lamphorn

Eberts latest blog includes a letter from Walter Murch, probably the most renowned living editor. He explains why this 3D thing is trash and actually alienates the audience rather than immerses it. His comments are interesting and have persuaded me not to go to anymore 3D films (at least with the current technology). Done.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

RocShemp

Despite his impressive credentials in editing, it's his opinion and thus doesn't matter to me regarding my expeirence with 3D.

Having actually taken the glasses off just to see what the image looks like sans glasses, I find this statement contrary to my experience:

As for the image being dark, that's the fault of the projectionists who like to keep the bulbs as dim as possible regardless of wether it's a 3D or 2D showing. I've had experiences where the bulbs were kept nice and bright (and it looked great) and with the bulbs kept dim (which was underwhelming). So I disagree with him.

But I do agree with those that call it a gimmick. it is. indeed a gimmick. But for some of us, it's a fun gimmick. If you don't like it, refuse to see the 3D showings. If the film is exclusively in 3D, refuse to see it in theaters and wait for a 2D video release. If the video release is exclusively in 3D, do not buy or rent the movie. Eventually the lack of revenue will speak for itself.

PopcornTreeCt

Good read.

Its kinda amazing to me that the technology hasn't changed since Captain EO. Perhaps because I grew up near Orlando visiting Walt Disney World and Universal Studios often and frequently attending 3D attractions such as "Muppet Vision" and "Terminator 3D Battle Across Time" that I find the whole thing rather juvenile. I feel a little like "you guys think this is cool? we've had this here in Orlando since the 80's".

lamphorn

I'm going to have to just follow your advice and stop going. The only "good" experience I've had with 3D was when I saw Avatar at a SAG screening on the 20th Century Fox lot with James Cameron in attendance. All my other 3D experiences (granted only 3 or 4) have been very underwhelming. Quite frankly I find it hard to even remember much of the movie itself, probably due to Murch's explanation of how the image does not make sense to the mind and requires extra brain processing.

My experience seeing Tron was the last straw. The trailers (in 2D) looked visually beautiful but the movie I saw was so dark you could hardly make out what was happening during the action scenes. I know you say this depends on the projectionist but the problem seems to be endemic and the rule rather than the exception. And to think they charged me 5 bucks more for this inferior viewing of the film. I guarantee when I play it in 2D on my 42 inch plasma on blu ray it will look 10 times better. And they wonder why movie attendance is dwindling.

PopcornTreeCt

I shudder to ever imagine such a world.

RocShemp

This is for the best. If you don't enjoy it, there's no sense in wasting your money on it. And if enough 3D haters refuse to see movies in 3D, the studios will notice as your hiting them where it hurts: in their wallets.

This will lead to either killing 3D altogether or keeping an even balance of 2D and 3D showings.

Isn't Thor supposed to be exclusively in (post-converted) 3D?

DVD Josh

I read the letter. All I could see was "I'm an old man who hates change."

I don't particularly think 3D is all that great, but when done well, like in Avatar, adds another dimension to the film that increases its enjoyment. After all, isn't that what movies really are anyway?

Greg MacGuffin

Really? Are you sure read the letter?

Rob V

I like 3D... so do my kids. That said, I don't prefer it over a 2D image, but if it's a popcorn flick, I'll take it in 3D. If it's a drama I'll take it in 2D.

Why do so many people feel entitled to piss on 3D as try to tell everyone else that it sucks? It's a subjective thing... get over it.

Pizza

Because it's their opinions?

As for me, I like 3D but I don't like paying double the ticket price for it unless it's a special film. I've been underwhelmed by the screenings I've attended. Toy Story 3 didn't need it. Tron did look dark. Piranha looked terrible. Resident Evil and Despicable Me have been the better screenings I've been too where the 3D looked good.

Grubert

Look at his resume. He's embraced change when he thought it made sense (going from a Moviola to non-linear editing software).

RichC2

I think 3D on home theater sets is cool - specifically on rear projection DLP sets. Sure it's novel, but it's fun.

In theaters? not so much -- I remember that stuff at Universal and MGM. Those $100 home theater glasses get the job done right.

pinata242

This is insane, if true, and guarantees I do not go see it.

Rob V

So a thread title that says "3D will never work. Case closed." is an opinion? Huh...

EVERY thread that has to do with 3D becomes an emotional event. I could see where people would get pissed if a movie is ONLY offered in 3D and you had no choice. But I've yet to see a film that is 3D only.

RichC2

I haven't heard anything that suggests Thor would be 3D only.

Groucho

Obviously, the guy in the article is nuts. 3D is one D better, isn't it?

RocShemp

It was commented a while back in the Thor thread. As I recall, no info came up to refute that claim but the conversation died down as people focused on more important matters (like how much screentime Thor's helmet will get).

Dan

The only 3D experience I actually enjoyed was "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs."
Other films I've seen included Avatar, Piranha, and Alice in Wonderland, and the 3D was distracting, in my opinion. The biggest problem for me, personally, is what is mentioned in the letter above. I have a hard time trying to focus (or, I guess "converge") on an object that is being projected to appear to be five feet away, but in actuality is more like 40 feet away. A perfect example of this is the scene right at the beginning of Avatar where there's a bubble floating above Sam Worthington's face.

Now, if someone were to make a 3D film where all of the 3D 'depth' was done into the frame, like looking through a window (as opposed to the overly-hyped "jumping out of the frame" style of 3D), then I'd find it less stressing on my eyes. My memory isn't great, but I think that's why I enjoyed "Cloudy..." more than the others, since I remember it as having more of my preferred type of 3D. Although, like the others, "Cloudy..." still had some of the annoying 3D. It was a kids movie, of course.

wendersfan

I've never seen a movie in 3D and have no plans to do so. I enjoyed Murch's letter but I clearly have no context in which to put it.

RichC2

Almost all of Avatar was 3D 'depth' into the screen with exception of some ash and the water bubble at the beginning

DRG

I agree, but then the audiences complain that "it didn't even use the 3D" or whatever. A lot of people associate 3D with coming-at-you gimmickry and think they've been cheated when they don't get it, not understanding the more subtle approach to 3D.

Drop

That's how all the Pixar movies have been as well. Coraline mostly did this too. I prefer it.

Too me 3D is just like using another lens. Not necessary to telling a story but it can add subtle (yea 3D can be used subtly) feelings. It can truly bring out a spacious area or create an even greater sense of claustrophobia. 3d works best when it enhances spaces not when it throws things at the audience.

I also love when animated films use it. It creates a bizarre sense of reality. It gives physicality and realness to something that doesn't actually exist.

There are still so many ways to tell stories with film, to manipulate the audience, I don't see any sense in limiting the possibilities.

Dan

I remember there being more than that. Tree branches, Giovani's golf ball, explosions, etc. all coming out of the frame. I admit I could be wrong... but I still found it to be irritating.

Exactly. As much as I want that type of 3D experience, it's not going to come from the big studios anytime soon; at least until a well-known director manages to get them to sign off on it by accident.

Numanoid

Next on the chopping block -- color; then sound.

Groucho

Why are people replying to this thread? Can't you read: CASE CLOSED.