I think “an exciting new way to tell a story” may be a bit much to ask of any film technology. Most directors are going to be content with just having their movie look that much better.
It’s another tool in the kit, and in the right hands it’s spectacular. It’s great for for big dumb spectacles, but it can also blow you away when a smart, passionate filmmaker takes the time to do it right. Check out Wim Wenders’ Pina or Werner Herzog’s *Cave of Forgotten Dreams*. Especially Pina - you’ll sit there with your jaw in your lap.
I don’t really get why some people seem to get all bilious about 3D. I think it’s just like how some people don’t like the taste of bacon - just one of those inexplicable things that there is little hope of ever comprehending. “Yeah, I just don’t care much for ‘awesome.’”
Looking forward to seeing Hugo and Tintin this week - and The Hobbit and Prometheus next year.
I think that ultimately, 3D is a solution in search of a problem. Like most people, I’ve been looking at flat moving images for my entire life, and my mind has learned to interpret them as being three dimensional. Why should I go through the added inconvenience of watching a 3D movies, when as far as I’m concerned, all movies already are in 3D?
Post what? It was entirely computer generated image. 3D versions just requiring rendering two images for each frame. Of scenes that were composed and lit in three dimensions even if ultimately they’d be viewed in just two.
I have a gig reviewing family movies. So I see a lot of 3D animation and a fair amount of 3D live action. (With the side benefit of not having to pay for it).
My issues with 3D:
Even when well done it seems to often cause eye strain for me. It isn’t uncommon for me to what more static scenes with the glasses on my forehead and then I flip them back down for an action sequence where the 3D is often more relevant.
As mentioned, it isn’t 3D it, it is lots of 2D layers. There’s no parallax, there’s no real sense of physicality added by the extra dimension.
Theaters already often underlight their projection. Wearing glasses that further diminish the amount of light making it to your eyeballs just worsens the situation (when doing the “without glasses” thing on dark scenes in live action there is often detail more readily apparent when slightly fuzzy without the glasses than can be seen with the glasses).
Even when it does improve the movie, I’d be hard pressed to say it has ever improved a movie by 33% (which is the upcharge my local theater charges–I paid $16 for Hugo in 3D versus the 2D $11.75.
Even if James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, and Martin Scorsese can do great things with 3D (though, in my opinion Spielberg and Scorsese did not) it just encourages all the other people to do horrible things.
If you paid any attention to what they said, most dislike it because the glasses are uncomfortable, they cannot see in 3-D, or the effect makes them nauseous because of something physical. It’s not a matter of taste and should not be trivialized like you just did: the movie industry is going to lose a large percentage of their viewers by pushing it too hard.
I’m probably wrong, but it looked like they just did a quickie 3D conversion to a 2D animated movie instead of really making it for 3D. I’m not sure if that is possible, but it is how it looked. Avatar and Christmas Carol looked way more natural in their 3D effect.
Sometimes, in SF, you see that TV has been replaced by a hologram projector (the effect appears to be like theater-in-the-round in your living room). This was portrayed in Wild Palms. I wonder if that will ever happen, and if there will be any actual market demand for it?
I am paying attention and have heard all of the rationales. I do trivialize them, because ultimately they are trivial.
I understand that the stereoblind may be a bit bummed, but I am not so sympathetic that I’m about to stick to 2D out of solidarity. Motion sickness? This is a natural consequence of your brain being tricked into accepting what’s happening on the screen as more “real,” and your inner ear rebelling at the disonnance. It goes away. People had the same complains about Cinerama, large screen presentations, and “3D” (non-stereo) gaming. You get used to it, and it’s worth it. Glasses not comfortable? It isn’t going to be long before this complain is on the same level with “Bowling shoes are ugly” or “Rental skates are smelly.” I have a pair of (non-prescription) Oakley passive polarized 3D glasses. They’re brighter and more comfortable. You know, ‘cuz I like going to the movies, and it’ worth it for me.
I doubt it - not because of the technical difficulties, but because there is value in having a single POV for composition. A truly holographic display could be useful for some things - but delivering a cinematic narrative isn’t really one of them.
