3-D cinema

[Sycophant]

So, 3-D seems to be back in a big way. I wasn't really around when the previous 3-D fads hit theaters, but it seems like with digital projection and polarized lenses and whatever the hell James Cameron is doing, 3-D is positioned to stick around. We've had this conversation across various threads (Up and AVATAR mostly), but I was looking for some talk specifically devoted to it.

So what does 3-D really have to offer cinema? Has there been an experience where 3-D actually proved it had something actually added something beneficial to a film?

Personally, I remain unconvinced. All my quibbles with uncomfortable glasses and even my more serious concerns with sometimes jerky imagery and shiny edges aside, I can't think of a 3-D experience where the film was actually better for its cute diorama effects. But the spectacle of 3-D seems to be an almost separate experience from the film itself.

Obviously, people like James Cameron think 3-D has something to offer film as a medium outside of theme park-style "wow" niftiness. I've been pondering for some time what could be said better in a film with 3-D over 2-D and have been coming up blank.

Additionally, how long are they gonna be able to keep charging an extra 3 bucks for glasses they clean and reissue?

[megladon8]

I've only seen one film in 3D - Coraline.

It was wonderful, but I think the film would be wonderful in 2D as well.

So I agree with you, in that 3D doesn't actually make the film better. I think the same goes for IMAX.

And there's no way Avatar is going to be as revolutionary and incredible as Cameron wants people to believe it will be. And his statements that it contains photo-realistic CGI I will not believe until I see proof.

[Amnesiac]

The one downside that I have a problem with is the muted colors. When I took off my glasses during Up to compare, there was a pretty significant difference in terms of the vibrancy of the colors.

Then again, I did have a much better time with 3D with that film than I did with Coraline. For instance, the long shots of the canopies looked pretty great in 3D. But those kind of shots (the ones that really felt right) were still few and far between. But maybe that's because the use of 3D was more subdued and organic with Up (which is a good thing). Even so, I'm not sure I'm in full support of the technology just yet... I'm still not convinced that it amounts to much more than an interesting gimmick. Cinema works great given, and because of, its two-dimensional limitations. There's an organic coherency, instead of an odd schizophrenic quality, to two-dimensional films that I've grown quite comfortable with. And I'm not sure that 3D has really proven to be more than something that is only intermittently apt and pleasing.

Then again, I think that amazing chase sequence in Up may have actually been bolstered by the 3D. I'm not entirely sure, I'd have to compare. But perhaps an intensely visceral and kinetic sequence like that is exactly where 3D can prove most useful.

[Watashi]

I've seen Coraline and Up both in 2D and 3D. I prefer the 3D viewings.

It's all a part of the theatrical experience anyway. All of it will get lost in the comfort of your own room.

It's not a fad though. It's definitely here to stay. Before they were just making films and adding the 3D later. With Up, Coraline, and Monsters vs. Aliens, they are purposely creating the 3D experience along with the filmmaking process.

[Amnesiac]

I just came across Ebert's thoughts on 3D. He echoes my concern about the muted colors, while pointing towards other ostensible problems with the technology:


The movie was directed by Pete Docter, who also directed "Monsters, Inc.," wrote "Toy Story," and was the co-writer and first director on "WALL-E" before leaving to devote full time to this project. So he's one of the leading artists of this renaissance of animation, which has limitless possibilities if it is not derailed by Hollywood's mass corporate delusion about 3D.

No, this will not be an entry about 3D. It's about "Up." But let me gently mention one of the film's qualities that is likely to be diminished by 3D: Its subtle and beautiful color palette. "Up," like "Finding Nemo," "Toy Story," "Shrek" and "The Lion King," uses colors in a way particularly suited to its content. It may be that the wonderful new glasses are unlike all other 3D glasses and are perfectly transparent, but given their purpose, how can they be? Unlike the tinted glasses used for most 3D glasses, which cost a dollar or less, these babies use lenses that flicker open and closed at the shutter rate of the projector. They cost around $25, and have to be recycled. Don't look for them in your local theater anytime real soon.

I'll have to see "Up"in 3D to experience their effectiveness. I'm afraid the brightness and delicate shadings of the color palate will become slightly dingy, slightly flattened out, like looking through a window that needs Windex. With standard 3D movies, take off the glasses and see how much brighter the "real" screen is. I predict the Cannes screening will look better than almost every U.S. screening.

