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.
Quote from: samsong on January 05, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ravi on January 05, 2012, 11:04:16 PMI 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 (http://www.bigmoviezone.com/txshows/theaters/index.html?uniq=508), 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.)
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.
Quote from: pete on January 06, 2012, 03:44:00 PMSo 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.
Quote from: pete on January 06, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: pete on January 07, 2012, 01:45:43 AM
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.
Chinese censors cut Kate Winslet nude scene from Titanic 3D
State censors remove scene in which Rose models for Jack over fears audiences may try to touch actor's body
Source: Guardian
Chinese censors have excised the famous scene in which Kate Winslet poses naked from the new 3D version of Titanic over fears that audiences might reach out and try to touch the actor's body, says the Hollywood Reporter.
Titanic 3D opened with China's second-highest opening-day take ever, $7.3m, on Tuesday, but many filmgoers were disappointed to discover the James Cameron film was not quite what they remembered. An official at the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television said it had removed sections of the scene in which Leonardo DiCaprio's Jack paints Winslet's Rose in the nude "to avoid potential conflicts between viewers and out of consideration of building a harmonious ethical social environment". The official added: "Considering the vivid 3D effects, we fear that viewers may reach out their hands for a touch and thus interrupt other people's viewing."
Instead of seeing Winslet sprawled naked on a chaise longue, Chinese viewers got a head-and-shoulders close-up. One commenter wrote on the internet: "I waited 15 years to see 3D boobs, not a 3D iceberg."
Titanic 3D has also topped the UK box office chart, with £2.8m in ticket sales. But in Hong Kong, where it screened uncut, it was beaten by Chinese rom-com Love in the Buff which took $875,000 to Titanic's $594,000.
Meanwhile the power of Twitter has revealed that many UK filmgoers seeing Titanic for the first time were unaware that the movie was based on real-life events. "Is it bad that I didn't know the titanic was real? Always thought it was just a film: literally dont know what to say," tweeted one user. Other users responded: "You're kidding, right?" and "Yes, it's pretty bad I'm afraid."
That scene was cut from the film's original release in India but was restored for the 3D release.
Cool story Ravi.
I know. :yabbse-thumbup:
because people still go to see 3D movies for some reason, even though we all know by now FOR CERTAIN that they are unnecessary and look like shit, i have compiled a definitive list of the only movies ever made that have been worth watching in 3D:
the only movies where 3D is not a complete waste of time/money
avatar
cloudy with a chance of meatballs
hugo
piranha 3D
tintin if you watch it with the sound off
that's it. please add any if you can verify that 3D was not a completely shit afterthought. seriously i'm starting to be embarrassed when people here still go see 2D movies in 3D.
john carter felt like a pretty competent 3d movie, did anyone else even see it?
I think polka was the only one. I'm really regretting not seeing that on the big screen now, those battle scenes are gonna look measly on DVD. Anyways, did you hear that the reason it took Cabin in the Woods so long to come out ( it wrapped in '09 ) was because they were trying to convert it to 3D that whole time, against Goddard's wishes? Buncha zilches. I guess he shot it too dark for the 3D to even work.
Quote from: Reelist on May 09, 2012, 12:24:21 AMAnyways, did you hear that the reason it took Cabin in the Woods so long to come out ( it wrapped in '09 ) was because they were trying to convert it to 3D that whole time, against Goddard's wishes? Buncha zilches. I guess he shot it too dark for the 3D to even work.
Not entirely true. MGM also filed for Chapter 11 and the film was shelved until their financial matters were settled.
well, at least when mac points out your ignorance you always learn something.
I'm hoping it's a money making fad that's on it's way out soon! :yabbse-angry:
Plenty of bad decisions being made trying to get people back into the theater. Apparently, the next big thing is 4D (seats that move throughout the movie). I'm not kidding. (http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/empire-states/post/p1227) Hopefully, studios/distributors/cinemas will drop all this gimmicky shit before too much longer. If you want your blockbuster to be more immerse than the average popcorn flick? Shoot it in IMAX. What all your other movies to be awesome? Make sure they're not shit.
Quote from: Pubrick on May 09, 2012, 12:07:02 AM
please add any if you can verify that 3D was not a completely shit afterthought.
Cave of Forgotten Dreams worked in 3D. It captured the contours and spaces of the Chauvet cave.
I see about one or two 3D movies a year. I will for sure see The Hobbit in 3D, but I may see Prometheus in 2D, since it will be a darkly lit film. Not sure about the new Spider-man.
I almost always try to avoid it. The only instances where I actually sought out a 3D screening were Avatar and Cave of Forgotten Dreams. In both cases I found the 3D tolerable, but neither film was considerably enhanced by it. While the 3D was thematically relevant, Hugo looked way better in 2D. The 3D in Coppola's Twixt was dopey as hell. All others I've seen (admittedly, not many) were retrofitted 3D afterthoughts and all were uniformly shit.
I think my experience with The Avengers was the last nail in my 3D coffin. If 3D is the only option, I won't be seeing the film in theaters. Which sucks, because I'd really like to see Prometheus, Gravity, and Life of Pi when they come out.
Quote from: Sleepless on May 09, 2012, 09:32:18 AM
the next big thing is 4D (seats that move throughout the movie). I'm not kidding. (http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/empire-states/post/p1227)
I didn't read this article, but D-box is so old that it's already on the way out. The theaters that tried it here a few years ago have already stopped selling tickets to it. People don't like it. It's not the next big thing.
48fps will be the thing they try next and from what I gather, like 3-D, it's best saved for things like documentaries.
Imax seems the way to go, but there just aren't enough Imax theaters to make studios feel comfortable with that. Too bad.
D-box is moderately fun for the right type of movie. Not immersive, but fun regardless. Its biggest issue is the name, which you may or may not have noticed sounds like D-bag.
Every 3D movie is the same (Funny or Die) (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fd747e8af8/every-3d-movie-is-the-same)
Quote from: Ravi on July 19, 2012, 02:31:43 PM
Every 3D movie is the same (Funny or Die) (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fd747e8af8/every-3d-movie-is-the-same)
That's a funny video, but I'd say it's more that every movie is the same.
Quote from: Pubrick on May 09, 2012, 12:07:02 AM
because people still go to see 3D movies for some reason, even though we all know by now FOR CERTAIN that they are unnecessary and look like shit, i have compiled a definitive list of the only movies ever made that have been worth watching in 3D:
the only movies where 3D is not a complete waste of time/money
avatar
cloudy with a chance of meatballs
hugo
piranha 3D
tintin if you watch it with the sound off
that's it. please add any if you can verify that 3D was not a completely shit afterthought. seriously i'm starting to be embarrassed when people here still go see 2D movies in 3D.
I'd add Prometheus and Wim Wender's Pina to that list. Prometheus isn't NECESSARY, but damn. IMAX 3D served it justice for me. Even though it wasn't filmed in IMAX, I love that screen. I don't think Wim Wender's needs an explanation.