3D films fall flat

3D movie

The only movie that was worthy in Real D (I have seen Avatar, Shrek 4, Clash of the Titans, Alice, Final Destination 3) was Beowulf. I will never forget the charging rider whos spear stopped two inches in front of my nose.

I'm waiting for the 3D conversion of...

Ingmar Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal'.

Should be a hoot.

2D/3D

I think 3D will come into being the same way colour did... a lot of crap shot in the previous format with no thought to how it looks in the new. You don't shoot colour the same as B&W and the same is true for 3D. Avatar wasn't a great movie, but it was visually impressive in 3D. Same for Monsters vs. Aliens. My problem with some of the others has been a messed up field of depth. I got one hell of a headache because my g.f. wanted me to see Dave Mathews Band in 3D. Great music, but only part of the scenes were in 3D. It looked really bad and I kept trying to focus in something that had no depth.

As far as Star Wars... please stop giving Lucas an excuse to bastardize another revision of these films. It was bad enough that Greedo shot first. Now we've got the super-duper special effects version, the added mindless background cgi robots/creatures and re-cut storyline. I just want a BD version of the first three films (well... 2 if you get down to it) without all the extra crap in it. I'm really willing to watch the original special effects and Han shooting first. Really Lucas... you can make money off of people like me.

Anon... well, I'm at work and this is more productive than my co-workers are being.

It's early days

I'm old enough to remember the first days of stereo. That was a good indication - the first few years it all had to be very, very obvious. That "Play that funky music" - the music starts hard in one corner, and then the rest comes in from the other side - these days we go for accurate definition of the player's position.

Avatar was well used 3D because it was in Cameron's thinking from day one. It takes quite some time to get your head around that new dimension, with Alice in Wonderland showing what you have to avoid (depth of vision, for example, is something that has to be re-thought to draw focus to a particular part of the scene). We'll have a few more clangers before 3D becomes an integral part of a movie experience, but it will come. It has drawn me back into the cinema whereas before I no longer could be bothered..

However, AFAIK, on the back of 3D was another revolution: full digital delivery of content. Every theater that had a "3D conversion" had a bit more than just a new screen and sound system: the way the movie gets on the screen is different too, as it's played straight from hard disk to screen (this also provided the startup problems as the transmissions are DRM protected and they screwed up in a few cinemas). It's basically a larger and better version of the thing you use to show Powerpoint slides.. To me, that was a much bigger revolution than 3D - this time there was enough of an argument to do it (it's been tried before).

As I said before, give it time. In a couple of years or so you will expect it as standard..

I'm waiting for the 3D conversion of...

The Laurel and Hardy classics.

I love 3D stereo, but...

I have a collection of 3D stereo. Viewmaster reels, realist format slides, and a couple of stereo cameras. I know how to make stereo still images from any digital camera. I've messed around with stereo projectors, and written software to render computer generated 3D in stereo for viewing systems and projectors.

But in commercial movies, it's just one more thing to go wrong. Which means, it adds additional risk. And risk is something to which the film business is averse. Unfortunately, that's not likely to ever change, at least in a system that's based on capitalism. Color may have seemed that way as well at first, but it's benefit was significant, required less special preparation (when in fact, B&W needed special color consideration itself, as a red dress in reality could end up looking black on screen, or the same 'shade' as a green one when it's supposed to be different). Sound too, brought immediate benefit and actually may have made it easier in some ways to make films. Stereo is always extra work, and extra risk, and the benefit is uncertain. If the business ever gets around to preferring uncertainty, perhaps then 3D mainstream movies will be allowed to get to the point where they consistently do well...

STAR WARS

OI LUCAS! STOP FUCKING WITH STAR WARS. PLEASE :D

Kudo's, Roger!

While I don't usually agree on everything Roger Ebert says, I totally agree with his comments on Hollywood rushing towards the 3D craze, and it not adding much to the experience.

The 3D Avatar was shot with - that's crap. I don't want alternating images broadcast to alternate eyes. I want two images broadcast to two eyes simultaneously.

The glasses in the theatre are garbage. They are made of cheap plastic, and the polarizing windows are distorted and make the images fuzzy.

Screw-ups like 2D to 3D conversions doesn't help bolster the craze - it helps destroy it.

I'm not surprised that 3D is taking a bit of a downturn in the theatre.

