Does 3D add anything?

oxygen_old

I should start by saying of the new technology batch of 3D movies, I have seen Avatar and Final Destination 3D. I still hope to see UP in 3D. So I think its fair to say, Avatar is the benchmark for 3D movie making, and FD3D is kinda what 3D was originally intended for, gimmickry.

Watching FD3D, I was mostly jarred by the layering of the 3D. Most of it seemed to be 2D footage broke into different layers. It really only came to life when a hammer was thrown out of the screen, or a spike impaled someone, and continued out of the screen. All perfectly adequate effective gimmickry I expected from this movie, which I enjoyed very much, as did the audience I was viewing it with.

But I had higher hopes for Avatar, if any movie was going to sell 3D to me, this was it. But in terms of effectiveness I'm not sure. I didn't really notice the 3D most of the time, maybe this was its effectiveness, to just blend in as part of the image, but there were times I did notice it was when I saw what looked like 2 2d layers in different perspectives. For example, what I noticed alot of was a characters face, being in the foreground from the background. This had the effect of bringing me out of the movie momentarily.
It was a case that while the character was in the foreground, they were still 2D. There could be 7 or 8 different layers on screen, but they were still all 2d layers. There wasnt any depth to any of the actors faces. I had thought with the dual camera technology, that it would add that sort of depth, but mostly what I just saw were layers, that reminded me I was watching a movie.

Taking into account the human tendency in real life to shift focus from background to foreground and back, which can never be replicated in movies, do people think 3D will add that much to movies, or will it phase out of the cinema, to be replaced, hopefully by good story telling, acting and directing in traditional 2D.

*by the by, 3d for gaming, home computing, graphic presentation, etc etc, I think 3D will be groundbreaking if utilised correctly.

Draupnir

Depth?

Basq

Judging by the success of 'Avatar'.. I sincerally don't think 3D will be phased out anytime soon.

I personally enjoyed the experience of 'Avatar' more than the actual film.

petes

basquille wrote: »

Judging by the success of 'Avatar'.. I sincerally don't think 3D will be phased out anytime soon.

I personally enjoyed the experience of 'Avatar' more than the actual film.

+1 to this.

oxygen_old

Avatar is kindof a difficult movie to guage 3d movie success from. It had a budget of $500 million with $150 million of that alone going to marketing. As the first major 3D movie, there was always going to be alot of interest in it. It movies from here on in I will be interested to see. Animation movies lend well to 3D, and with come of the stuff coming from the pixar camp, if 3D was used for animation solely thats still worth it.

But its in actual movies Im thinking, where its not %80 CG rendered, or its a plot focused movie, or action focused.

oxygen_old

Insurgent wrote: »

+1 to this.

+1 to this

Bluefoam

TBH, UP didn't really benefit from being 3D, but Avatar was fantastic.

Kipperhell

Effectively no, it adds nothing. Avatar really showing that a visual feast is nothing without a good story. I ,like I suspect many other people, went to see Avatar for the effects to see if it was any good. My conclusion was no it is not worth anything past the gimmick.
I think studios will put false hope into the importance based on ticket sales that will not develop into renewed cinema going on a large scale but it will probably help marginally. I await the first 3D movie failure to make them react.

Oddly 3D gaming I would see as the leading force behind bringing it into the home more so than anything else.

InKonspikuou2

I hope this 3D gimic ends or they at least limit it to films as visually spectacular as Avatar. But knowing Hollywood they'll have 3D documentaries out soon enough.

jaykhunter

Yep, even Avatar's 3D isn't perfect. It's somewhat saddening to see movies like Alice in Wonderland's trailer looking so 'construction paper' 3D and not as good as Avatar - meaning all films will look like different paper cut-outs on each other until others use the Avatar effect.

I found it harder to just pay attention to the movie, because there's constantly "ooh look at the 3D!" ....lol... some shots did look 2D, and some 'layered' paper 3D, and some bits (like when the general talks to the rows of troops sitting down) looking like fantastic 3D. But it's just a huge gimmick, to make people spend a little more money, as it's the 'next big thing'.

