The 3-D craze

[The Burgomaster]

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.

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.

[Newt]

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.

Have they approached you about your underpants yet?

[Jim H]

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.

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.

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. 

[Psycho Circus]

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

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.

You're not the Hollywood payroll are you Burgo? 

[The Burgomaster]

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

[The Burgomaster]

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

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.

You're not the Hollywood payroll are you Burgo? 

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

[Leah]

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.

[Doggett]

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. 

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.

[Jim H]

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

[Mofo Rising]

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.

[The Gravekeeper]

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.

[Jim H]

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.

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.



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. 

[Mofo Rising]

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.

[The Burgomaster]

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 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.

[Jim H]

The current idea in home theater tech is to wear fancy glasses that turn opaque every other frame.

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.

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.

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.