main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

The 3D Revolution: Scorsese's "Hugo" Wins Golden Globe for Best Director

Discussion in 'Archive: The Amphitheatre' started by Jabbadabbado, Mar 12, 2010.

  1. StarWarrior77

    StarWarrior77 Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Oct 30, 2008
    I think 3-D movies are cool every once in a while, but they're not really a necessity. The first movie I saw in 3-D was UP. I loved the film, but I almost forgot it was 3-D half way through. Sometimes it seems that they just add 3-D to draw you away from a poor storyline. (Spy Kids 3-D is REALLY boring to watch in 2-D.) I mean, I heard some people say that Avatar sucked when they saw it in 2-D, but when they saw it in 3-D it was amazing. I would much rather watch a movie with an interesting story line in 2-D, than a horrible movie with amazing 3-D visuals.
     
  2. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    From an "It's not worth an extra $3 to me" perspective, I completely understand the use of the term "gimmick".

    But I don't think that ultimately a 3D film HAS to be about how creatively they make use of the the feature. A film doesn't have to draw our attention to a use of an effect to be using the effect well.

    I mean, one could just as easily say, "The technicolor in The Adventures of Robin Hood was beautiful, but I stopped noticing it after a while." That doesn't mean the film should have just stuck to black and white.

    I think it's the same with films like Toy Story 3. The stereoscopic viewing is a simple enhancement, not a world-shaking paradigm shift.
     
  3. Nevermind

    Nevermind Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 14, 2001
  4. Qui-Gon_Reborn

    Qui-Gon_Reborn Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 11, 2008
    For his part, Fellman believes family-targeted animated movies will, proportionally, always draw fewer3D admissions than more adult-targeted films like ?Avatar? and ?Alice.?

    Anyone who claims that Alice in Wonderland was an adult-targeted film clearly didn't have to sit in a theater packed full of screaming kids and try and understand why there were so many blasted colors in a Tim Burton film. :p

    I think it's only natural for industry professionals to say that 3D isn't going away. It's also only natural that something so visually distracting and unnecessary to your enjoyment of a film will lose its novelty.
     
  5. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    The movie that I think really stumbled into the fad at its peak was Alice. It was released perfectly timed to capitalize on the 3D buzz created by Avatar. 3D for CG animated movies aimed at children is nothing new. The good ones will always do well. What Clash of the Titans, Last Airbender and Cats and Dogs proved is that bad movies are still bad movies, and sometimes a mushy 3D conversion makes a bad situation even worse.

    The success of Inception I hope will give studios the courage to issue major big budget summer and holiday releases without forcing a crappy 3D conversion onto audiences. To the extent studios use 3D conversions to try to rescue the commercial prospects of mediocre and bad films, they will only kill the 3D fad more quickly.
     
  6. Nevermind

    Nevermind Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 14, 2001
    I think the higher fee is the clincher. People won't pay it.
     
  7. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    No doubt theaters will phase it out by gradually raising the price of standard tickets to match the 3D price.
     
  8. JMJacenSolo

    JMJacenSolo Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 21, 2006
    I don't think 3D per se is inherently good or bad; it depends on how well it's utilized. Avatar was obviously built from the ground-up as a 3D film, so it's no surprise that's been the best use of it so far. None of the other live-action films that have utilized 3D so far were built from the ground-up as 3D projects(though I could be wrong about this), so it's no surprise to me to hear they range from bad-to-terrible. For films like Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me that are naturally suited to it, I think it's a great fit. To me, the statement "I stopped noticing it after awhile" is actually not a criticism.
     
  9. The2ndQuest

    The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Yeah, it's more about the movies and conversion issues that are affecting 3D lately. Last Airbender had about the worst critical reaction in years, comined with poor word of mouth and the legacy of The Happening. Add to that the conversion issues and it gets even worse.

    When movies are made/shot for 3D, the sales get that spike, ala Final Destination.
     
  10. Nevermind

    Nevermind Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 14, 2001
  11. Merlin_Ambrosius69

    Merlin_Ambrosius69 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 2008
    The linked article commits an egregious appeal to authority. The talented and well-respected Murch dislikes 3D for x, y and z reasons. That's fine; he's welcome to his educated opinion, and I've read and considered every word he wrote in his letter to Ebert. But that he is talented and well-respected provides no certainty that his observations are free from error, or that his predictions about the future of the technology are accurate. In short, I don't have to accept his pronouncements just because he is an expert editor and sound designer.