My Bloody Valentine might be bearable in 3D but in 2D, it looks so stupid! There are certain effects where 'this must look cool in 3D' but looks lame in a normal 2D film. This film COMPLETELY relies on the 3D gimmick and is horrible without it.... But i guess it's the 'experience' that would drive you to see the film. I think a lot of people would've still loved Avatar is it was 2D (i didn't really like the film, but thought the 3D was impressive).

Anyway bottom line is that 3D is a total gimmick and is a new way to watch certain films. But it's never essential to see a film in 3D.

btw UP is a quite enjoyable kids' film. I'd recommend seeing it. The 3D is pretty good --better than the usual 3D but worse than avatar-- where round things look round.

Blazer

[QUOTE=InKonspikuou2;64014154 But knowing Hollywood they'll have 3D documentaries out soon enough.[/QUOTE]


now that I'd go see before any film

monkeyfudge

Avatar was way, way, waaaay... too long for a 3D movie... got really sick of it about half way through and the awful plot and characters did nothing to help either.

Final Destination 3D was fine though... think it was only something stupid like 70 minutes long, but it certainly didn't overstay it's welcome. My Bloody Valentine worked a lot better as a film though.

Spiritoftheseventies

Kipperhell wrote: »

Effectively no, it adds nothing. Avatar really showing that a visual feast is nothing without a good story. I ,like I suspect many other people, went to see Avatar for the effects to see if it was any good. My conclusion was no it is not worth anything past the gimmick.
I think studios will put false hope into the importance based on ticket sales that will not develop into renewed cinema going on a large scale but it will probably help marginally. I await the first 3D movie failure to make them react.

Oddly 3D gaming I would see as the leading force behind bringing it into the home more so than anything else.

Yes for me Avatar was really a gaming experience. The ending was a bit cheesy. thumbs up to all involved with the movie because you can tell an incredible amount of work was put into it but just thought overall it fell behind the likes of films like Lord of the Rings and even Dances with Wolves.

S.M.B.

The fact that Avatar has made so much money will more than likely lead to a whole host of copy cat films in the near future.

If it makes business sense for hollywood to continue to make 3D movies then they will.

monkeyfudge

Well Aronofsky has walked away from the Robocop remake because apparently the studio was putting pressure on it being made as a 3D movie.

A Robocop remake is a stupid idea, but having Aronofsky on board definitely made me interested in the project. Now it's just going be a horrible mess and all thanks to the success of Avatar and gimmicky 3D technology.

mickoneill30

Avatar was the first movie I've seen in 3D.

Apart from the first few minutes of being impressed by it, I could have taken or left it.

A film with a good story & plot > a film with 3D and average story.

monkeyfudge

mickoneill30 wrote: »

A film with a good story & plot > a film with 3D and average story.

Unfortunately a film with 3D and average story > A film with a good story & plot in terms of revenue generated.

And as such Avatar is probably one of the worst things to ever happen to cinema. It's going to have a huge knock on effect on what is produced over the next few years.

S.M.B.

Exactly, I'm thinking of not going seeing it now just to avoid contributing to the inevitable onslaught of 3D cinema.

kumate_champ07

it kind of adds an extra dimension to an otherwise flat media

monkeyfudge

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

it kind of adds an extra dimension to an otherwise flat media

Would the Mona Lisa be a better work of art if it was a sculpture?

S.M.B.

Possibly.

Spiritoftheseventies

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Avatar was the first movie I've seen in 3D.

Apart from the first few minutes of being impressed by it, I could have taken or left it.

A film with a good story & plot > a film with 3D and average story.

Toy Story to be fair was very good.

iMax

InKonspikuou2 wrote: »

But knowing Hollywood they'll have 3D documentaries out soon enough.

Already Happened: (here's a surprise) Cameron's "Ghosts Of The Abyss" Made in 2003 in imax 3d. I saw it & it's spectacular. Everyone said on Avatar's release that he hadn't done anything in 14 years but I KNEW THE TRUTH !!!

Anyway, for me, 3d is best used in adding depth & sensation. The best effects were the likes of leaves hanging over you in the jungle or the burning embers floating in the air.

