I haven’t watched a movie in 3D in a long, long time, and I’m suspicious that the “new” 3D is different from the “old” version significantly enough to make me try it again.
Anyone experienced watching oldschool 3D willing to try to convince me to go watch Tron in 3D?
Sorry, I’m going to continue to believe my lying eyes (and aching head) over your word for it.
Hey man, each to his own. I recognize that there are problems with this current-gen 3D in terms of which humans are able to interpret it properly, and even if you can’t, it isn’t like its some flaw. It just is.
But there really isn’t any comparison from then until now. This current 3D (if you can perceive it) is blowing away anything that came before. And remember, every 3D movie that came before was about the “gotcha” 3D moments. Modern 3D films are most decidedly NOT.
Must disagree. It fails to even be a gimmick. It utterly fails to impress me, which is one reason I won’t tolerate the discomfort of it. It adds nothing to the movie’s visual effects.
**I’d be happy if theaters could be bothered to exhibit normal 2D films properly. ** Then, an d only then, should they be allowed to play with new things like 3D.
I’ve pretty well given up on seeing movies in theaters because it’s been years since I’ve been to a theater that managed to have the projector lamp at the proper brightness and with the image in focus all the way across the screen. Having the lens and aperture plate set up properly is a plus. Don’t say “Complain to the manager” because the manager on duty is usually simply the oldest employee in the building that day and has no idea what to do other than press the “start” button. All I can do is hope that their night is filled with brain wraps.
Happily, the good people at Dolby Laboratories have made decent sound pretty much plug-and-play, except when someone gets frisky with the LFE channel and thinks shaking the audience’s teeth loose is fun.
But, overall, I have a better experience at home. I’ve gone from seeing five or six movies in theaters per month down to once or twice a year, if that.
Cool. Your opinion is noted. Unfortunately, the moviegoing public currently disagrees with you. And until they do or the technology improves, you’re just going to have to suck it up. I’m sorry but them’s the breaks.
I like 3D. It’s fun and novel and I enjoy it. I also don’t see a lot of movies so I could be an outlier. I don’t know.
I have severe motion sickness that only seems to get worse as I get older. 3D and IMAX movies make sharp pointy pain in the back of my eyeballs after about 15 minutes, nausea after about 30 minutes and if I keep watching, throwing up after about an hour. But, I love those kinds of movies! I started taking ginger pills and eating ginger root while in the movie theater to help curb the motion sickness, it really does help. I’ll start getting headaches after about 2 hours if I’ve been eating ginger root the whole time. I hate ginger, but it’s totally worth the taste to be able to enjoy my $18 movie.
I would imagine what most people don’t realize is when they start getting ill in the theater they’re just getting motion sickness. What theaters need to do to help with motion sickness is sell ginger related products in the concession stand. They make Ginger Altoids, but I rarely see them for sale.
I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to say that Australia can be more than a bit behind the consumer tech curve on many things (we’ve only just gotten Tivo here- although DVR has been around for a while- and the closest thing we have to Netflix is run by the major phone company and still greeted with a bit of skepticism by many people), so when I say that pretty much every major theatre in the major cities here appears to have at least one 3D screen, I think we can safely say that 3D movies in their current incarnation are not a “Fad” and will only go away because they’re replaced by something more impressive or technologically advanced.
Also, I think we can add the “But I can’t see the 3D effects/They give me a headache!” complaint to the “List of things prevalent on the SDMB but not nearly to the same extent as in the real world”, too. I cannot see those Magic Eye pictures (the ones that were really popular in the late '90s) no matter what I do or how much I try, but I can see 3D movies just fine with no headaches or anything and IMHO they look spectacular and, as FoieGrasIsEvil points out, the movies using the technology now are nothing like the old Bwana Devil or Theme Park Attraction-style movies with things being thrown at the audience to wow them with the incredible Technology of THE FUTURE! (Brought to you by SCIENCE!).
:D:D
Whatever happened to those? They just sort of disappeared… kinda like the previous attempts at 3-D movies…
Marginal advance?
Leaving aside that few people are going to be willing to trade colour information for depth, colour filter anaglyphic 3D used improvised camera rigs with chronic registration problems. These persisted with polarized 3D, because alignment is basically mechanical. Even in the “best” of these films (like 3D House of Wax,) you’ll find scenes where one eye’s image is slightly higher than the other, of even scaled slightly off. Because you had to synchronize two projectors, it was common for images for each eye being slightly off in time, especially if the film had been spliced at any point. This created a significant problem for viewers.
Directors of earlier 3D movies did not understand that rapid shifts in focal depth would create discomfort for the audience, and even if they did, they did not have the means to mitigate this in post production. This was a huge technical problem to overcome, and now it is trivially easy to edit a film with this in mind, where it was practically impossible before.
Earlier iterations of 3D were problematic in that it was not practical to present complicated composite shots, limiting filmmakers to practical effects for their films. Before, if you were looking at it in 3D it’s because it was something they were able to physically place in front of the cameras – now, filmmakers can present a perfect 3D scene that’s made up of hundreds of discrete elements, whether they are photographic elements or CGI.
