lamphorn

There seem to be a lot of strong feelings, aesthetic differences, and even strong philosophical arguments about the emerging 3D mania. This pops up in brief spats in various threads about particular films, but I don't think there's a thread in which to actually hash this out.

So here it is. Discuss what you are enamored by, revolted by, or just plain indifferent to about 3333333DDDDDDD

CKMorpheus

I like it... Who knows if it'll last, but I know it's not going away any time soon. People used to say Color was a gimmick. Suckers!

DVD Guy ATL

Citations? I find this a little hard to believe.

Count Dooku

If a filmmaker like James Cameron conceives his movie from Day One as 3-D, and he/she wants to use 3-D for legitimate artistic purposes, then I am behind that.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of soon-to-come 3-D titles are just going to adopt the process for the extra money that comes with the higher ticket prices.

I am a big fan of the Harry Potter films and now they are going to make the last two in 3-D. Maybe it will be great. I don't know.

My concern is how the 3-D films will look in 2-D, which is how I will be watching them for the foreseeable future on my TV set.

I am curious if anyone has seen Avatar in both 3-D and 2-D, and how the viewing experiences compare.

auto

That's actually a great question.

Super X

As long as we ultimately get Crank 3-D, I'm good with it.

Li

I have an academy DVD screener (looks fantastic. Quality is 8 out of 10 on my 27" standard TV), that I have just until it comes out on DVD. Everything looks great, but it's definitely not the same as watching it in 3D... The film shows more of it's flaws, such as inconsistencies and story telling, when you're not overwhelmed with the 3D spectacle. I don't know if there's a way to make convincing 3D BR movies yet, but I sure hope so for the sake of this movie being so perfect in 3D.

RocShemp

I dunno about color but widescreen was considered a gimmick (which it admitedly was) and is now the norm (and has several widely used variants.

I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I'm so against 3D effects being added in post to movies that were originally shot flat.

PopcornTreeCt

I'm against it.

Like I said in another thread, if Avatar is the benchmark then I do not need to see anymore of it. Because while Avatar was neat to look at, the 3D didn't add anything to the movie.

My biggest complaint about 3D is the fact that I have to wear glasses and if I take them off everything on the screen is blurry. I would be less opposed to 3D if I didn't need glasses and also if the 3D just looked as good as it does from all viewing angles.

Hey studios, it's a gimmick. Give us better depth perception in films without needing glasses.

Draven

It's pointless, it's a gimmick and it needs to die (again). I don't want to watch my movies in "diorama" mode. Plus...3D TVs and purchasing glasses for everyone in my house? Give me a fucking break. That is going to tank so hard...

The movie theater industry is going to get a huge wake-up call when this bubble bursts. When every movie is in 3D, it will no longer be the "event" that made Avatar successful. Let's face it, hardly anyone saw Avatar for the story, acting or characters. It was a spectacle. And it's disappointing that so many people got sucked into it.

I'm giving the fad 5 years.

edstein

3D Smell-O-Vision

RocShemp

Troy Stiffler

The effect in the movies ... eh.

I love that it's anti-piracy. I would gamble to say that this accounts for approximately 20% of it's income. Nobody can steal the effect (yet).

In the exec's mind, it brings in those extra ticket dollars. This probably accounts for 20% of it's income. And it more-or-less 'forces' people to watch it on the big screen - which I would say accounts for another 20-30% of it's income.

I don't get why people have a problem with it. At my local theater, there's ten showings of Avatar and ten showings of Avatar 3D. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch it - plain and simple.

Ash Ketchum

Ditto.

mdc3000

I like 3D. I think it immerses you in the experience. I'm all for more movies coming out with a 3D option, since there will always be a 2D version out there as well, I have no problem with it (and will always opt for 3D when available). However, what I really want is for FEEL-AROUND to become a reality

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TCq_nzlou0Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TCq_nzlou0Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

toddly6666

3D Smell-O-Vision Porn

RocShemp

So I guess we're gonna have to wait 'til HDMI 1.5 for something like that?

Ash Ketchum

I've seen a lot of 3-D movies over the years, including revival screenings of dozens of original 3-D movies from the 1950s. I've rarely seen anything that was actually enhanced by 3-D. Most of the old films consisted of things being thrown at the camera, a spear here, an arrow there, a knife here, etc. The film I thought worked best as a 3-D movie was KISS ME KATE (1953), a Cole Porter musical about a stage production of "Taming of the Shrew," with great art direction and compositions that made the 3-D interesting without throwing stuff at you. Next was REVENGE OF THE CREATURE (1955) which made great use of underwater 3-D photography.

Of recent 3-D movies, CORALINE most impressed me with the "immersive" quality of its compositions and design. AVATAR did not have that effect on me, partly, I've been told, because of a low-watt projector bulb (2K instead of 6K).

As Pixar movies go, I wish FINDING NEMO had been in 3-D because of the underwater action and all the visually stunning background art and fish designs. That would have worked for me far better than UP.

Another somewhat recent film that I thought would have worked great in 3-D was Sofia Coppola's MARIE ANTOINETTE. All those shots of palace grounds, gardens, and palace interiors with rows of costumed people would have looked breathtaking in 3-D. That's the kind of immersive experience I'm looking for.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND could have been awesome in 3-D, but I'm concerned about the fact that it wasn't shot that way, but "reverse-engineered" after the fact (or whatever they call the process of turning something into 3-D when it was shot "flat"). I'm not interested in CLASH OF THE TITANS (too much CGI), SHREK 4, or the Harry Potter one.

What 3-D films coming out in the next year were actually shot in 3-D?

LosingMyMind

Saw VII 3-D

lizard

I was disappointed in the news about the last Harry Potter movies. Like you, I hope they pull off the 3D ok. But it seems utterly unnecessary to me.I am worried about this also.I saw it in 2D on opening weekend and then a month later in 3D. The difference was pretty dramatic: the 3D was way more immersive, as others have said elsewhere.

I've tried to convince friends to see it in 3D while they can, but some are just waiting for the BD to come out. Then they will wonder what all the fuss is about because it won't be the same. Those friends and family who have seen it, some of whom rarely ever see movies in the theater, were very impressed. Even my 83 year old father thought Avatar in 3D was amazing.

Mabuse

There's nothing new about 3D "event" movies. I saw Polar Express in 3D IMAX 5+ years ago. Avatar just woke up all the slobs. The large and detailed IMAX image is really the reason Avatar is so "immersive". The 3D doesn't actually do much.

spainlinx0

Weird since most people either saw it on fake Imax screens or in regular 3d screens and yet still called it immersive. I think we can discount the size argument here.

The Valeyard

I've been on a porn shoot. The smell ain't that great.

Mabuse

I think the thing most disapointing thing about Avatar was that it was hyped as using new, better 3D technology, but on arrival it looked the same as Polar Express, Beowolf, and every other 3D IMAX movie, even Cameron's own Ghosts of the Abyss. I was hoping for a step up in quality from the 1950's diarma-vision. While Avatar was still a joy to watch, I was disapointed by the bullshit hype that claimed Avatar would be something new. It was no different than Polar Express. Like I said above, the only thing unique about Avatar is that it was a good enough story with a broad enough appeal to get the slobs out to the theater to see the 3D they've been missing for the last 5+years.

Troy Stiffler

HOLY FUCK!

.
.
.

Only $1 for a bucket of popcorn?