In FD3D, the best effect for me, was the flyer that came floating through the air from behind & the splashes of water in the carwash. It's the small stuff that makes it worth while.

kumate_champ07

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Would the Mona Lisa be a better work of art if it was a sculpture?

I was being facetious

oxygen_old

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

it kind of adds an extra dimension to an otherwise flat media

I can see what your saying, but does this extra dimension have the sole effect of taking you out of the movie? It will never be rendered in a manner people are accustomed to. People can choose what to focus on in real life, not so in 3D movies.

For example, LoTR, in my opinion, the finest movie spectacle to be filmed. Keeping in mind, all the brilliant battle scenes, and the excellent acting and directing. Would I have rather watched this in 3d? Not a chance, it would have ruined it for me.

jaykhunter

Some things could be enhanced by 3D, but I imagine that hollywood directors will just splurge on it and have it be more important than the story. I'd agree that spectacle over substance brings home the bacon.

That said, I'd love to see Blue Planet or Planet Earth in Avatar's 3D or better. I got the feeling that Cameron wanted a bit of 'discovery and wonder' , the kind you get in some of Attenborough's documentaries, especially Ocean Deep.

Bluefoam

bayviewclose wrote: »

Toy Story to be fair was very good.

Was ToyStory released in 3d?

They have released ToyStory 2 in 3d, but only recently

monkeyfudge

Bluefoam wrote: »

Was ToyStory released in 3d?

They have released ToyStory 2 in 3d, but only recently

Yep. The first one was released here a few months back. The 2 films were released back to back in the US.

Here they've been released separately so they can charge twice for films you've already paid into in the past.

Spiritoftheseventies

Bluefoam wrote: »

Was ToyStory released in 3d?

They have released ToyStory 2 in 3d, but only recently

Not 3d as such but close enough to it in terms of hd graphics.

bogmanfan

I expect 3D to be the norm in a few years. The movie industry needs to get people away from downloading and back into the cinemas. I can't imagine Avatar on a laptop screen would be anything like it is in the cinema.

Spiritoftheseventies

bogmanfan wrote: »

I expect 3D to be the norm in a few years. The movie industry needs to get people away from downloading and back into the cinemas. I can't imagine Avatar on a laptop screen would be anything like it is in the cinema.

Yes I think releasing Avatar on DVD or blue ray unless people have a home cinema system is a futile exercise. Forget about watching it on laptop altogether.

krudler

S.M.B. wrote: »

Exactly, I'm thinking of not going seeing it now just to avoid contributing to the inevitable onslaught of 3D cinema.

Avatar made over $1 billion in 17 days, I think your contribution at this point is moot

3D for me isnt essential, but Avatar, lets face it has been the first "event" movie since LOTR, I dont know anyone who hasnt already seen it or wants to see it before it leaves the cinema, and getting people back into the cinemas and away from downloading is something the studios will push big time now , even people I know who would never go to the cinema and just download cams of new movies instead (the shame!) went to it purely for the 3D aspect

3D games will be the thing that make the 3D medium imo, imagine playing something like Modern Warfare were the ammo counters and health bars are floating in front of your eyes, or explosions make it seem like stuff is flying out of the screen at you, granted I wouldnt want to play games this way all the time so the ability to turn off the 3D would be essential, but itd be fun

L31mr0d

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Would the Mona Lisa be a better work of art if it was a sculpture?

It's a moot point. It's like saying would Michelangelo's David be better as a painting.

Personally, I don't think 3D is going to change much of anything regarding cinema. I can see it phasing out again in less than 5 years once home 3D technology becomes mainstream (unless there is a sudden innovation in the technology of course)

Personally my issue with Cinema is the screen it is broadcast on to. A rectangular screen is never going to create an effective immersive experience.

I'd much prefer to watch a non 3D film at an Omnimax than to watch a 3D film on a generic rectangular screen. Anyone who's been to an Omnimax dome theatre knows the level of immersion it can create.

Bluefoam

The reall question should be:

Would David Bowie's 'China Girl' be better as a spoken word recording?...

monkeyfudge

Would tea be better as coffee...? yes... yes it would.