On the presentation side, almost the entire infrastructure has been replaced with an eye towards 3D, instead of just making do with whatever happens to be there. Screens are engineered to kick light back without breaking its polarization, vastly improving on the murky dimness of earlier 3D.
The main thing, though, is that the industry has now embraced 3D, and so the calibre of films presented in 3D has changed significantly. It used to be that if it was in 3D, you were virtually guaranteed that it was going to be rubbish. Because the technology has advanced to the point that it has an attractive cost/benefits ratio, we now have great-looking 3D spectacles from top-tier filmmakers and “A” list talent.
There is a vast difference between It Came From Outer Space (or even in Friday the 13th Part III) and the current crop, and it’s a bit silly to deny it. It ain’t going anywhere but up.
Nope, not seeing it. The current crop of 3-D films are clearly using it for party-trick spectacle (e.g. the Tron flick that kicked off this thread). Come back with this argument when you can list a half-dozen 3-D movies without whiz-bang spectacle – no big flashy SFX, no large-scale vistas, just the characters going about whatever the story is about on an ordinary-scale set presented in 3-D.
You must be looking at the chart upside down. Or maybe your 3-D glasses are on backwards.
Show me a color film from before 1950 without huge vistas, ornate sets and a cast of thousands.
Party-trick spectacles? What else are movies for?
Very poor methodology there. If you look closer (and don’t cherry-pick) you get another picture entirely.
That’s kind of a bizarre argument. Obviously, 3D is best suited to spectacle. It makes spectacle more spectacular; that’s the point.
Spectacle will always be big box office - Star Wars wasn’t huge because of an original plot or fully-developed characters, it was huge because it looked and sounded awesome. Until recently, you could never consider making that kind of film in 3D. If you wanted to make a 3D movie, it was probably going to be an exercise in finding various things you could throw or poke at the camera - because that’s pretty much what you could do with it. What does everyone remember from House of Wax? The Paddle-ball. This is why earlier 3D movies didn’t catch on.
Edward Tufte would be ashamed of that chart.
The vertical axis does not start at zero, and thus makes the drop in quantity look much larger than it is relative to the total quantity. Furthermore, the axes aren’t labeled. The chart is misleading at best, and deliberately decptive at worst.
yeah…avatar i didnt really are for a 3 hour 3d retelling of the disney ‘classic’ “Pocohantas”. Fuck Cameron.
that will be an interesting test! I look forward to it.
When it comes down to it, movies are a storytelling medium. They can have text on screen, musical soundtracks, jump around in time, use the surround sound to make noisy things circle around you. Whether they work or not depends on how well it’s all put together.
There’s certainly room for stereoscopic 3D as a tool to be used subtly and judiciously. In the jungles of Avatar, 3D emphasised the foreground foliage to increase the impression of pushing through the greenery; it can add depth to big landscapes, sweeping vistas etc. However, stereoscopic 3D is not an improvement in realism in the same way that transitioning from colour to black-and-white was. 3D shouldn’t be regarded as a normal viewing standard like colour and stereo sound - it’s a feature that suits only some kinds of movie, just as extreme widescreen suits only some kinds of movie.
Things poking out of the screen or explosion debris flying past are novelties that I can do without: they kick me out of any immersion in the story and remind me that I’m in a theatre. Used more subtly, 3D may improve my experience of some movies, but whether its worth the price premium and glasses requirement is a close call for me. Titanic will be an interesting test case because so many people have seen it in 2D. My memory of it certainly doesn’t scream “better in 3D”, but Cameron makes very watchable movies and I’m really curious to see what he comes up with.
Only when done right - same as makeup or props. Yesterday I caught a bit of a Western which looked like it had been colored by a three-year old, with laughable hair, clothing and landscapes (not to mention every actor was glow-in-the-dark white, despite half the characters being Iroquois) and the last time I went to the movies the audience (aged 10-80 based on looks) let out a collective “OW!” when the movie started… it was too fuckin’ loud. When we were leaving, I saw the gang of retirees (12 of them, and judging by their pre-movie conversation they go to the movies together at least once a week) presenting a collective “suggestion” of “please have the sound at reasonable volumes”.
Color has gotten better; hopefully 3D will too and, among other things, someone will come up with a solution which works for people without perfect sight.
This.
Also, I have normal vision, no need for glasses or anything, and 3D movies basically just make my eyes hurt. And my wallet. I saw Tangled in 3D (luckily a date paid or I definitely would have skipped a sixteen dollar movie), and while I loved it, the only downside for me was that in the most beautiful scene of the whole film the fucking 3D was out of focus. So I’m trying to see this floating light thing coming at me in REAL 3D ACTION, but all I see is a blurry yellow object and all I feel is a headache. It was such a beautiful scene to be ruined by a shitty 3D effect. As for the rest of the movie, the 3D didn’t add anything to it. If they start to make movies with real, effective 3D, then I’ll go see them and pay for them. Otherwise, I’ll just wait to rent them at home.