3D in Cinema's??

[taksraven]

Just interested in hearing some opinions on this matter. Don't want this thread to just be the "Lets bag 3D" pinata, but I think its going to become more and more interesting how this medium goes as time goes on.

As we all well know now, it seems that just about every action/SF film that is slated for release over the next few years will be in 3D. Admittedly the technology has been vastly improved and it is possible to watch such films in relative comfort, but will they really be the sort of thing that Cinema's have been screaming for for years to increase the allegedly decreasing box-office turnover. (I say allegedly 'cause I think that 2009 was supposed to be one of the most profitable box-office years EVER)

But even then, with 3D tv screens being developed, will cinema be able to maintain its hold over its audience.

What really got me thinking about starting this thread though, and the reason why I think it needs its own thread rather than being dumped into the technology thread, is the fact that I was reading on Rotten Tomato's that there are plans for the Star Wars films to be re-released in 3D in the cinema's. I know this has already happened with the first two Toy Story films but with the possiblity that every big action-blockbuster from the last 50 years might be "adapted" to 3D and re-released in cinema's, is this the sort of thing that we want to see? I know that the studio's will love it. Getting to release stuff that is already made back into the cinema's to make more money. (Actually, does anybody know how much it costs to adapt pre-existing material to 3D), but I wonder what the point is anyway, since older films were not made with this format in mind. I can imagine that there will be pressure for films like the LOTR series to be converted quickly.

Just interested in what others are thinking. Is this just the latest fad that everybody will jump on for a while, with the possiblity that audiences may tire of them, or is this the real future of cinema?

[EXO]

I feel like its a fad. 3D is a gimmick unlike going from stereo to surround sound and from black and white to color. Besides, whats the long term effect of wearing those glasses everytime you watch a movie or TV?

[taksraven]

Besides, whats the long term effect of wearing those glasses everytime you watch a movie or TV?

Actually, thats a really interesting question too and I bet there has been sweet FA research into that. I know that some people who wear glasses hate having to wear *two* pairs in the cinemas and I was having trouble focussing on the screen during Avatar (but I suspect that was more due to the fact that I need glasses)

Taksraven

[VF-19]

I don't mind the fact that movies are moving towards 3D, but what I DON'T want to see are those gimick 3D shots. Avatar was great in 3D, but it won't look stupid in 2D, like Monsters Vs. Aliens.

[eugimon]

There are screens that do 3D without glasses, been around for a while. They're just expensive and require you to view it in a relatively small sweet spot. I'm waiting for that technology to go mainstream. Wearing glasses in the movies is okay, but I'm biting on this current generation of 3D capable TVs

[sketchley]

I know that some people who wear glasses hate having to wear *two* pairs in the cinemas

Wear glasses. Hate the idea of having to wear a second pair overtop. Even if they fit (which those one-size-fit-all types usually don't) then the field of view is restricted as the 3D lens are further away.

IMHO 3D reality should just be left where it is (reality), and movies should remain the 2D escapes from reality that they are. At the very least, the removal of 3D will REDUCE ticket prices. How many of you appreciate the added ticket costs for 3D?

Edited January 24, 2010 by sketchley

[Ivan]

I certainly hope 3D won't be the way in the future. I don't mind watching 3D movies every now and then, but not everyone. Maybe I am too old school, but I still find the effect distractive

[kanedaestes]

It's just funny to see it's like the 50's all over again. When TV first came out cinema's had to find ways to keep people in their seats, hence the huge 3D boom of that time. Anyway with the current success of 3D films as of late I don't see them going away anytime soon, and with our current technology it makes it more comfortable to view these films. Face it, it is the future of action, sci-fi, horror and animated films.

Edited January 24, 2010 by kanedaestes

[Marzan]

Actually, thats a really interesting question too and I bet there has been sweet FA research into that. I know that some people who wear glasses hate having to wear *two* pairs in the cinemas and I was having trouble focussing on the screen during Avatar (but I suspect that was more due to the fact that I need glasses)

Taksraven

I wear glasses so I have to confess it was slightly uncomfortable to wear the glasses to begin with...At least a couple of people I know reported having a bit of a headache after using the 3-D glasses.

I suppose that the technology will improve and the glasses will get better and more comfortable. But I don't think 3-d will become mainstream anytime soon...

[Duke Togo]

There are some films I'd certainly like to see in 3D. But not all of them.

[taksraven]

There are some films I'd certainly like to see in 3D. But not all of them.

Thats the thing, do we really need the Star Wars films, etc in 3D? Isn't Mr Lucas rich enough?

Taksraven

[azrael]

3D is coming to a living room near you (CNet - Jan. 15, 2009)

I think for 3D to really take off is to get rid of the eyeglasses. If that can happen in the theaters, then the chances of it pushing farther and farther into the consumer market stands a better chance. There are screens that can do it now but as eugimon mentioned, the cost is higher and the effect isn't as good so we end up going back to the eyeglasses. So I'm gonna go with fad for now.