There is also the annoyance of 3D itself. It is a marketing gimmick designed (1) to justify higher ticket prices, and (2) make piracy harder. Yet as most of the world will continue to use 2D, pirated prints will remain a reality. The effect of 3D adds nothing to the viewing experience, and I have never once heard an audience member complain that a movie is not in 3D. Kids say they "like" it, but kids are inclined to say they "like" anything that is animated and that they get to see in a movie theater. It is the responsibility of parents to explain this useful truth: If it ain't broke. don't fix it. Every single frame of a 3D movie gives you something to look at that is not necessary.

Source (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/up_up_and_away_in_my_beautiful .html).

[Watashi]

Mr. Ebert obviously does not work at a movie theater.

I hear customers complain a lot because the film was not in 3D when they saw it in 2D.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't like it. It costs too much, offers too little, and is generally distracting.

My thoughts from an earlier thread:


The problem, for me, is obvious: normal film directs your eye, but not at the expense of the frame. 3-D, with objects shifting further and nearer, takes attention further from the artistic creation within a frame. The composition, the image itself separates too cleanly into focus and background.

Imagine trying to watch the beautiful opening of No Country for Old Men, but with Brolin running right at you. His dimensional running would complicate things by making your eye naturally focus on him, rather than how he fits into the landscape, which seems to me the entirely purpose of the soundless opening - watching the interplay of figure and setting and light and shadow.

[Ezee E]

Coraline was a step in the right direction. I hear the 3D in Monsters VS. Aliens is awesome, but the movie looks stupid, so I won't bother with it.

I think 3D will be something that keeps theaters running, since you can't offer the experience anywhere else. So, if anything, it'll just make the theatrical experience all the better. I'll definitely be seeing Up in 3D.

I still don't think there's been a movie that has fully used it to its advantage though. Will Avatar be that movie? Maybe.

This may be the next technological advance for films, we just haven't hit it right.

[Amnesiac]

I think 3D will be something that keeps theaters running, since you can't offer the experience anywhere else. So, if anything, it'll just make the theatrical experience all the better.

Eh, not necessarily. Just because it is exclusive to the theatre doesn't mean it will unequivocally bolster the experience.

[Ezee E]

Eh, not necessarily. Just because it is exclusive to the theatre doesn't mean it will unequivocally bolster the experience.
How will the home theater equate to it?

[[ETM]]

The problem I have with all the 3D discussion so far is the narrow minded view of what the technology (both current and what is still to come) has to offer in terms of artistic freedom. To me, the real 3D, that will eventually be what stays for good, is not something you add to a film. That's a gimmick. What I'm interested in is a technique that will become available to directors, and they'll be able to say "What can I conceive and do with this? How can this allow me to create something previously impossible within the medium of cinematic art?"
Of course that's a long way off, but since the early steps, film has always been about immersion (unless being non-immersive is part of its artistic statement), and 3D is the logical and natural step. What we're seeing now are trial runs, and it may well be a long time, or never, before we see its true potential. I'm hoping Avatar will be the big next step, but we'll see.

[Amnesiac]

How will the home theater equate to it?

I'm not saying it will. I'm saying that just because something is exclusive to the theater, that doesn't mean that it's a good exclusive. So, I don't think "if anything, it'll just make the theatrical experience all the better" so much as it will make it different... but not necessarily better.

[baby doll]

I'm just waiting for them to bring back Percepto and Smell-O-Rama.

[Raiders]

I'm just waiting for them to bring back Percepto and Smell-O-Rama.

I'm waiting for Atomo-Vision and Rumble-Rama.

[D_Davis]

Just as the porn industry was instrumental in ushering in the VHS and DVD technologies, I am waiting to see what they will do with the new 3D before declaring it a successful and artistic venture or just a fad and gimmick designed to increase ticket prices.

[lovejuice]

i love theatre going experience, so 3-D or whatever the hell can gear people toward that direction, i support. and yet, the technology itself -- i watch coraline and monsters vs aliens in 3-D -- has a long way to go before it wins me over.

[Sven]

The problem I have is the movies that are released in both 2D and 3D. Because if I see it in 3D, I'm always distracted with thoughts of "what would this be like in 2D?" And if I see it in 2D, I'm always distracted with thoughts of "what would this be like in 3D?"

Be one or the other. Stop making it hard on the consumer.

