Badmovies.org Forum

What do you think of the 3-D craze?  I've read quite a few articles lately about the increase in 3-D movies (either originally produced in 3-D or converted to 3-D during post production such as CLASH OF THE TITANS), the trend toward all movies eventually being released in 3-D (seems like this will happen within the next 5 to 10 years), and the development of 3-D television programming.  I read one article that said most 3-D TVs will initially come with only 1 pair of glasses and each additional pair will cost $150.  There are even plans to convert older 2-D movies into 3-D . . . which will cause the same types of arguments that colorization caused . . . CITIZEN KANE in 3-D?  CASABLANCA in 3-D?  PSYCHO in 3-D?  Get ready, because here it comes.  I just hope they convert DOUBLE AGENT 73 and DEADLY WEAPONS into 3-D . . .

Not the Good ones! I just hope that the plan to have Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and Psycho to NOT be in color....Especially Psycho, it was made to be in Black and White for a reason!

I'm not interested in 3-D. If people are that bothered that films and such like should be reaching out and interacting with them, then they need to get outside quick and socialize!  :lookingup:

Its just another gimmick to make people go ewww, ahhhh...the plot sucks, but doesnt it look cool? No thanks.

Eh.  I watched one movie in 3D to see what all the fuss was about.  It wasn't worth the elevated price.  I'm sure this gimmick will die after a while. 

 :buggedout:  What??  In the same place with actual, REAL people???   Are you nuts??
It seems the more 'connected' we get electronically, the less connected we get.  What a world.  :lookingup:

I'm not so sure.  Theaters are already investing big money to install 3-D equipment and most major manufacturers have already developed 3-D TVs and DVD players (by the way, I read that the 3-D glasses may not be compatible across different brands!)  Martin Scorsese's next film is already slated for 3-D.  Several TV networks are already scheduling 3-D programming (including ESPN for sporting events).  I don't see this going away anytime soon.  The articles I read predicted that movies and TV will be mostly, if not completely, using 3-D technology within the next 5 - 10 years.

Part of it is the economy. People are troubled and want mindless entertainment. The type of movies you're likely to get in 3-D will surely fit the bill. Combine that with the fact that a movie ticket is a cheap night of entertainment compared to other ways poor Americans can amuse themselves, and this is why the movie industry tends to do well during recessions. Look at the Great Depression. The advent of sound in movies was a very big deal, and movie theatres were spending what was alot of money back then to format theatres for sound, all while the country was sinking into a deep economic depression. Why? Because the people were flocking to the theatres to escape from the harsh realities of the time. Could the 3-D surge be our current equivalent? I don't know, I just thought it was an interesting comparison.

But do I like it? F**k no.

I've seen some junk in 3D and it's not something I'd care to experience any more than once in a blue moon as a novelty. 

Somebody told me a long time ago that if you close one eye when watching a movie in the theater it looks like 3-D.

It works for me.

(http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr154/Raffine/cyclops.jpg)
           "Wow! Lookit the 3-D!"

Doesn't do much for me.  The illusion just doesn't seem to work as well for me as it did when I was younger, either.  It always looks broken up.  Because of this, it mostly is just a distraction for me.  I've pretty much decided that the extra cost of 3D is not worth it at the theatres.  Especially now now that they've bumped it up to $4 extra per ticket - meaning, it increases price almost 50% in my area. 

I do not think all films will ever come out only in 3D, but if they do it basically means I'll almost never go to the theatre anymore.  Which is sad, because I LIKE going to the theatre.

I also think the whole thing is a bit of a misnomer - traditional films are DESIGNED to look like they have depth and 3D in most cases, just as seen through a 2D plane.  That's why they so frequently layer things so much in the composition, and use dynamic lighting to make images pop. 

It's also pretty notable that, to date, I'm not aware of anything outside of fantasy/sci-fi/horror being made in 3D.  Basically, genre works (discounting a few documentaries). 

Once we start seeing tons of straight dramas, comedies, thrillers, and action movies in 3D, I'll be convinced it is an overall conversion of the industry.

The way I see, the 3D craze has already died out twice. Most movies just don't need to be 3-dimensional (hell, some don't even need to be in colour) and it really shows when a company cuts corners (looks more like a pop-up book than like the characters are "real").

I'm pretty confident that the craze will die down again.

I've only seen two 3D films.  Avatar, and My Bloody Valentine 3D.  The latter was on DVD, and I didn't finish it; it was just too blurry.  Avatar in the theater wasn't half bad, but then again, it's Avatar.  It was a decent experience, but I wouldn't want all of my movie experiences to be like it.

