3D or not 3D - Fad or Lasting technology?

[samsong]

no movie will ever need 3d.  it'll always be more distracting than immersive, and that filmmakers contend the opposite to be true is beyond me.  the times that i've seen it ever service the film are in animated movies (cloudy with a chance of meatballs remains the best example in my mind) since the effect isn't as jarring as it is with live action, and jackass 3d, where it's utterly frivolous.  

[Jeremy Blackman]

no movie will ever need 3d.  it'll always be more distracting than immersive, and that filmmakers contend the opposite to be true is beyond me.  the times that i've seen it ever service the film are in animated movies (cloudy with a chance of meatballs remains the best example in my mind) since the effect isn't as jarring as it is with live action, and jackass 3d, where it's utterly frivolous. 

What did you think about Avatar's 3D?

I thought it was completely immersive and tasteful.

[polkablues]

This is my typical experience at any 3D movie: spend the first 20 minutes uncomfortably adjusting to it, then spend the rest of the movie forgetting that it even is in 3D except when something pops out of the screen at you and I'm yanked right out of the story.

A list of all the movies that were improved by being 3D:
Piranha
Drive Angry

...that is all.

[samsong]

i didn't see it in 2d but i imagine seeing it on the imax screen without 3d would have been much different.  avatar is essentially an animated movie so it fits with my statement about animated films being more conducive to the experience but i didn't find that i found myself enthralled with the fact that was in 3d.  it just isn't that cool to me, nor effective as a means of immersion. 

[Ravi]

Avatar in IMAX 3D was impressive. I think 3D works better if the image is filling your vision. Its weird when you see the edges of the screen in 3D on a normal-sized screen. I haven't seen a film yet where 3D was as crucial to it as color is to The Wizard of Oz or widescreen is to Lawrence of Arabia.

I think it was Walter Murch who made the point about immersion, how when you're engrossed in a regular movie, you're "in" the movie without any awareness of your physical relation to the movie, but for a 3D movie you're very aware of your vantage point.

[Sleepless]

I agree with all of this.

I think I mentioned in the Hugo thread, it was distracting how character's faces would leer out of the screen, but the top of their head was out of frame, so it just didn't work. Yes, there were some cool shots where the camera led us through the location, but it didn't really benefit from 3D, it was Scorsese after all. I don't believe I've seen a movie in IMAX 3D (possibly Avatar?) but I can see how that maybe works slightly better. I did like Avatar's use of 3D - particularly the use of particles of dust in the air which made the sense of 3D look more real, but then again it was the first film to relaunch this new era of 3D so we could have been more forgiving since it was more of a novelty. Now every other film uses it and it really doesn't work. Have any of you seen the 3D trailer for the money-grabbing re-release of Beauty And The Beast? It looks terrible.

Like Samsong, I remain perplexed why filmmakers are so keen on using this new tool. I guess I can kind of understand some prolific directors from wanting to try it out on a one-film basis since it is a new toy to play with, but on the whole it's just a cynical way of increasing revenue. Certainly the studios must be pushing it more than the filmmakers themselves in most circumstances (Cameron and Lucas excepted).

It's rare that I'll make the effort to see a film in 3D, but when I do it's because I hear good things about it and feel compelled to go see it in the theater because I know I won't have an opportunity to do so again. So in that sense 3D is working for studios and theaters wanting to squeeze a little more cash out of the box office, but I'm nearly always disappointed. 3D is a novelty. The only films I can see it really working for are things like Harold And Kumar 3D because it's used for pure novelty value and everyone is in on it.

[RegularKarate]

I moved this conversation over since it's a conversation that's been had almost every time a 3D movie comes out, but the topic lasts longer than the interest in the movie.

I found this interesting... the Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin reported that their box office was up this year instead of the national average (which was, of course down)... they listed the top sales in 2011 specific to the Alamo:

1) THE KING'S SPEECH
2) TRUE GRIT
3) BRIDESMAIDS
4) THE HANGOVER PART II
5) SUPER 8
6) THE HELP
7) HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2 2D
8 ) THE MUPPETS
9) TREE OF LIFE
10) THOR 3D

Keep in mind, this is a "cool" theater and a lot of the people that go to it are more into film than most.  Almost any time a 3D movie comes out, they offer both versions.  There was only one movie in 3D on the list and it was at the bottom of the list.  Even a movie as hugely popular as Harry Potter, people chose to see in 2D.

Anyway, not saying it means anything, just found it interesting.

[Sleepless]

Firstly, thanks for moving the thread.

Secondly, I forget where this stat came from, but I remember hearing recently that while 3D gross was helping bring in extra cash at the box office, the 2D releases of films were still bringing in far more than their 3D equivalent. Now, it could still be that some cinemas don't have 3D screens, but the optimist in me wants to believe that moviegoers are growing tiresome of 3D films or at least recognizing that the extra dollars for a 3D ticket just aren't worth it. I know we've already had this debate but this is one of those times when Xixax needs to be a place where we can butt our heads against the wall repeatedly.

[pete]

filmmakers have always tried new toys, but traditionally they're tried on other formats first, such as car commercials or music videos. that whole industry is shifting because of the way people watch TV (they don't anymore) and also how a lot of these technologies now deal with the theatrical experience. But yeah, that's what the accomplished guys do. It's like celebrities with twitter.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I think it was Walter Murch who made the point about immersion, how when you're engrossed in a regular movie, you're "in" the movie without any awareness of your physical relation to the movie, but for a 3D movie you're very aware of your vantage point.