    Sure, some audiences get headaches with 3D, presumably because of the focus/convergence problems Murch has explained in the article. Some audiences are unwilling to shell out the extra money for the glasses. Some audiences dislike the strobe effect, some dislike the darkening of the image.

    Many others love the effect, get no headaches from it and are willing to pay the extra fee to be amazed by what they consider an astonishing effect. Murch is not one of those people. So?

    I am. George Lucas is. James Cameron is. Tim Burton is. We are proponents of 3D. Millions of movie-goers, as evinced by the box office receipts of Avatar and Alice, are as well. We get no headaches and are not disturbed by the strobe effect or the moderate darkening of the image. We will continue to pay the premium price to see a movie in 3D.

    And so Murch, as expert as his opinion is, might just be wrong about the future of the technology.
     
  12. The2ndQuest

    The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    What's the strobe effect he's talking about, BTW? That's a new 3D complaint to me.

    Films that are shot for 3D should be seen in 3D, same way films shot in widescreen should be seen in widescreen (unless they're shot in Super 35, etc) or films shot in color should be seen in color. Things converted afterwards is another story,


    I don't think the 3D medium is going to suddenly go away- as I mentioned in another thread here, to get rid of 3D now, we're not just talking about tossing away some cardboard glasses with colored cling-wrap lenses.

    Theaters have made significant upgrades in terms of specialized reflective screens and projection systems to accommodate the format, while electronics manufacturers are pushing forward with 3D TV & 3D BRD hardware to replicate the medium at home. Meanwhile gaming is pushing ahead with 3D systems (most notably the 3DS as the successor to the most successful video game system in history).

    It ain't going anywhere now without multiple major failures across multiple industries- the investment is too big now.


    A few weeks ago, when I caught TRON Legacy for the 3rd or 4th time, I caught it at a matinee for once (It's extremely rare that I catch a movie before 5PM), so that was the first time I had seen a 3D film by paying for it at a reduced matinee price.

    I paid $12.00, and I thought "Huh, you know- that's a very reasonable price for 3D admission".

    (For comparison, a normal full-price ticket at this theater is $10.75, while 3D is either $14.25 or $14.75, I forget which)

    I have a feeling, as 3D continues to move forward and become more standard and less premium, you'll see the price of 3D come down a little. Maybe not as much as my $12.00 wish would like, but I think that will go a long way to further expanding it's appeal as the quantity of product increases.
     
  13. JohnWesleyDowney

    JohnWesleyDowney Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2004
    The interesting thing to me is that one of Walter Murch's best friends and long-time colleagues, Mr. George Lucas, is currently spending millions of dollars to convert all six of his Star Wars films to 3-D for re-release. I wonder if the two of them have discussed 3 D?
     
  14. The Great No One

    The Great No One Jedi Grand Master star 8

    Registered:
    Jun 4, 2005
    3D has never worked for me, at all. it is blurry, dark, and makes me wish i'd seen the movie in 2D, and i can't stand it being used to cover up a bad movie. wish it would just go away, but i know it won't. and personally, i don't see how it will work with video games. how is it supposed to work with a FPS? it's already a pain when things get in your way, but the person/AI shooting at you can see just find. imagine how much more of a hassle it'll be if the stupid thing is poking out of the screen to get in the way of more of it? how is that an improvement? i just don't see why people like having things jumping out at them. i like ebert's previous suggestion about the faster frame rate. i think that would make a huge difference, but of course no one will ever try that.
     
  15. The2ndQuest

    The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    I think 3D works best when it's either creating a sense of depth within an environment (Avatar did this very well) or used in more creative ways to either enhance a particular moment (TRON Legacy's Wizard of Oz approach, Green Hornet's Kato-Vision and end credits) or direct the focus of the viewer (Green Hornet's multiplane split-screen sequence).

    Those type of uses would definitely benefit gaming (although there will no doubt be examples of things jumping out at you).

    At least the 3DS manages to eliminate the glasses issue.
     
  16. JohnWesleyDowney

    JohnWesleyDowney Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2004

    2nd Quest, what you referring to when mentioned Tron Legacy's Wizard of Oz approach? That one got past me.
     
  17. The2ndQuest

    The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Don't count Cameron out.