Word is that the third Jackass film will be in 3D. I can just imagine the kinds of stuff that will be chucked at the camera. :buggedout: :buggedout:

When it died before, the technology wasn't nearly as good as it is now . . . and it was never on TV.  I think it's here to stay.

Have they approached you about your underpants yet?

The most important tech difference now: it's not far more expensive or far more difficult to shoot as it was in the old days (RED has a 3D camera now that is pretty inexpensive), and the theatrical equipment to display it is cheaper, more readily available, and is just generally less of a PITA. 

You're not the Hollywood payroll are you Burgo?  :teddyr:

One of the articles I read said the cost extra cost of shooting a movie in 3-D starts at $20 million.  The cost of shooting a movie in 2-D and converting it to 3-D via computer is $10 million. 

Nope - - just passing along what I read in several articles.  Sounds like 3-D is gaining momentum daily.

3-D can keep the momentum, just don't give old classics that are in B&W to be in color and/or 3-D.

I have two eyes and depth perception.

I see everything in 3D (yeah, pretty cool, I know...) the computer I'm typing on even looks 3D. Being somesone who has experienced a 3D world all his life I can say that a 3D film hold no intrest. I want to see one of those cool 2D films where the audience isn't amazed by pointy things poking out of the screen at them.  :teddyr:

I want plots and intresting characters !

I'm at an age where simply looking at something in three dimensions just doesn't hold the thill it once did.

Still, I bet the kids love it.

Well, the ENTIRE budget of My Bloody Valentine 3D was $15 million.  Obviously, it's at least possible to do relatively cheaply.  They used the RED system. 

I think the other systems, like the one used in Avatar, are far more expensive. 

I'm pretty much in complete disagreement.

I think 3-D is fantastic.

Is the technology where it should be? No. Even it's main selling point, Avatar, is not quite as good as it could be.

But where is all this antagonism coming from? If films could all be filmed in 3-D, why the hell not? We all love movies, why it would be worse if we watched them in three dimensions? If we could override the limits of technology, who would not want to see that?

It can't be just antagonism at having to buy new technology to watch them at home. Can you honestly tell me that if the technology was available for seamless 3-D movie watching you would just throw it away because you think it's a gimmick? "Oh sure, we can add sound to pictures, but it's a gimmick the audience will get tired of."

Obviously I don't believe that 2-D films should be retrofitted to 3-D, like Turnervision colorization. But where is this hate for 3-D coming from? I would love to see new films in three-dimensions. Wouldn't you?

I just don't buy these luddite complaints.

Partly because not all movies really need to be in 3D, even many new ones. And yes, not every movie even needs sound. If it is here to stay, then hopefully we'll see movies being made with plots and characters in mind again instead of "what kind of crap can we throw at the screen so that young kids in the audience will think that they're about to get hit with something?" Granted, if this site is evidence, even once the novelty has worn off there will still be movies made in 3D without interesting plots and characters with the depth of a piece of loose leaf paper.

If the tech worked right for me, I'd have fewer complaints.  As is, they're using technology that makes a significant number of people nauseous and gives others eyestrain, and for a number of people, myself included, doesn't really work too well, and consequently largely makes the movie LOOK BAD, and is basically a distraction. 

The best example I can give for how it looks to me would be to compare it to interlacing errors.  It doesn't look quite as bad as this, but the strobing and breakup effects have a similar feel to them to me.  Cameron has said shooting at 60 frames a second would reduce this...  But then you've destroyed the very desirable look of 24 frames a second film.

(http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/groups/dvd/interlace_demo.jpg)

We're not talking holographic technology here.  If we were, I'd think cool, let's see what can be done.  I still wouldn't want it to replace 2D film though - ideally, it'd just be another possible tool for film makers to use. 

Think sculpture VS painting.  Is a sculpture just an inherently better art form because it's 3D?  That's basically what you said above, by saying all films might as well be done in 3D. 

Oh, I'm in agreement with you there about the deficiency of technology, JimH. The picture you posted is a good example of what you're talking about. I watched the 3-D version of Coraline with a friend of mine, using the old red-blue glasses, and she had to leave because it gave her a migraine.

Would all films be better with a third dimension? Are they all better with the introduction of sound?