[Ezee E]

The problem I have is the movies that are released in both 2D and 3D. Because if I see it in 3D, I'm always distracted with thoughts of "what would this be like in 2D?" And if I see it in 2D, I'm always distracted with thoughts of "what would this be like in 3D?"

Be one or the other. Stop making it hard on the consumer.
Sounds more like a personal problem Sven. Not gonna lie.

[Sven]

Sounds more like a personal problem Sven. Not gonna lie.

I wouldn't think so. Why would it be, then, that such a large percentage of discussion about films that are both 2- and 3-D centered on the merits and drawbacks of watching it the other way?

[[ETM]]

From what I've read, 3D movies are supposed to be made in 3D, and are then easily "flattened" into 2D. But all in all it depends on the way 3D is used.

[Amnesiac]

Why does it always sound so condescending when people say "sounds like a personal problem"? I was going to start this sentence off with "no offense", but that sounds just as condescending.

Isn't it natural to wonder what the merits of the 2D version are when viewing the 3D version and vice-versa? Having more options is nice, but there is always that 'what am I missing' factor. Otherwise you wouldn't have people coming in here wondering if they should see this one in 3D or not.

[Ezee E]

Mine was more humourous in jest. But whenever people say, "What am I missing?" It's the ones that see it in 2D, curious about 3D, not the other way around.

[Amnesiac]

My theater was only playing Up in 3D, so I had no choice. I'm actually curious about whether or not the experience would have been better in 2D, especially since I'm more on the '3D = intermittently enjoyable distraction' side of the fence. Plus, the lack of a muted color palette would be nice.

[Sven]

Mine was more humourous in jest. But whenever people say, "What am I missing?" It's the ones that see it in 2D, curious about 3D, not the other way around.

I think most people here saw Coraline in 3D (myself included) and I think the majority of us, though I can only speak for myself, wondered (probably aloud) if the film would be as good in 2D.

I'm MUCH more curious about the 2D characteristics of a film I'm seeing in 3D. I think your statement needs a rewrite.

[MadMan]

I fail to see the point of 3D. Its a gimmick, nothing more. I'm also reminded of how Jaws 3 was in 3D.

[Winston*]

I fail to see the point of 3D. Its a gimmick, nothing more. I'm also reminded of how Jaws 3 was in 3D.

I fail to see the point of cinema. Did I just blow your mind? I bet I did.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The problem I have is the movies that are released in both 2D and 3D. Because if I see it in 3D, I'm always distracted with thoughts of "what would this be like in 2D?" And if I see it in 2D, I'm always distracted with thoughts of "what would this be like in 3D?"

Be one or the other. Stop making it hard on the consumer.

I'd also agree with this. Something seems disingenuous about a studio producing both 2D and 3D versions of the same film. Well, which one is the actual film? Are they both?

It reminds me of the same problem I have with all those bullshit "director's cuts" out there. It's helpful when the filmmaker has a say, like Ridley Scott's Blade Runner or Darabont's B&W The Mist, but most times it's a gimmick designed to repackage the same movie in two different ways.

[Ezee E]

I'll venture to say the reason why there's 2D and 3D versions is mostly because the amount of theaters that have 3D are still very small.

[MadMan]

I fail to see the point of cinema. Did I just blow your mind? I bet I did.Nope. Good try, though. I give you an "A for Effort." But really it should be "E for Effort." See what I did there? Of course you know what I did. No regrets, as they say.

[Barty]

Additionally, how long are they gonna be able to keep charging an extra 3 bucks for glasses they clean and reissue?

The charge isn't really for the glasses, it's for the cost of the REAL-D system as well as the licensing of it.

[ledfloyd]

And his statements that it contains photo-realistic CGI I will not believe until I see proof.
i've heard that some of it IS photoreal. but not all of it is.


my biggest problem with 3D is that it seems every animated film that's currently in production is going to be in 3D with the exception of the princess and the frog. i think dreamworks announced they will be doing all their films in 3D, and everything pixar has on tap is supposed to be 3D

i understand the thought behind this from the business side of things. but artistically it doesn't make a ton of sense to me. and the fact that it makes more sense as a business decision than an artistic decision further entrenches my viewpoint that it's a gimmick.

[Morris Schæffer]

I saw Beowulf in 3D and I gotta say I was much impressed by the image. It greatly enhanced the experience for me.

