3D in Cinema's??

[sketchley]

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.

Thanks for the link. Very interesting - especially the scientific and historical aspects of the arguement he presents. Probably the most disgusting (aside from 3D in general being an excuse for movie studios to charge more money), is that there are faux IMAX theatres!

Anyhow, interesting point on "Memento". Though, I think Ebert's arguement still stands, as 3D is taking away the ability for director's to focus our attention on what and how they want us to see something - which is exactly what the director of "Memento" did; force us to view the story through the eyes of someone with memory problems.

[Radd]

I'm fine with 3D. It's an added element to the visuals. As technology improves, it really could become more and more like the jump from black and white to colour. Avatar was the closest I've seen to that. I'm hoping we'll soon see *good* movies that manage the effect as well as that. In the 50's 3D was a fad because it was a chintzy effect used primarily for extremely cheesy movies. These days, the effect is getting a lot better. Avatar was a huge success, if some good movies come along that really make good use of the technology I think it will be here to stay.

On the other hand, if we get a glut of cheesy movies and quick cash-ins that fail to make good use of the technology, I think people will get tired of it and stop shelling out for it at the theatre.

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.

Ebert is also the guy that says videogames can't be art. His opinions don't mean much.

[Radd]

Though, I think Ebert's arguement still stands, as 3D is taking away the ability for director's to focus our attention on what and how they want us to see something

I don't believe there is a basis to this statement. Just because 3D is used in bad movies, doesn't mean it can't be used in good movies. It doesn't take away anything.

[reddsun1]

"3D in Cinema's??, Is this the way of the future??"

Well, it's a way into your wallet, that's for sure.

Any speculation on whether this new fad will increase average production costs--and ticket prices--for movies that utilize it?

[reddsun1]

On the other hand, if we get a glut of cheesy movies and quick cash-ins that fail to make good use of the technology, I think people will get tired of it and stop shelling out for it at the theatre.

"Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people." --anon

[Dynaman]

Any speculation on whether this new fad will increase average production costs--and ticket prices--for movies that utilize it?

No need to speculate, it already has caused higher ticket prices and production costs.

On the production side, digital film making (virtual sets, etc...) will help bring the cost back down - but the ticket premium for 3D is here to stay.

[Lott Sheen]

No need to speculate, it already has caused higher ticket prices and production costs.

On the production side, digital film making (virtual sets, etc...) will help bring the cost back down - but the ticket premium for 3D is here to stay.

I dont think digital sets will EVER get the same authentic feel of actual sets, actually I have noticed that SFX heavy film makers have been going back to solid sets and large scale models ever since Star Wars episode III (completely digital backgrounds and sets, completely fake atmosphere to the whole movie). Just two examples of the backlash against full CGI are the new Star Trek and the latest Robin Hood.

[Snail00]

Never bought into the hype.

Trust me Stone Wash denim will also make a short comeback too. Things always get recycled. Im fine with entertainment as is. I forget its 2D if the story is good and never really think about the viewing experience while immersed in the story. I really have enough gadgets around my work place and home for self deception.

Someone here mentioned even with HD our eyes do not view the world like that. This is so true. I notice a lot of the things my dad says about this new technology. We walk past a sony store and he says I dont need to see every pore in someones face it just not normal. Or the 1080P with Lite Bright screens when he says they are blinding. I notice this too. Or when he criticized me on my desire to get a samsung vs a Sony flat panel tv. The comment revolved around the molding. The samsung is beautiful to look at but the gloss reflects like a mirror and you notice your environment basically noticing two realities, it got annoying. The fact we keep trying to invent ways to entertain ourselves more says where we are as a race

Just my viewpoint thats all

[taksraven]

THE GREAT GATSBY IN 3D!!!! YAY!!!!!

[HappyPenguins]

THE GREAT GATSBY IN 3D!!!! YAY!!!!!

not if they're going to modernize it.........

I want my 1920's please

[anime52k8]

not if they're going to modernize it.........

I want my 1920's please

I want that book to burn in a f*cking fire.

[Ghost Train]

BATTLEFIELD EARTH 3D PLEAZZZ!!111!!!

[HappyPenguins]

BATTLEFIELD EARTH 3D PLEAZZZ!!111!!!

Noooo even better.. WATERWORLD 3D!

[BeyondTheGrave]

Noooo even better.. WATERWORLD 3D!

Or The Postman in 3D!!

[HappyPenguins]

Or The Postman in 3D!!

Troll 2 in 3D!

[areaseven]

THIS in 3D!

[HappyPenguins]

THIS in 3D!

oh dear lord.....

[big F]

Saw Gulliver's Travels the other week and I experienced my first bit of slight negativity. The place in the cinema I sat was the same as I always sit, so not sure it was that but I found it a bit blurry some times. Could it be that the sweet spot can be different on different films or just that the Projection was off slightly, not sure but the next film I see in 3D (seen a few now) I will hopefully not have the blurry bits. Good film though non the less.