    Meanwhile with the "Avatar" sequel, one of the challenges Cameron has set himself is improving the 3D experience - not the technology to film it, rather the way its presented at the exhibition stage. He tells SpeakEasy that ?For ?Avatar 2,? what I?m most interested in is getting theaters to up their light level, and we want to shoot the movie at 48 or maybe even 60 frames a second, and display it at that speed, which will eliminate a lot of the motion artifacts that I think are causing some people problems.?

    He goes on to say ?People talk about feeling sick or something like that, and I think it?s because the image is strobing. That?s a function of the 24 frame frame rate, which has actually got nothing to do with 3D. It?s just made more apparent because the 3D is otherwise such an enhanced, realistic image, that all of a sudden you?re aware of this funky strobing which you weren?t aware of.


    So, if it's something Cameron wants to do...let's be realistic- it's gonna happen.


    TL shot (and presented) all the real-world scenes in 2D and all the Grid scenes in 3D, much like how Kansas is B&W and Oz is color. The film even opened with a disclaimer about it, so people wouldn't think the 3D wasn't working at first.
     
  18. Mastadge

    Mastadge Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 4, 1999
    Hasn't the industry tried increasing the frame rate in the past, and people complained that it "looked fake" or something, because they're so used to what they're used to?
     
  19. JohnWesleyDowney

    JohnWesleyDowney Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2004

    TL shot (and presented) all the real-world scenes in 2D and all the Grid scenes in 3D, much like how Kansas is B&W and Oz is color. The film even opened with a disclaimer about it, so people wouldn't think the 3D wasn't working at first.

    Got it. Yeah, I saw the disclaimer, I just didn't connect that to Wizard of Oz until you clarified it. Good analogy. Thanks.
     
  20. The2ndQuest

    The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    There can be problems when you increase framerates- it's why stuff filmed in the UK usually looks so noticeably different from stuff shot elsewhere, because of the slightly different framerate PAL used instead of NTSC (25 fps vs 29.97 fps).

    However, though I could be wrong, in the case of 3D projection, the increase in framerate is meant to counter the alternating frames being projected for each eye, which increases the brightness and brings the appearance of a standard framerate.
     
  21. Mastadge

    Mastadge Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 4, 1999
    Ah, now I remember. I heard that in the alt text of this xkcd: "We're also stuck with blurry, juddery, slow-panning 24 fps movies forever because (thanks to 60fps home video) people associate high framerates with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, and thus think good framerates look 'fake'."
     
  22. The2ndQuest

    The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Fast Five Failed the 3D Conversion Test

    One thing "Fast Five" is missing that some were expecting was 3D. Though not shot in 3D, having a film undergo a post-production conversion has become a relatively regular enough occurrence with studio tentpoles lately.

    Now, The Los Angeles Times reports that Universal Pictures actually was considering doing the conversion process on the film. Before they plunked down the cash though, they decided to test the process on a scene from the last film, 2009's "Fast and Furious".

    From the sounds of it, that didn't go well - "The test was not great. It was discombobulating and we discovered that the things that we find exciting about 3-D just didn't apply to a 'Fast' film. The way we shot the movie and, more importantly, the way we cut it does not lend itself to 3-D" says Universal co-chairman Donna Langley.

    Langley is referring to one of the issues that has emerged with 3D - fast editing. The hyperkinetic, quick cut editing techniques and shaky cam aesthetic that modern filmmakers seem to love is anathema to both the technology and audience comfort using it. Long takes with limited movement of the frame tend to work much better and reduce eyestrain.


    So, maybe we'll get less Bourne/Quantum incomprehensibilty out of 3D's adoption. Or, at least, it introduces an interesting choice needing to be made by the studios/filmmakers in terms of shooting/editing style versus presentation/revenue/experience.
     
  23. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    So, maybe we'll get less Bourne/Quantum incomprehensibilty out of 3D's adoption. Or, at least, it introduces an interesting choice needing to be made by the studios/filmmakers in terms of shooting/editing style versus presentation/revenue/experience.

    Yeah, it will be interesting to see which way the committee thought process works out, although "revenue/experience" always seems to show up with an ace in its sleeve.

    Good use of the word "discombobulating" in the quote too. That word isn't used enough.
     
  24. The2ndQuest

    The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Colbert: "This movie is 3D, right?"
    Geoffrey Rush: "Yeah."
    Colbert: "Is it harder to do 3D? Like, is it a burden to have-"
    Geoffrey Rush: "No- I always act in 3D."

    [face_laugh]
     
  25. Qui-Gon_Reborn

    Qui-Gon_Reborn Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Oh, that's priceless. [face_laugh]