MrDibble]

I like 3D, if there's a choice I go and see the 3D version (unless I know it's postprod 3D).

I wear glasses and have never had a problem with the second set.

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by Dr_Doom

I don't know about "shot in 3D", but it required me to wear the glasses where I saw it.

Many filmmakers shoot 2D and then rush a 3D effect in post-production - which looks terrible.

Imagine you have a 2D photograph, and want to make it stereo after-the-fact. The problem is straightforward: just recreate all the parallax shifts that would be there if the camera were moved a little bit to the right. Obviously, it's not practical to aim for a very detailed stereo image - you'e going to focus on the main elements - and you end up with a crap effect where you're just putting various elements on different planes, but they are by-and-large flat cut-out looking things - especially when you consider that you have to process about 150,000 frames this way - you can't hope to approach the level of detail you would have if you actually originally had another lens recording the scene for the second eye. (And re-rendered the effects shots, instead of fudging the entire composite.)

In short, 3D conversions suck.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I wear glasses and have never had a problem with the second set.

You're more blessed than I am. Besides being physically distracting, the 3D looks like crap to me.

[Brandus]

The colors are horribly diminished when wearing those stupid glasses. I'd rather see rich , luscious colors than a snowball or something stupid pop out on the screen.

[FlyingDragonFan]

I've got two movies in 3D for my home theater, Alice in Wonderland and Tron Legacy, and I saw Avatar in 3D in the theater and have the BluRay at home. In all three cases, I do think the 3D version has a little added something that makes it a richer experience. But I'm also content to watch them in 2D if I don't feel like wearing the glasses. 3D is cool, but not essential, when it's a movie I enjoy.

[FordTaurusSHO94]

Christopher Nolan doesn't think the image quality of 3D movies is as good as regular movies. That's why The Dark Knight Rises will not be in 3D. I have to agree with him. All of the 3D movies I've seen have looked fuzzy or blurry, like my contacts are acting up, but I never can get them cleared up all the way.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I hope 3D movies are a passing trend (like the last time the fad hit in the 1980s) but am a bit pessimistic about the chances of this happening. It just feels to me like too many film-makers are relying on 3D to turn their movies into some kind of theme park ride instead of just focusing on making good movies in 3D or not.

[fumster]

Hugo is worth seeing in 3D

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Tangent

Is it a fad that will soon pass? I doubt it. Last I looked, 3D movies are still making plenty of money. Theaters have invested a lot in 3D equipment, and innovations and improvements in 3D cameras and filming techniques are ongoing.

The same was true of Sensurround and previous iterations of the ThreeDee fad.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by FordTaurusSHO94

Christopher Nolan doesn't think the image quality of 3D movies is as good as regular movies. That's why The Dark Knight Rises will not be in 3D. I have to agree with him. All of the 3D movies I've seen have looked fuzzy or blurry, like my contacts are acting up, but I never can get them cleared up all the way.

When Thor wasn't too dark for me to see what was going on, I kept trying to clean the smudge off my 3D glasses. Maybe it wasn't a smudge?

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by RickJay

It's worth noting they said the same thing about movies with sound and movies with color.

1. Adding sound and color did not require the viewer to wear special glasses.

2. Adding sound and color did not induce nausea in a significant portion of the audience.

3. Adding sound and color did not degrade image clarity or brightness.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by No Wikipedia Cites

Roger Ebert hates the 3d format; he predicts that it will fade away as a fad.

One point he makes is that the prevelance of ThreeDee causes movies in general (not just ThreeDee showings) to be projected at half normal brightness, because it's easier for multiplexes to leave the ThreeDee polarizers in place than to have the projector minion take the time to swap it out (and possibly break something in the process).

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Larry Mudd

Go see Hugo and then let me know what you think.

This column posits that Hugo may be the technology's last stand -- either turning the decline around, or rendering it one with Nineveh and Tyre and Sensurround and Smell-O-Vision:

That’s where Scorsese comes in. If “Hugo” stuns audiences, perhaps they’ll give 3D filmmaking a second chance. If not, we might as well stow away those black-framed glasses until the next generation of filmmakers decides it’s time to try 3D all over again.