The film Co's need to know that not all films need to be in 3D. The theatres need to know that just because its in 3D does not mean you can charge double the amount. The local cinema to me sells tickets at half the price of the multiplex down the road but uses the same screen and projector, plus its not owned by a massive conglomerate.

Edited January 12, 2011 by big F

[azrael]

The film Co's need to know that not all films need to be in 3D.

Frankly, I see being in a dark theater with people eating, screaming, and talking back to a series of images synced to an audio track "immersed" enough. There's an art to good film making. Making it 3D doesn't magically make it good.

[Nicaragua]

I just saw Tron Legacy in 3D and i thought it was pretty cool.

3D is definitley a gimmick but its something that can make certain films more spectacular and so i think its here to stay. Its not like it is trying to replace normal cinema, all the cinema's where i live have 2D showings and 3D showings of the same movie so its a customer choice whether or not you want to pay for the 3D wow factor.

Ive only seen 3 films in 3D - Avatar, Beowulf, and Tron Legacy and if i was going to watch those films again then i would choose the 2D option but for those first initial viewings then im glad i saw it in imax 3D, they were all awesome.

I would compare 3D to a theme park. Its good for the odd day out but if you went every day then it would get tiresome.

As for remaking old films like star wars in 3D then im not interested.

[HappyPenguins]

Frankly, I see being in a dark theater with people eating, screaming, and talking back to a series of images synced to an audio track "immersed" enough. There's an art to good film making. Making it 3D doesn't magically make it good.

I don't think they care about the 3D they just want more money for their crappy movies.

[atomicscissors]

Frankly, I see being in a dark theater with people eating, screaming, and talking back to a series of images synced to an audio track "immersed" enough. There's an art to good film making. Making it 3D doesn't magically make it good.

I don't think they care about the 3D they just want more money for their crappy movies.

This. Both of them.

[Max Jenius]

Meh. 3D is kinda neat, but doesn't really add much to the experience besides watching stupid people reach out and try to touch the image.

[big F]

Meh. 3D is kinda neat, but doesn't really add much to the experience besides watching stupid people reach out and try to touch the image.

Yeah takes me back to when I saw Avatar my first 3D film, the trailers had some cartoons where they fired missiles and they went "into" the audience, everyone either ducked or reached out.

[Graham]

As I've mentioned before, it's got to the stage where 3D is actually a turn off for me and if a movie is only shown in 3D, I will not pay to see it. If there is a choice between seeing it in 2D or 3D, I will always choose the 2D cinema.

Graham

[sketchley]

As I've mentioned before, it's got to the stage where 3D is actually a turn off for me and if a movie is only shown in 3D, I will not pay to see it. If there is a choice between seeing it in 2D or 3D, I will always choose the 2D cinema.

Graham

This +1.

[arrow]

same here. I'm not even interested in the new 3D lcd's.

[electric indigo]

You'd all sell your mothers for tickets to the 3D-remake of Macross Plus.

[taksraven]

You'd all sell your mothers for tickets to the 3D-remake of Macross Plus.

Yer probably right..... :P

[Dynaman]

You'd all sell your mothers for tickets to the 3D-remake of Macross Plus.

If I were hungry enough I would sell her for a loaf of bread too though.

Macross Plus in 3D I would go see, along with DYRL, or Frontier, or Yamato - any of them in 2D or 3D at a theater would be great, but it doesn't happen anywhere closer then NYC for me.

[sketchley]

You'd all sell your mothers for tickets to the 3D-remake of Macross Plus.

As I watched M+ in excess 10+ years ago, I'm actually quite disinterested in it.

So no, I can't be bothered to see Macross Plus, let alone be bothered to do anything about preparing financing for a 3D remake, if there was one.

[ae_productions]

3D has been a big failure so far, because you have to shoot the film for the median, and in order to do that, you have to understand that median. James Cameron did a great job of shooting Avatar for 3D. It was more of a compliment to the film, not a stupid gimmic to sell more tickets. Although, ironically, that was Cameron's foresight to push Avatar into becoming the biggest selling film of all time.

Films should be 2D unless it is conceived to be 3D from the get go. Or, if you have someone who knows how to use 3D.

[HappyPenguins]

3D just sucks and takes away from any story, hence why most shitty movies have been in 3D, cause they're failures in every other aspect.

[azrael]

See, we were ahead of the curve:

'Green Lantern,' 'Harry Potter' 2D Ticket Sales Outpace 3D on Fandango (Analyst) (Hollywood Reporter)

[Penguin]

See, we were ahead of the curve:

'Green Lantern,' 'Harry Potter' 2D Ticket Sales Outpace 3D on Fandango (Analyst) (Hollywood Reporter)

Amen to that. Nice to see that article mentioning the darkness of the images, which is what's driven me completely away from the gimmick. After accidentally seeing Thor in 3D (due to a showtime mix-up), I've ended up like Graham. If it ain't in 2D, I won't see it in the theatre.