[Wanzerfan]

I saw Beowulf in digital 3-D over at the Rave theater, and I have to say it was done pretty well. I'ts nice to see a film without the indigo haze.

[kanedaestes]

I wear glasses so I have to confess it was slightly uncomfortable to wear the glasses to begin with...At least a couple of people I know reported having a bit of a headache after using the 3-D glasses.

I suppose that the technology will improve and the glasses will get better and more comfortable. But I don't think 3-d will become mainstream anytime soon...

It's pretty mainstream all ready. More or less every month or two there is one if not two movies released in 3D

[anime52k8]

3D sucks.

/thread.

[Duke Togo]

Thats the thing, do we really need the Star Wars films, etc in 3D? Isn't Mr Lucas rich enough?

Taksraven

Star Wars, yes. But most non-effects driven films don't need it, and shouldn't get that treatment.

[Ghost Train]

I've always struggled with 3D... makes me a bit nauseous and headache-y. Perhaps it has something to do with my LASIK corrected vision. In any event, I see it as more of a novelty.

[dreamweaver13]

I would be perfectly fine if movies continued to be 2D. While 3D movies are indeed spectactular if done right, and some movies (i.e. Avatar) are breathtaking when rendered in 3D, it's not something I would like to watch every day.

If a special movie comes along that should be seen in 3D, I would. Just for the experience. But upon repeat viewing, I would go for 2D. Ultimately, a movie is a story. And the story does not suffer just because I will suddenly watch it in 2D.

p.s. yeah, i also wear glasses, and wearing the 3D glasses on top of them is a pain.

Star Wars, yes. But most non-effects driven films don't need it, and shouldn't get that treatment.

Actually, I might even change my opinion on 3D technology if it focused less on sci-fi action scenes, and more on the aesthetics of the actresses. For example, I certainly wouldn't mind Jessica Alba's and Carla Gugino's scenes in Sin City in glorious 3D. Even on 2nd viewing. And third.

[Graham]

I also feel (hope) 3D is just a short-term fad.

I don't mind seeing the occasional 3D movie (say once a year), but I don't want every movie I watch at the cinema to be in 3D.

I don't have any physical problem with 3D, no headaches, nausea, dizzyness etc, I just don't think it's necessary for the majority of movies to be in 3D.

Heck, even my 5 year old son is getting tired of seeing movies in 3D, with just about every kids cartoon I took him to see last year being in 3D (Ice Age 3, Monsters vs Aliens, Up).

Graham

[Vile]

No doubt 3D cinema will continue to get better and better in technical terms. At the moment I don't see how it can be usefully applied to most types of film, unless it's so good that you no longer notice it (that's one of the good things about Avatar's 3D, it was rarely "in your face").

Hey, once proper 3D takes off in the cinema, I bet they'll put in lots of hidden bits so all the completists have to see the movie three times from different parts of the cinema, just to make sure they haven't missed anything! And no doubt we will all be forced to buy 3D TVs when they stop broadcasting in 2D before the technology is good enough.

[Penguin]

Current 3D technology ain't too bad. Using polarization cuts out a lot of brightness (night scenes in Avatar without the 3D are really brilliant and striking) and the stereoscopic technique always looks off to me for near-field images (i.e. the stuff that pops "out" of the screen). That being said, the 3D effect for depth of field in Avatar was really effective. I think I still prefer 2D, but the occasional 3D is a nice diversion.

[Gubaba]

No doubt 3D cinema will continue to get better and better in technical terms. At the moment I don't see how it can be usefully applied to most types of film, unless it's so good that you no longer notice it (that's one of the good things about Avatar's 3D, it was rarely "in your face").

Hey, once proper 3D takes off in the cinema, I bet they'll put in lots of hidden bits so all the completists have to see the movie three times from different parts of the cinema, just to make sure they haven't missed anything! And no doubt we will all be forced to buy 3D TVs when they stop broadcasting in 2D before the technology is good enough.

I haven't seen Avatar yet, but I thought 3D was used VERY well in Coraline. First intelligent use of 3D I've seen.

[big F]

Having worked for one of the companies behind it (not gonna name them) I can certainly say that they want to make it main stream. I some ways I can see this as a bad thing, Its kinda saying you will watch in 3D because we say so. Some films would be kinda pointless in 3D others will be made by it e.g Avatar. The problem will be that some studios will over do it. The best 3D will be where you dont really notice it as it just seems natural and "real" with the occasional POPing bity of eye candy bit.

As far as the glasses are many of my friends wear em and have all said why dont they make em in versions like the clip on sunglasses atachment you can get that clip on to your "normal" glasses. I know they are a bit old school but at least you wouldnt have to try and perch two pairs on your head.