That's really interesting. So basically people don't realize that 2D movies were already effectively perceived as 3D? And that the awareness created by unsubtle 3D (ironically) flattens the experience?

If you don't count Disneyland in the early 90s, I've only seen one movie in 3D (which was Avatar in IMAX 3D twice), so I can't speak with any authority on this, but from the horrible 3D trailers I saw before those screenings, it seems to ring true.

I'm sure Avatar was just on the edge throughout the whole movie, and only the subtlety of its 3D kept it immersive.

I used to go to this amusement park when I was younger, and I always saw whatever was showing at their IMAX theater (it's this one, apparently one of the earliest IMAX theaters). It wasn't 3D, and yet it was always profoundly immersive. The literal floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall screen is still superior to any IMAX screen I've seen since. (I think the screen was also curved to increase immersiveness.)

[pete]

re: immersive experience:
I think it really just depends on the image quality of the film, and what the director is able to do with it. Avatar created a planet that was so rich in details that, when shown on 2D, looked just like any old cartoon. There was also a horrible movie last year, Step-Up 3D, that had an amazing end credit sequence when a guy was popping with every joint on his hand (tutting I think is what the dance is called), and it was breathtaking in 3D because a 2D interpretation of his performance just would not have done it justice.
So I don't think Walter Murch's point (which is only conditionally true) is a sufficient dig against 3D cinema. Most people can probably get engrossed by their television or ipads, but it doesn't make the big screens futile. Likewise, becoming absorbed by flat projection is by no means evidence that 3D will take one out of it.

[Jeremy Blackman]

So I don't think Walter Murch's point (which is only conditionally true) is a sufficient dig against 3D cinema.

But it's true under those conditions, right?

It seems like 3D has to reach a very high bar (like Avatar did) to sidestep all those problems.

[Ravi]

re: immersive experience:
I think it really just depends on the image quality of the film, and what the director is able to do with it. Avatar created a planet that was so rich in details that, when shown on 2D, looked just like any old cartoon. There was also a horrible movie last year, Step-Up 3D, that had an amazing end credit sequence when a guy was popping with every joint on his hand (tutting I think is what the dance is called), and it was breathtaking in 3D because a 2D interpretation of his performance just would not have done it justice.
So I don't think Walter Murch's point (which is only conditionally true) is a sufficient dig against 3D cinema. Most people can probably get engrossed by their television or ipads, but it doesn't make the big screens futile. Likewise, becoming absorbed by flat projection is by no means evidence that 3D will take one out of it.

Wim Wenders' upcoming dance film Pina was shot in 3D, and I'm looking forward to seeing that. I think 3D works fine with documentaries or other non-fiction kinds of films where its okay to be aware every now and then that you are watching a movie. That kind of awareness kills 3D fiction movies for me. The 3D in Hugo was well done, but even though I liked the film, I was taken out of it by noticing the 3D effects.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams used 3D well because it documented the space of a cave that few will ever get to enter even if they had the time or money.

As for Harry Potter's success in 3D, typically when a 3D movie is released in a franchise that has previously been 2D, it doesn't do as well in 3D. Wasn't one of the Twilight movies converted to 3D? I don't think the last one was, though, so it looks like 3D didn't do so well for that franchise. I think the format will be around for the forseeable future, though I don't think EVERYTHING will be in 3D, as some people claim. 3D seems to have plateaued in the US, though it is doing well in countries like Russia and China. Remember, non-US box office is increasingly important to Hollywood.

3D requires a thoughtful approach to shooting and editing, so I'm skeptical of 3D-converted films where 3D was not a consideration from the start, even if the 3D effect itself is good.

[pete]

I remember being pretty depressed coming out of avatar, thinking, how the hell will anyone be able to learn that and keep his job, then I realized no one really knew how to do what they did in Avatar and it was just an one-off. I'd love to make some food porn in 3D though.

as for the taking out of the story thing - there are 1000 distractions inside a movie theater, and I don't buy that being aware that you're watching a movie can be a dealbreaker. having to put on glasses is just the latest of distractions, I can't believe that bathroom breaks, strangers sitting next to you, popcorn smells, sound of the projector...etc., can keep engrossed in there while the illusion of things popping off screen finally puts the nail on the coffin.

[Ravi]

as for the taking out of the story thing - there are 1000 distractions inside a movie theater, and I don't buy that being aware that you're watching a movie can be a dealbreaker. having to put on glasses is just the latest of distractions, I can't believe that bathroom breaks, strangers sitting next to you, popcorn smells, sound of the projector...etc., can keep engrossed in there while the illusion of things popping off screen finally puts the nail on the coffin.

Unless those things are outrageously disturbing, they don't take me out of movies. I can tune out most distractions outside the film, but when a film is providing a distraction from itself, I have problems. YMMV. I don't mind 3D in frivolous blockbusters or horror movies (not that I watch many of either), but its hard for me not to be distracted by it in movies that ask to be taken seriously.

Part of why I only see one or two 3D movies a year is that most of them are shitty movies, 3D or not.