Spiritoftheseventies

Bluefoam wrote: »

The reall question should be:

Would David Bowie's 'China Girl' be better as a spoken word recording?...

I think for anyone who has ever played a long online game lets say like Half Life, Avatar wouldnt have held that many surprises. Seems to be very gaming orientated in its plot. Just my observation.

oxygen_old

Bluefoam wrote: »

The reall question should be:

Would David Bowie's 'China Girl' be better as a spoken word recording?...

I think as evidenced by William Shattners Rocket Man, Yes. Yes it would be better.

S.M.B.

bayviewclose wrote: »

I think for anyone who has ever played a long online game lets say like Half Life, Avatar wouldnt have held that many surprises. Seems to be very gaming orientated in its plot. Just my observation.

By gaming orientated you mean **** I presume?

MooseJam

If it's going to become the norm they should improve the glasses

Spiritoftheseventies

S.M.B. wrote: »

By gaming orientated you mean **** I presume?

Yes pretty much. Whats the phrase im looking for. Generic. Pretty sure an Avatar game is already in the making if not already.

norrie rugger

jaykhunter wrote: »

Yep, even Avatar's 3D isn't perfect. It's somewhat saddening to see movies like Alice in Wonderland's trailer looking so 'construction paper' 3D and not as good as Avatar - meaning all films will look like different paper cut-outs on each other until others use the Avatar effect.

I found it harder to just pay attention to the movie, because there's constantly "ooh look at the 3D!" ....lol... some shots did look 2D, and some 'layered' paper 3D, and some bits (like when the general talks to the rows of troops sitting down) looking like fantastic 3D. But it's just a huge gimmick, to make people spend a little more money, as it's the 'next big thing'.

My Bloody Valentine might be bearable in 3D but in 2D, it looks so stupid! There are certain effects where 'this must look cool in 3D' but looks lame in a normal 2D film. This film COMPLETELY relies on the 3D gimmick and is horrible without it.... But i guess it's the 'experience' that would drive you to see the film. I think a lot of people would've still loved Avatar is it was 2D (i didn't really like the film, but thought the 3D was impressive).

Anyway bottom line is that 3D is a total gimmick and is a new way to watch certain films. But it's never essential to see a film in 3D.

btw UP is a quite enjoyable kids' film. I'd recommend seeing it. The 3D is pretty good --better than the usual 3D but worse than avatar-- where round things look round.

I imagine that you would have had people calling talkies and colour movies gimmicks too

Royale with Cheese

Just went to see Avatar the other night, my first 3d film. Ended up thinking the same thing, 3d is just a gimmick and I'd rather they didn't bother, or at least wait until the technology is vastly improved before deploying it in cinemas.

Definitely agree with the layering, most of the 3d effects seemed tacked on without any real purpose. Every now and again I thought it actually worked quite well, but that was far too seldom and you can't only have 3d in a select few shots of the film.

I can see why it's being pushed though. Avatar's huge success has to be down to people wanting to experience a effects laden film like this in the cinema in 3d, rather than waiting for it to come out on DVD and watching it at home, or just downloading it. Avatar was not a film that interested me, I purely went to see it just to experience the 3d and to see such an effects laden film on the big screen. If they can vastly improve the technology then I can see it drawing more people back to the cinema, and away from thepiratebay.

krudler

S.M.B. wrote: »

By gaming orientated you mean **** I presume?

Dont decry all video games has having crappy plots, Bioshock, Metal Gear, Half Life, God of War etc all put most movies to shame with their narratives, Shadow of the Colossus on the PS2 is the closest a video game has come to being an actual work of art , its fantastic

jaykhunter

norrie rugger wrote: »

I imagine that you would have had people calling talkies and colour movies gimmicks too

LOL! That made me think of the Hammer Horror films, how they remade old classics, but now in colour, and with a gothic overtone. If it's an interpretation rather than just a straight re-shoot using later technology, then it wouldn't be a gimmick.

