Seems like there is a lot of it. I just got back from TinTin. It was the first film I have seen with modern 3D technology and I was utterly blown away!
Now I am not talking about films where it was crappy 3D created as an afterthought in post, but about films where it was planned as a 3D experience from the start, like TinTin.
What I REALLY don’t understand is posters on this board saying things like <whiny nasal voice> “I saw it in 2D and don’t know what 3D could have added.” </whiny nasal voice> Hey, STFU, spring the extra four bucks or whatever and if you still don’t see it, than I don’t know what to say to you. TinTin was totally awesome, and was probably a great movie in 2D, but in 3D it was as revelatory a visual experience as 2001 or Star Wars in their day.
I think you’re confusing indifference for hate. Some people just aren’t interested or don’t think it adds to the cinematic experience. That’s how I feel about color movies .
I haven’t seen any petition drives or attempts to legislate against 3D or anti-3D riots in the streets, so I don’t think it’s a huge issue.
Great argument technique you have going here. Someone asks you a genuine question about a statement you made, and rather than back it up, you create a whole other thread where you call us all whiny and tell us to STFU.
You said that the experience was be inferior in 2D. I asked how. You can answer the question or not, but it is not my duty to go spend $25 (one ticket in 2D and 3D) on a movie I’m not interested in just to figure out what the heck you’re talking about.
And, no, I’m not going to answer your question unless you take back the insult. But here’s a hint: it’s inherent in my question. What does it add? If you can’t answer it, then the answer is nothing.
I dunno. I suppose hate is a strong word, but I find 3D extremely annoying. It’s a gimmick to inflate entertainment prices. It does not add to immersion for me. If anything, it can jar me out of a movie or game.
It’s as much of a fad now as it was when it was created. I only hope it passes quickly.
“Hate” is an extremely powerful emotion that I don’t dole out lightly or for little/no reason. I don’t “hate” 3D, I simply don’t find it something that adds to my moviegoing experience because I have gotten severe headaches both times I have tried it. And in the interest of full disclosure, I have bad eyes (severe astigmatism and myopia) which can only partially be corrected by eyeglasses, so the problem is probably with me, not inherently in the technology.
Full disclosure: I have yet to see a 3D movie. Well, actually, I saw a stupid Corman film in 3D back in 1983 or so during its brief renaissance, but I won’t count that.
It’s problem I see is that it’s only really applicable to over-the-top action movies. You know, movies that essentially resemble video games. For that, sure (and for actual console video games too!) But for films that aren’t primarily action, I not only don’t see it as adding anything, but as being an annoying distraction. Something that would do nothing more than constantly ‘take you out of the movie’.
IOW I can’t help but still see it as a ‘gimmick’. A much more well done special effect, but still just a special effect. I mean think about it. 3D films don’t really portray the world more as humans see it, like adding color and sound does. Yeah, we see in 3D, but not the way it looks in these movies. In fact, because of this, 3D films less resemble reality than 2D ones. Again, it comes across as a gimmick! And not ultimately all that different from cheesier, crass things like Rumble-Rama or Sense-O-Round.
But like I said, I haven’t even seen one yet as there hasn’t been one that I thought was a decent looking film in general, 3D or not (wanted to see Avatar in it but didn’t get around to)…
3D has gotten a bad rap, IMO, because few directors make effective use of it, it’s sloppily used, often added after filming (and often poor looking), mostly limited to children’s films and action films, and it’s usually a blatant cash grab by the studios, both in the theater and at home. Studios jumped on the bandwagon far too quickly after Avatar, and are at the risk of “losing” the technique in their rush to quick bucks. Did Step Up 3 need to be in 3D? Did The Green Hornet? If Piranha 3D worth $35 on Blu Ray? I can at least forgive the computer animation movie makers from jumping on the trend, as it’s trivial to do a full 3D rendering.
That said, I do think the immediate dismissal of 3D for being a “useless gimmick” overlooks the fact that there can be (and have been) effective uses of 3D. Werner Herzog’s documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams is a wonderful film, and it requires 3D viewing to get the full effect of what Mr. Herzog is trying to show. The cave painters incorporated the three-dimensional surface of the cave walls in creating their tableaux, and the combination of the moving 3D camera and the flickering light used illustrates what it could have been like to be those painters. IMAX documentaries (and documentaries in general) also usually work well in 3D, of course. And I’m still surprised to report that 3D works well for concert films (which I guess is just a subgenre of documentary); I’ve only seen Kylie Minogue’s Aphrodite concert, but I’ve heard good things about the others… even the Bieber one.
Entertainment films also can fare well. I’ve yet to hear anything bad about the 3D presentations of Hugo, Coraline, and Tron: Legacy, so if those stories happen to grab you, the 3D is an effective addition. Some of the after-the-fact 3D conversions are also surprisingly decent… Disney has done well with The Lion King and The Nightmare Before Christmas, and I thought the post-production 3D versions of Thor and Captain America were well done.