Well, no. But it's a tool that can be used. I wasn't trying to argue that all films mine as well be better in 3-D. (I hope I didn't say that, I was pretty off-the-cuff when I wrote it.) A film still has to stand up on its own right. But if seamless 3-D could be done, why not do it? All film is a simulacra of life. Three dimensions are now a new thing, and incompetent directors will treat it as a gimmick. They're pretty much Count Floyd from old SCTV reruns shoving a stick into your face. Take whatever Freudian implications you can from that.

Back to Avatar, a film I have significant problems with. What I think Cameron was trying to accomplish was creating a film where 3-D was just a given, not a gimmick to thrust at the audience (no pun intended).

I think we're in agreement. 3-D is a new tool, like sound was when it first came out. As a tool, I think it has profound possibilities that have not been explored yet.

Back to technology, it is going to take way too much money to implement in home theater. The current tech uses a projector that can project polarized light. (Fun experiment! Take the glasses you get at a 3-D movie and turn them against themselves. If you hold one lens at a 90-degree angle from the other they block all light. Science in action!) The current idea in home theater tech is to wear fancy glasses that turn opaque every other frame. Needless kluge. I wouldn't buy it. But we're not octopi, we can't train ourselves to recognize polarized light. We ain't built that way.

I'm not saying 3-D is the be-all-end-all. But as a tool, I'm all for it. 3-D is fun.

I think the same will be true of Scorsese's upcoming 3-D project.  I can't imagine that he will fill the movie with scenes of things poking out of the screen just for cheap thrills.

There's also a small number of theatres that use this technique.  I saw a film using it once - it was quite a while ago, but I remember it working better than the more common type does.


It's like a new tool that doesn't work right.  It'd be like if when they introduced sync sound you couldn't understand any voices (though I guess it is notable many early sound films do have pretty crappy sound) or pick out individual notes of music - it was just fuzz.

I'll re-evaluate 3D when they get it to work.  I do think it has potential as a new form of expression for motion pictures, that much I agree.

 :bouncegiggle: :teddyr:

I have in my possession emails from both Johnny Knoxville and Steve O's agents saying that their clients would be willing to wear my undies, no matter what their state.  :buggedout:

I'm thinking any practical 3D conversion process would rely on that to some degree, so the computer can estimate just where everything should be.

Personally, I like classic 3D movies. Anaglyph (red/blue) doesn't work particularly well, and it barely works on a colour film. I've only seen "Up" with the polarization process they use now, and it was pretty impressive. I think 3D is great, as long as the movie doesn't try to ride on visuals alone.

I wouldn't want to see non-3D movies converted for the same reason I don't like colorization. The movie wasn't made that way, and if it's good enough to be worth converting, people shouldn't need colour or 3D to enjoy it. In fact, many obviously don't need it, and the ones who do are just as likely to turn their noses up at an old movie no matter what it looks like.

I don't think 3D is a fad. It's here to stay for a couple of reasons. The technology has come of age. CGI can be just as easily rendered for both eyes, and the new filmless production methods make it more practical for live action. And with today's render farms, the extra time to do things in 3D is going to become more and more negligible. The cost-to-benefit ratio has changed dramatically.

The other, more important reason is that theatres need 3D to keep ahead of home video. With relatively little money, you can project a picture the size of your rec room wall with crystal clarity, you can have surround sound with bone-rattling bass, plus you can save a bundle of money in the long run, watch anything you want, and you can pause for bathroom breaks. The only things the cinema have left are the really huge screen, the experience of watching with a crowd, and the fun of a night out. They need 3D, as something that is a long way from being affordable at home, and so far uses a technique better than anything you can get at home.

It's pretty clear just from the money theatres have spent on 3D projection equipment that 3D is no longer a passing fad, as it was in the 50s and 80s. We're going to see more of it at the movies, and it's really the only direction left to go for the development of home video. We're gradually going to see home systems that are cheaper, more realistic and less cumbersome than the field-sequential systems that are currently the state of the art at home. Won't be long before people are paying an arm and a leg to install scaled-down polarization systems in their homes.

I would pay good money to see a re-release of House of Wax with Vincent Price and the gorgeous Phyllis Kirk.  :smile:

I saw it in Boston about 20 - 25 years ago.  It was great in 3-D.  I also have it in 3-D on DVD.  It uses the flicker glasses and the 3-D is pretty good (but not as good as when I saw it in the theater).

I too saw it on re-release. I don't remember when, but it was in the San Diego area. And I agree with Burgomaster about its greatness. It's probably the greatest of the 3-D movies made during the '50's.