I suppose if they made films in black and white, and ALSO in colour, then it would be a gimmick. But when a film places the emphysis on a particular gimmick (like crazy amounts of CGI etc etc) rather than the film/characters, it is a gimmick. I'd consider HD a gimmick, even though I love it. There's no particular reason to have it, is just looks nice. Same with 3D...although I don't think the technology is perfect yet. I guess since it's still in it's initial stages (where it looks like different planes of 2D) it's obvious that it's unnecessary.

Anyway, i think i've used my max daily limit of the g-word!


Oh, there is Avatar : The Game. It's poor. Don't rent it. You can catch the reviews on GameTrailers, Gamespot or IGN, but it's a poor-man's 3rd Person Shooter.

S.M.B.

I'm no gaming expert these days but to say that Metal Gear Solid and Half Life put most movies to shame with their narratives is way off the mark imo.

Spiritoftheseventies

S.M.B. wrote: »

I'm no gaming expert these days but to say that Metal Gear Solid and Half Life put most movies to shame with their narratives is way off the mark imo.

I didnt say that. Said there were some similar plot lines in terms of the dynamics. Not for all of the movie but for some parts of it. Again have no beef at all with the production values. 10 out of ten. A visual treat. But was a bit weak in terms of the story line

S.M.B.

bayviewclose wrote: »

I didnt say that. Said there were some similar plot lines in terms of the dynamics. Not for all of the movie but for some parts of it. Again have no beef at all with the production values. 10 out of ten. A visual treat. But was a bit weak in terms of the story line

Sorry, that was directed at krudler.

krudler

S.M.B. wrote: »

I'm no gaming expert these days but to say that Metal Gear Solid and Half Life put most movies to shame with their narratives is way off the mark imo.

By "no gaming expert" I'd imagine you havent played them? Anyone who's played any of the Metal Gear games can tell you the plot and characters are as dense as they come, sometimes overwhelming so, put it this way, the final scenes of Metal Gear 4 are nearly an hour and a half long, thats an entire movie you have to sit through at the end to wrap up all the plot points, character arcs and story threads it. Games have come along by leaps and bounds in the last 10 years or so, we never needed a reason for Mario to be doing what he does, but a decent plot is pretty essential for most story based games these days, take Uncharted 2, it plays out like the best summer blockbuster never made

Futurism

S.M.B. wrote: »

I'm no gaming expert these days but to say that Metal Gear Solid and Half Life put most movies to shame with their narratives is way off the mark imo.

I won't speak for Half Life because I felt it was just an above average game, but the Metal Gear narrative was something else! (I'm probably being biased though.)

Anyway, I've seen UP and Avatar in 3D and honestly can't tell if it added anything to them. It could be that the 3D worked so well (most of the time,some shots just looked tacky) that I didn't notice it's presence. If so, it would certainly explain why I came out of Avatar amazed.

Homesick Alien

jaykhunter wrote: »

Some things could be enhanced by 3D, but I imagine that hollywood directors will just splurge on it and have it be more important than the story. I'd agree that spectacle over substance brings home the bacon.

That said, I'd love to see Blue Planet or Planet Earth in Avatar's 3D or better. I got the feeling that Cameron wanted a bit of 'discovery and wonder' , the kind you get in some of Attenborough's documentaries, especially Ocean Deep.

In fairness most Hollywood action/sci fi fair is terrible without 3D anyway. Adding 3D makes them at least a great experience. I thought Avatar in 3D was superb. Visually 5/5. Story 2/5. You take it back to 2D and you're taking the amazing visual experience out of it.

Arthouse and Indie movies, based on character depth, moods and layers will remain intact, in their current form, and unaffected by 3D.

Bottomline: Movies like Avatar are better in 3D than 2D.

Spiritoftheseventies

Homesick Alien wrote: »

In fairness most Hollywood action/sci fi fair is terrible without 3D anyway. Adding 3D makes them at least a great experience. I thought Avatar in 3D was superb. Visually 5/5. Story 2/5. You take it back to 2D and you're taking the amazing visual experience out of it.

Arthouse and Indie movies, based on character depth, moods and layers will remain intact, in their current form, and unaffected by 3D.

Bottomline: Movies like Avatar are better in 3D than 2D.

question remains does Avatar and similiar films have their background in the gaming genre. Would LOTR have been the film it was had they taken the same approach.