Another vote for more “annoyed by” than hate. But I admit the effect works well to achieve its intended purpose … the purpose being, of course, to find a way to get us to pay even more per ticket and make the studios even more money.
The 3D glasses fail to work well over my glasses most of the time. When they do the effect is irritating and distracting, not enhancing, and certainly not really three dimensional (or even 2 1/2 D).
I am very happy for you Larry that you enjoy the effect and are willing to pay more for the experience. I don’t think any one however is looking for your solidarity, merely answering the question of why many of us are so underwhelmed by being asked to pay more to experience something we’d rather not deal with. As long as there are enough [del]suckers[/del] connoiseurs like you, willing to spend extra, they will keep releasing them, don’t worry.
Not worried at all. The fact is that it adds value, and anything that gets butts in seats will have staying power.
Like a lot of people, my cinema-going is largely reserved for spectacle. For most things, I can wait for Blu-ray. If it’s something that’s going to look absolutely kick-ass on a huge screen, I’ll get out there. Being shot in 3D greatly enhances a movie’s chances of looking absolutely kick-ass. Being shot by Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Stephen Spielberg, Wim Wenders, etc. and in 3D? Dead cert.
Personally, I think it’s a mistake on the part of the theatre chains to add a 3D surcharge. Far better to use the approach that worked so well for Dolby and THX - just increase the cost of admission by 50% during the five year period that the tech is adopted. Most people will have a better time and therefore keep coming back, and the BBS systems don’t get overwhelmed with the “I don’t want to pay another $.50 for something that just gives me a headache and accelerates peristalsis” sort of comments.
Right now, we’re where we were at with audio in the mid-sixties, where many people complained that stereo was a silly gimmick that distracted from the music.
In what parallel universe did that happen? Because I have been to at least 50 movies a year since I was a teen, am now 51, and have NEVER paid a surcharge for Dolby and THX.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
He never claimed there was a surcharge. He said that, in the period during which these technologies were introduced, overall entry prices rose by about 50%.
Now i don’t know whether that is actually true or not, but if it is, then it’s not the same as a surcharge.
Didn’t see that happen either. Didn’t see a sharp rise in prices or a drop in prices after five years. This isn’t Great Debates, but a cite would be nice.
I just searched and found this data from the National Association of Theater Owners website. I plugged it into Google Tables and got this.
Doesn’t look like there was any spike in prices as theaters increased the number of speakers and amps by a factor of 6.
I’m with you. I work in computers, right next to an audio/video department. They’ve got a giant 3D TV/Blu-Ray set up going right now and I decided it was time to check into this 3D business.
I put on the glasses, prepared to be wowed by the sheer awesomeness of Avatar…
What I saw looked like a bunch of 2D images layered over each other. It did not look natural at all. The people looked like cardboard cutouts being moved around on a stage.
I also had a fierce headache after about ten seconds of this. So I say forget 3D, it’s definitely not worth the cost (as the movie, player and TV all have to be 3D for any of it to work) and it’s not worth the literal headaches. It’s a novelty until someone builds an actual holodeck.
I don’t much care for 3D but if I had to see something in 3D I’d refuse to pay extra for it. I’d buy a ticket to the 2D version, or something else altogether. I haven’t had to do that for a while though. Luckily I had free passes to the 3D of Hugo and Cave of Forgotten Dreams. Hugo was brilliant in 3D, but I saw it again in 2D and it was brilliant in 2D too. Only a few minutes of Cave were in 3D, at the beginning and at the end. The rest of the movie is in 2D. Why would I pay extra to just see a few minutes of a movie in 3D? Even if it is Werner Herzog? I saw Tintin in 2D and liked it just fine. I see no reason to go back and watch it again in 3D. I might, but I’m not going to go out of my way to do it, and I’m certainly not going to pay extra for it.
The glasses over glasses were a problem until I bought a pair of clip-on Real 3D glasses to wear over my own glasses and they work just fine. They’re just like clip-on sunglasses. Best $3.50 I ever spent.
Just for fun, I put the ticket prices into the CPI Inflation Calculator, and contrary to what Larry Mudd said ticket prices actually declined during the period from 1971 through 1982 when Dolby Surround sound was introduced to theaters (Star Wars AKA “A New Hope” was the big driver for Dolby in theaters)