I did look at taking the lenses out and fitting them into some of my old glases frames, (I dont neeed glasses anymore) the frames are minimal and not so obvious when looking out of them. Plus they fit better and dont look like knock off RayBan copied copies.

Home based 3D is still in it's early days although not too bad some games are available in it i.e Avatar. Sky UK are going to have a 3D set of channels but your gonna need a t.v with 120hz capability and a set of glasses to use it.

In the long run I think it will only not be just a fad based cinema thing and gimic for the overly rich, provided that technology gives reliable screens that dont need glasses. At present the T.V monitors I have worked with are o.k at best, beaten soundly by hi quality HD screens.

[dreamweaver13]

Here's a thought:

You know what would have been a good movie to watch for the very first time in full 3D?

Ringu.

[Mog]

I don't know.

Any time I see a movie ad or trailer with the phrase "in 3D," it makes me wonder if they are trying to use the 3D effects to distract me from the mediocre plot.

Maybe I'm just too contrarian, but I find the 3D tag to be something that makes me less enthusiastic to see a movie.

[Lott Sheen]

3D is coming to a living room near you (CNet - Jan. 15, 2009)

pfff, 3D already came to peoples living rooms (broadcast AND home video) in the early `80s.

[RedWolf]

2-D will never go out of style nor will 3-D replace it. Why? Because for someone to watch 3-D they will need a set of eyes. By set I mean two eyes.

Disabled persons will cry foul if 2-D is taken away from cinemas as it is a discrimination against the disabled.

Take Avatar. Its pitch is that it is 3-D but it will not be appreciated by persons with only one eyed vision.

[Twoducks]

If I go to see a 3D film I expect to get a different experience than in 2D. So far I've only seen Avatar and Clash of the titans. The first one was really nice but the second one was a rip off. You had elongated backgrounds and that was it... the real 3D was with the ending credits...

One problem I have, and maybe it's due to having to wear the 3D glasses over my normal ones, is that I can't focus as good or I see choped motion blur. Also, the darker image you get kills some of the color. Avatar in 2D stands very well and looks much more richer in colors.

[sketchley]

I can't focus as good or I see choped motion blur.

You're just getting that with 3D? It's happened with almost every 2D movie I've seen in the theatre that uses CG in the majority of a quickly panning shot.

Anyway, I'm with Mog - 3D is just a gimmick to distract the viewer from bad writing. Gimmie a good story with good characters directed by a good direct. I don't need any gimmicks, please!

[kung flu]

2-D will never go out of style nor will 3-D replace it. Why? Because for someone to watch 3-D they will need a set of eyes. By set I mean two eyes.

Disabled persons will cry foul if 2-D is taken away from cinemas as it is a discrimination against the disabled.

Take Avatar. Its pitch is that it is 3-D but it will not be appreciated by persons with only one eyed vision.

I've only got one working eye, and I struggle with 3D movies, its really annoying now that some cinemas only show 3D versions of movies. When i put on the specs i see a normal 2D picture, but without them the picture is blurry which i suppose is ment to be the 3D effect.

I went to see avatar, all my mates were talking about the 3D effects, but i was the only one saying the movie was actually long and boring.

[sketchley]

I went to see avatar, all my mates were talking about the 3D effects, but i was the only one saying the movie was actually long and boring.

You're not the only one. One of my coworkers saw the movie and the verdict was, "rather simple". Which is a polite way of saying predictable, aka boring.

[ly000001]

Like most of you, I've generally dismissed 3D movies as being a gimmick, and like Roger Ebert, I've been skeptical of seeing it used in a "serious" movie.

However, the other day I thought of Christopher Nolan's "Memento" and recalled that the story worked only because of its "gimmick" of being a backwards movie. It would be interesting to see if somebody can find a clever use of 3D film technology to tell a story that couldn't exist or work well without it. Of course, if that movie doesn't innovate cinematic storytelling, or at least result in further inventive uses, then 3D will continue to be an unnecessary addition to movies.

[jenius]

are they making 3D porn yet? Porn pushes technology right?

[ruskiiVFaussie]

Alice in Wonderland was my first 3D cinema exp. I loved it, i was wowed.

Then i saw How to train your Dragon in 3D, that was pretty damn cool, seeing hiccup and Toothless flying around was a thrill!

When they took on the king Dragon, flying up and down that was really worth the 3D admission.

Shoji should do something like this.

[Ghadrack]

are they making 3D porn yet? Porn pushes technology right?

They are, I saw some expo on G4 a couple months ago, there were a couple companies there selling TV's and Download Boxes who already had a dozen or so 3-D movies and live streaming 3-D content.

I gotta say though, there is definitely the horrifying capacity to have some serious "What has been seen, cannot be unseen" moments if this technology is used for evil. Imagine

2G1C or worse yet Tubgirl

in 3-D. The world doesn't need to go there.