Let's face it - cinemas are expensive. They don't represent the best value for our dollar. You can't pause the damn thing to take a leak. You can't pause it to grab a snack. You can't pause it to do the wild thing. The bathrooms reek of yesterdays vomit (no, wait - that was the seat beside mine in the cinema). The other patrons are loud and obnoxious (and are going to get an ass-kickin' if they keep blowing the good parts). Then there's the air conditioning from hell in the summer (wear a jacket - trust me, it help), and the furnace in the winter (wear a g-string - trust me - the seats can't get any more smelly if you tried).

All in all, cinema, and especially 3D cinema is doomed to fail.

Now home cinema is a different story. Why would anyone pay $24-$30 (CDN) to watch a movie, add overpriced coke (or Pepsi for those cinemas that are under the delusion that Pepsi is prefered by more people over coke) and overpriced popcorn, when you can buy a movie on DVD or Blu-Ray and watch it at home for the same price? And watch it again and again when you feel like it.

After seeing some of the gorgeous LED LCD TV's in the stores (thank you Samsung!), why would I want to watch a stinkin' movie outside of my own home?

Avatar

I know from reading the comments that not everyone will agree with me on this, but Avatar was a good example of how 3D should be done. Journey to the Center of the Earth, though, was an example of how 3D should NOT be done. The main trick to keeping your viewers from getting sick, as so many reports have stated happens, is to maintain roughly the same field depth between shots. Don't go from a deep shot to a shallow shot to a wide-angle shot - you'll get people putting their popcorn back in the buckets like that. Instead, make easy transitions from deep field to shallow, or if that's not possible, there's always the old-fashioned 'fade-to-black' routine that has been in cinematography for ages.

In defense of 3d

3d is an extra 5 bucks (50% of full fare on a non-3d showing) here, but the best part is you get to pick where you sit, in assigned row numbers. I like it. I have no interest is seeing everything in 3d, but certain movies I'm really looking forward to I'd want to see in 3d if it's available. The thing is, it has to be well done. I thought Toy Story 3 looked great, but one of the trailers shown in 3d looked awful (and so did the movie...).

Fluff

If 3D isn't utilised in a way enhances or adds to the narrative, it'll be just like any other film making technique used inappropriately; visual fluff rather than golden goose. The big studios track record on decent ideas and scripts is pretty poor in the last couple of decades, and their apparent belief that 3d will magically turn a rather tired sows ear into a silk purse will probably be the thing that devalues it overall.

Just goes to show that...

... as was so amply demonstrated by the Star Wars crap, that special effects are no substitute for a story, a script and good acting.

It is all marketing hype (well most of it)

To me the cinema owners think they are onto something and have a new cash cow to fleece. VIP seats are one new revenue stream ( I do like them - mainly as the seat is reserved, there is no rush to get in as the "film" starts - read 20+ minutes of ads) and now 3D. My local Vue puts the price up each time I go... now £10 then a 70p online booking fee for that pleasure, if it is 3D another £3 for the glasses which you can't re-use? eh - We are being encourage (forced) to recycle everything but big business don't have to - amazing... as long as someone is making money!

Cinemas will end up driving people away with excessive prices.

As to 3D TV, another marketing gimic, first we had HD ready, everyone wanted one. Then as soon as sales dwindled Full HD arrived and people who had HD ready wanted that - for what reason as the only thing which utilises 1080p is Bluray - and even some of those films look no better than DVD. BBC-HD does look stunning, but I have yet to see a demo where 1080p looks any better than 720p - until you get to 60"+ screens with higher numbers of pixels to light. Now Full HD has become "standard" 3D is the sales buzz word. I love my tech don't get me wrong, but I will be sticking with my now near 5yr old Pioneer plasma - no Full HD or 3D but there isn't much which will touch it for picture quality which is more important to me than gimics or technology which isn't ever going to be fully used.

There are far too many people in this country who are easily swayed by marketing hype, wake up people!

<rant mode off>

fad

It was inevitable. 3d just doesn't add anything useful. It adds depth that doesn't need to exist and costs more to make and view. I noticed that I also picked up fewer details because of the "ooh pretty" effect.

Given the choice between 2d and spending £2 extra for 3d I would pick 2d every time now.

Costs to the punter of 3D

There have been a few comments about costs. Just to be specific, Cineworld Birmingham Broad Street charges the following for an adult going in the evening

Adult charge (same for 2D film) - £6.50

3D Surcharge (apparently to cover Real3D's license costs) - £2.10

Optional glasses (if you got some, don't have to buy new ones) - 80p

So it could cost £9.40 to see a 3D film, £8.60 if you have the glasses, compared with £6.50 to see a 2D film

Novelty?

3D cinema has been around for 50 years. Every decade or so there is a 3D hype, and of course the so called novelty wears off quickly.