Huh? The movie doesn’t improve the story, given that you could read a book (or listen to the story around the campfire). Movies are about the melding of narrative, sounds, and visuals. 3D obviously alters the last facet, and while I’m unconvinced it’ll work wonders in every case, certainly in Coraline (the only modern 3D I’ve seen) it was used to good effect.
I’m not particularly interested in seeing things pop out of the screen at me: that takes me out of the story rather than drawing me in, because it’s a novelty effect. But when 3D is used to pull me into the story, by making (for example) room interiors appear to have depth, I think it’s pretty cool.
And oh, how I wish I’d seen Up in 3D! We don’t get to the theater much these days, and we went to a 2D show only because I misread the listings. It was beautiful, but I can imagine what Pixar would’ve done with 3D especially in some of those panoramic shots.
CalMeacham: Don’t hold your breath. The autostereo displays I’ve seen and heard about mostly use lenticular screens in some fashion, and therefore limit head positioning and resolution of the image. Earlier this year I saw a couple of lenticular flat panel TVs, and as you moved your head the 3D popped in and out. Obviously, they’re working to improve the technology, but I’m skeptical that it’ll be ready for primetime any time soon.
Actually, IMHO, you didn’t miss much. I enjoyed the film’s story, but it didn’t really use 3D very effectively. I don’t recall any particularly memorable 3D shots.
3D was the great hope of the movie industry in the early 1950s when they were desperately looking for a way to halt the decline in cinema attendance amid the inexorable rise of television.
Bwana Devil was the first of the wave in 1952 (although there had been 3d movies before), the slogan was “A Lion in Your Lap! A Lady in Your Arms!”. Who could resist that?
Well, audiences could. After several more (including even a Hitchcock, Dial M for Murder) execs noticed that, where audiences had a choice, the 2D versions were outselling the 3D versions.
Hollywood put the brakes on 3D, turning instead to Cinerama and other such stuff.
Will this round be any different? (There was another small wave in the 1960s, which proved equally disappointing.) Who knows? Maybe with better technology it will succeed this time.
Indeed–as I said, what impressed me about Coraline was the lack of memorable 3D shots, instead using it subtly to provide depth to scenes. I thought it worked really well, and I wondered whether Up would’ve done the same thing, providing (for example) a heightened sense of distance when looking at certain geologic formations.
IMHO, Coraline used the 3D much more effectively than Up while still never feeling gimmicky or intrusive. Then again, (a) the former takes place is a more surreal, dreamlike landscape, rather than Pixar’s own version of “reality” and (b) I thought it was a better movie anyway.
Please read this post (and some that follow it in that thread) for my views of why the current incarnation of 3D is not like any of its predecessors, and why 3D is definitely here to stay.
I was going to ask you the same thing. What I’ve noticed is that the 21 screen multi-plex I go to most often has one 3D screen, and when they are showing a 3D movie, they’ll have the same film in one or more additional theaters - in 2D. And the 2D theaters are larger. If, as you claim, the 3D is outdrawing the 2D version, wouldn’t they have put the 3D equipment in the larger theater, or purchased additional 3D setups?
If the 3D version makes more money than the 2D version, I suspect that is entirely due to the higher ticket price. I’d be interested in numbers that reflect actual butts in seats, not dollars taken in. If the 2D ticket is $9 and the 3D ticket is $12, we’ll have to subtract a quarter of the 3D revenue to get genuine numbers.
3D died all the other times because it’s a gimmick, like Senssurround. I have this vision of Bullwinkle with his hand in a top hat saying “This time for sure!”.
It was halfway through before I actively realized that there was more 3d in the Other Mother’s world than in the real world - it was an absolutely amazing use of it: very effective (and clever once I actually took notice of it), but not in any way intrusive.
3-D was a fad that came and went from 1840 on, notably during the Civil War, when stereoscopes recorded the battlefield carnage in depth.
Again in the 1940s there was a fad with View-Master, and in the 1950s when Disney showed 3-D movies in it’s new Main Street exhibit theater.
Another spurt of films in the early 1970s, almost all cheap stunt plotless B-movies.
No reason to suspect this fad will remain strong any longer than those.
Sure, none of those ever really went away, you can still make stereoscope photos, but there’s no market presence, only nostalgia.