[DavidSeven]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51y2-iqJDVL._SL500_AA280_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81J51XYEQDL._SL500_AA240_.gif
http://wingnutsunited.files.wordpress .com/2008/04/popup-pacino.jpg

[Sycophant]

The charge isn't really for the glasses, it's for the cost of the REAL-D system as well as the licensing of it.

Ah, there's a continuing licensing fee? I wasn't aware of how it worked. Thanks for clearing that up.

[number8]

Just as the porn industry was instrumental in ushering in the VHS and DVD technologies, I am waiting to see what they will do with the new 3D before declaring it a successful and artistic venture or just a fad and gimmick designed to increase ticket prices.

You forgot Bluray. HD-DVD pretty much died when the porn industry adopted Bluray.

As for 3D, I am sure you've heard that they're making Sex and Zen 3D?

[number8]

Also, all the talk of wearing glasses and muted colors and high price and theatrical experience is rather irrelevant in the future. I mentioned what Katzenberg said in the Avatar thread about the Oakley sunglasses, but even that is a temporary step. In the future, he wants to make movies 3D without the use of glasses, and he wants HDTVs to be equipped with the tech so you can watch football games in 3D.

So barring all that, what are your concerns about 3D still? I think DaMU made a good point.

[Barty]

Ah, there's a continuing licensing fee? I wasn't aware of how it worked. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yep, and it's not cheap. So regardless of whether there's good 3D movies out or not...you still pay the fee.

[Amnesiac]

Also, all the talk of wearing glasses and muted colors and high price and theatrical experience is rather irrelevant in the future.

Can't wait until the future then. But then we'd still have all those other problems with 3D... hopefully those will become irrelevant, too. Other problems beyond muted colors and high prices have already been brought up in this thread. As Ebert puts it in that excerpt I posted:


If it ain't broke. don't fix it. Every single frame of a 3D movie gives you something to look at that is not necessary.

I think he has a point. There are a few moments of aesthetic pleasure to be had from 3D (like that shot of the canopies from Up that I mentioned earlier) but so far the technology only seems to emphasize select portions of the composition within a shot and that doesn't seem all that necessary to me.

In terms of more certain benefits, the only thing I can really think of is (as I mentioned earlier in relation to the chase sequence in Up) that it might add to the visceral impact of particular scenes.

The people who are interested in immersion may have a point. But in the end, the use of 3D so advanced will (of course) need to be carefully managed and applied to the right type of projects. Immersion isn't what watching films is all about, is it? There's a real potential for superfluity with this technology. And then there's the gratuity of shots that suddenly become slightly muddled/schizophrenic (i.e. not quite 2D and not quite 3D either).

[Ezee E]

Anybody see the thing on X-Box on how we'll be able to navigate menus and screens without a controller. Add in the 3D element, which I'm sure wouldn't be too far behind, and you're at the technology of Minority Report. :eek:

[MadMan]

Tonight I saw Up in 3D. While it did look cool at times, I'm still not convinced that 3D is any thing more than a gimmick that feels a bit unnecessary.

With that in mind, I will admit I did keep the glasses as a memento.

[Grouchy]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81J51XYEQDL._SL500_AA240_.gif

I could never get anything from this, no matter how long I stared. Fucking frustrating.

I think 3D will probably never evolve enough as a technology to be applied to all of cinema. It's more of a thing for blockbusters and family films to take advantage of. And it's not like the first time the fad has appeared. In fact, part of the fun of watching Dial M for Murder is seeing the shots that are specifically composed by Hitchcock to work with the glasses.

[number8]

Well, to be honest, I think the technology is better suited for video games and fluff TV programs (sports games, reality shows and news).

[Sycophant]

Is there an example of first-person camera in a 3-D film? 8's comment about video games got me wondering what that would feel like.

[number8]

Is there an example of first-person camera in a 3-D film? 8's comment about video games got me wondering what that would feel like.

Avatar will have this. They even simulated blinking.

[Sycophant]

It's gonna feel like the audience is in a giant head. ...Ew.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's gonna feel like the audience is in a giant head. ...Ew.
Hahahaha, yes, ditto this thought.

[transmogrifier]

Avatar will have this. They even simulated blinking.

Jesus. I couldn't think of anything more annoying. Braindead literalism. "Golly, how do we put the audience in this character's head?"