As far as physical problems with seeing 3D, I do know a couple of folks have found current 3D TVs to be worth getting; they allow adjustment of the 3D depth-of-field and such, and they’ve found settings that they like. I have astigmatism and trouble converging my eyes to see 3D in real life (or however you would describe it… I usually see things as if my eyes were crossed, and have to force my focus to see something properly), yet I’ve never had trouble seeing 3D from a screen… YMMV, of course.
As others said, I’m in the “yeah, just another special effect; is the movie good by itself?” side of the aisle. The 3D should be part of the point of the art (as with the Herzog example mentioned above) to make it a key element. Otherwise I’d have my reservations as to how good was the actual moviemaking if all you can say about a film is how great is it in 3D…
The 3D effect is wasted on me. It looks like a cheep stereoscopic picture to me… yes, even the well done ones like Avatar. Either the effect looks flat and 2D or it is hugely exaggerated. My eye doesn’t pick up any of the subtle gradients. So all 3D tends to look cartoonish to me. And because it can’t recreate the eye accommodation effect. I, like about a third the movie goers, get headaches when trying to watch them.
Add in the other minuses like the 20-50% color, luminance, and resolution loss 3D inflicts on its films and you end up with dim dull grey films, at least compared to the base film. Thats why 3D seems to work best on brightly colored movies.
So in short it actively detracts from the look of the film. While simultaneously, at least for me, adding nothing but a headache and an extra $5 to the ticket.
My biggest problem with it is that you are putting dark glasses over your eyes. The vibrance and brightness of colors takes a big hit. Everything has a slightly “distant”, filtered feel. The 3d effect can be stunning when done well, but it’s not worth it IMO at the expense of what is lost.
I’ve seen the latter two in 3D, and while I wouldn’t say they were badly done, I wouldn’t say the 3D added much, either. Though there were a couple neat moments in Coraline that used the 3D to good effect, there wasn’t any real point in doing it, either, except to show off the technology (it was relatively new then).
I will admit, however, that I really enjoyed the 3D in A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas. They made no pretense that the 3D was entirely gimmicky, which was half the fun. Though there were a few shots that showed just how much extra depth you could get in certain wide angle city shots, but you’d only really notice if you were specifically looking for it.
And Pixar usually does a good job of it. I noticed in Up and Toy Story 3 that the 3D was mainly used to give the impression of depth to a lot of shots. John Lasseter is big on avoiding gimmicks for actually making the movie good.
We saw Hugo in 3D yesterday. Despite the love fest in another thread, I thought the film was meh, made worse by the 3D effect, which seemed to impose actors over a cartoonish background. The stereoscope analogy above is apt, and I’ll be glad when this fad is over. And I have a rich baritone.
I think the big point in favor of Coraline was that the 3D revealed the depth that the animators had actually used… it wasn’t done in post-production, the 3D is from the actual filming, so it was really the first stop-motion film that used the freedom (and restrictions) of the medium. A lot of times, the 3D did look like a little shoebox-sized diorama, but the amazing thing was that we were presented with a diorama, nor just a flat slate. Kind of like the joy of old Viewmaster 3D reels.
And… well… I’m a huge Tron fan, as are my friends, so the glee in seeing a Recognizer up close and personal kind of rocked. Lasseter was one of the big driving forces behind the new Tron (having been a fan of the original), and I think his involvement is one of the reasons that the movie used 3D effectively. There aren’t a lot of “in your FACE!” moments, but good shots of vistas, etc., and an interesting balance of 2D and 3D that reminds me of a more subtle version of the altering-aspect-ratios gimmick of movies like Woodstock.
(Overall, I do think Disney is the the primary studio that gets 3D. They’re one of the few studios to seemingly nail post-production. They own Marvel Studios, and I don’t think it’s coincidence that the 3D post-production there has been better than the in-camera 3D films from other studios…)
Didn’t see H&K in 3D; too busy with school finals, and felt weird going to see it when I’d missed the first two theatrically. I similarly missed Jackass 3D, which (unusually) I’ve seen praised for its 3D use, if not for its content.
I don’t wear glasses, I feel liek a tit when I wear sunglasses so hence I rarely wear any form of glasses. Hence I find glasses uncomfortable which detracts from the experience. I simply don’t want to don glasses to see a movie.
I am also yet to see a 3D film that added anything without feeling gimmicky.
There’s the brightness/colour loss that others have mentioned.
All in all, I can’t think of a reason for 3D beyond economics (charging more for it).
My brain is wired such that every 3D movie I’ve seen causes motion sickness in me. I’ve also had the same effect from regular (2D) IMAX films that use a lot of motion, and certain video games. I realize this is a flaw inherent in me, but it makes me “hate” 3D as it stands. Perhaps certain techniques will be developed that won’t do this to me, that will work well on a glasses-wearer like me, and won’t inherently affect the quality of the picture as stated by other posters, and then I’ll be much more accepting of it.
.
Lasseter was one of the big driving forces behind the new Tron (having been a fan of the original), and I think his involvement is one of the reasons that the movie used 3D effectively. There aren’t a lot of “in your FACE!” moments, but good shots of vistas, etc., and an interesting balance of 2D and 3D that reminds me of a more subtle version of the altering-aspect-ratios gimmick of movies like Woodstock.