Things are different this time; it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
For one thing, the technology is much better, so the quality of the 3D isn’t even remotely comparible. (A lot of those crap efforts in the '50s didn’t even have proper parallax or filtering; the claim of “3d” was basically just a ruse to get the rubes in the door. The better efforts were still pretty uneven and uncomfortable for the viewer.)
Also, the technology at home is getting better, so there’s more chance that these efforts will pay off in residual markets. I remember trying to watch anaglyphic 3D on television in the early eighties - not satisfying at all, because the shots were originally designed for a movie screen and were being shown on our (big at the time) 27"TV. Not only that, but colour balance on totally analog TVs was extremely variable from set to set, and it was a bit of a hassle trying to get the colour corrected to the point that the 3D would work even if your nose was 12" from the screen.
Even with the same cheap-ass method of attempting 3D video, it works much better with a video projector – good enough that it makes sense to include the 3D version on a BluRay disc, even for anaglyphic 3D. I think it won’t be long before most home video gear is capable of displaying field-sequential 3D…
The main difference, though, is the quality of the actual content. Coraline compares very favourably with, say, JAWS 3D - and the 3D is fecking gorgeous. Hell, the Cars short that ran with Bolt was worth the price of admission. Tim Burton’s take on Lewis Carroll’s Wonderland? I haven’t seen a satisfactory adaptation yet, but I’ll bet my ass it’s going to be a more worthwhile experience than Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein.
For full disclosure, I should admit that I am an unapologetic 3D nerd - I’ve been playing with all sorts of 3D stuff as a hobby for almost thirty years. (Someexamples.) So yeah, I’m biased - I’ve always been inclined to think 3D makes everything better- even shadow puppets. Recently, though - a lot of shortcomings and difficulties have been addressed. 3D has much more mass appeal.
The Moscow system has been in use for over 50 years – playing to a theaterfull of observers. Obviously it’s not limited to a narrow range.
And some of the patented devices I’ve seen have a really broad range of use as well – that’s what I meant when I said that you could move around the image. You shift by 15 degrees, and you see another 15 degrees of 3D image – you don’t lose it. The autostereo stuff you’re looking at is obviously using different technology, probably making compromises in the name of ease of manufacturing or economy, but it’s not necessarilyt the best available.
Some of my meds seem to reduce my 3D vision. While I can usually park a car (I’ve learned to compensate) I cannot catch a baseball as I once did.
I would LOVE a 3D system that didn’t make me puke, but in most films you are looking at what the director and cinematographer want you to look at. Pretty much zero-effort viewing, and I’m happy with it.
Therefore, it’s still a stunt and not worth the puking.
I take it you haven’t seen it. I suspect the reason it hasn’t been copied is that it isn’t very good.
If the “best available” is too expensive or difficult to make, it’s not likely to become widespread unless it can be made simpler or cheaper.
I’m not saying we’ll never have autostereo, but I don’t think it will be widespread very soon.
gaffa: Your post (once again) consists of anecdote and speculation, and since you’ve consistently shown yourself to be completely resistant to the facts and detailed cites I’ve provided in previous threads, I don’t think there’s any point in even trying to answer your points.
So, is this you avoiding admitting that you have any actual statistics to back up your claim that 3D showings of movies outsell 2D versions of the same films? Because you have not once, in all the times we’ve debated this, offered one solid piece of evidence. I can show you the show times for any multiplex that is showing a film in 3D and 2D and show that they are offering MORE 2D showings than 3D.
Does anyone have a source for historical movie show times? IMDB unfortunately does not have past show times. But looking at the theaters I go to, AMC’s River East 21 in Chicago is showing “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs” in both 2D and 3D. And they have more 2D showings than 3D. If you like, I’ll be happy to travel down there tomorrow and verify that the 3D theater is one of their smaller ones (I believe it’s in auditorium #7), while the 2D showings are in one of the larger ones like #9 or #10.
Does anyone other than commasense believe this is an unfair question?
I’d really like commasense to provide some solid numbers for his extraordinary claim that 3D films outsell 2D one. And I mean mainstream Hollywood 3D releases, excluding special films showing only in IMAX theaters, ride films, films shown at museums, etc. Hollywood 3D release. And show that the number of 3D tickets sold (not dollars inflated by the additional revenue stream of glasses) exceeds 2D tickets.
Let me add that I was also surprised at how well the 3-D added to the Coraline experience without a lot of explicitly 3-D callouts. The one exception I can think of is the tunnel, the framing of which seems to be at least partially based on how it will look in 3-D.