Movies that could benefit from 3D

So, I'm watching the final Matrix movie on Sky1 HD and it's come to the final battle between Agent Smith and Neo and it strikes me how well shot it is and how great it could potentially look if it were in 3D - not just retrofitted though, but done properly, like in Avatar.

What other movies could potentially benefit from 3D?

don ramo

3D is a gimmick and when it does go away (and it will) all the films that were filmed in 3D will look retarded and the directers who shot them will seem like idiots cause when you watch a 3D film in 2D some of the angles look completely retarded, and itll seem like the director didnt have a clue what he was doing,

Phony Scott

Hmmm...I'd love to see older films which were shot in 3d get a side by side makeover, so the likes of 'The Creature from the Black lagoon,' 'It came from outer space' and all the 80's films like 'Comin at ya' 'Friday the 13th 3D' and 'Jaws 3d' etc. It will probably never happen, but it would be nice to see.

blatantrereg

don ramo wrote: »

3D is a gimmick and when it does go away (and it will) all the films that were filmed in 3D will look retarded and the directers who shot them will seem like idiots cause when you watch a 3D film in 2D some of the angles look completely retarded, and itll seem like the director didnt have a clue what he was doing,

All I will say to that is "Toy Story 3"

The Germans have been adding 3D to dozens of old films and the results thus far have been atrocious. Running Scared, Day of the Dead, Dune and dozens of others have all been retro fitted with 3D and not a single one has been watchable. The Americans are now getting in on the gimmick with a slew of post, post converted 3D releases coming out over the next year.

Oh I know, hence ones that are done properly rather than retrofitted.

jaykhunter

On a side note I think we're way overdue for a matrix prequel!

3D should be for either campy horrors (piranha 3D is a perfect use for 3D) or action blockbusters, like transformers; spectacle films that don't have much In the script department!

3D is a gimmick so I reckon it's best used in films that embrace the gimmick in tone and light-hearted spectacle

the scrote

wouldn't mind seeing aliens in 3d,actually it would probably ruin it

johnny_ultimate

Absolutely no movie yet made would benefit from a 3D retrograding or reimagining. It was never the director's vision, it was never made for a third dimension, and therefore it is absolutely useless and a destruction of the cinematic form. As for new films, I have yet to see a film that truly benefits from 3D technology (except maybe Avatar, but I'm not even convinced by that the more I think about it) so I don't think any film actually benefits from it (even then, Avatar remains an utterly unique case). Yeah I honestly think 'absolutely nowt' is the only answer I can give

Only benefit it actually has is getting old films back into the cinema, albeit in a highly inferior version.

Sad Professor

I was impressed with how Hugo used it, but given the choice I would have preferred to have seen it in 2D. The glasses and the dimness make 3D a totally inferior experience to 2D. I don't see why I should have to pay a premium for a technology that's just not ready yet and won't be for years.

johnny_ultimate

I'd heard so much about Hugo's 3D, but TBH it just felt unnecessary and distracting to me. The opening sequence was the only time it impressed, but even then it felt more like a pop-up book than a 'real' world: it felt like manufactured layers rather than a coherent whole.

Herzog and Scorcese haven't really convinced me (although I, regrettably, never got around to Pina): I'll wait and see if anyone else manages it.

mike65

Ugh! How about 2001: A 3 Dimensional Space Odyssey? The Stargate sequence would look pretty cool. oh wait it already does! :mad:

krudler

so far the only movies that have impressed in 3D were Avatar, Jackass (really, the opening sequence is brilliant) and Transformers Dark Of The Moon, I thought the skydiving sequence was stunning, pity it was attached to a terrible movie :pac: I dont like the idea of retrofitting movie for 3D, but if we're talking purely hypothetically then the finale to Return of The Jedi would look spectacular if it had the depth of field that TF3 had.

crazygeryy

None.none at all.i hope it pisses off as quick as it arrived.i agree with the above poster its a gimmick and the sooner it goes the better.

JP Liz V1

Back to the Future Trilogy

roguey

blatantrereg wrote: »

All I will say to that is "Toy Story 3" was better in 2D

FYP

OldeCinemaSoz

I'd love to see DIRTY HARRY in 3D just for the fun of it.

Don Siegal puts so much of your face into the action
that there'd be some really class scenes;

looking down Scorpio's sights and his silencer sticking
right into your face; Scorpio screaming as he's stabbed by Harry
and the sebsequent pulling the flick knife out of his leg;
Harry throwing away his police badge into the crowd as
the titles roll...

I don't now about the "Hot Mary" scene in 3D though;
that maybe taking things a bit far....

Mickeroo

After the first 5 minutes the 3D doesn't even register i find.

johnny_ultimate

Mickeroo wrote: »

After the first 5 minutes the 3D doesn't even register i find.

Except when the screen is so dark it's distracting, or the inevitable 'hmm, let's take off my glasses and see what it looks like without them' moment during narrative lulls.

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Except when the screen is so dark it's distracting, or the inevitable 'hmm, let's take off my glasses and see what it looks like without them' moment during narrative lulls.

Yea, I'm always struck by how vivid the colours are when you tke them off.

I'd say Saving Private Ryan would look absolutely incredible if they were to reshoot it completely in 3D.

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd say Saving Private Ryan would look absolutely incredible if they were to reshoot it completely in 3D.

also probably the most inappropriate use of 3D, hey folks lets watch young mens limbs be blown off in harrowing detail...in 3D!!!

krudler

krudler wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd say Saving Private Ryan would look absolutely incredible if they were to reshoot it completely in 3D.

also probably the most inappropriate use of 3D, hey folks lets watch young mens limbs be blown off in harrowing detail...in 3D!!!

Can't see anything inappropriate about Saving Private Ryan in 3D. Of anything it would help distract from the unbelievable plot and the opening scene could possibly look amazing.

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't see anything inappropriate about Saving Private Ryan in 3D. Of anything it would help distract from the unbelievable plot and the opening scene could possibly look amazing.

I was joking :pac: I'm sure it would look great particularly the depth of field from the soldiers pov shots and the like. Schindler's List 3D then after that :pac:

MJ23

I'm so glad Christopher Nolan didnt go for 3d for the new Batman movie. It would have ruined it. I hope 3d goes away, but i fear it wont. Film companies want to cash in on redoing older films in 3d and putting them in the cinema. Just like Star Wars that was out recently. Also, if a film is crap, it doesnt matter what format its in, it'll still be crap in blu-ray or 3d.

al28283

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Except when the screen is so dark it's distracting, or the inevitable 'hmm, let's take off my glasses and see what it looks like without them' moment during narrative lulls.

you need to find a decent cinema

spankmaster2000

Point Break

I don't think there was much point to that film other than to highlight the skydiving and surfing bits. Which I think would look awesome in 3D.

The 3rd dimension certainly can't take away from the acting performances anyway...

krudler

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

Point Break

I don't think there was much point to that film other than to highlight the skydiving and surfing bits. Which I think would look awesome in 3D.

The 3rd dimension certainly can't take away from the acting performances anyway...

That would look great, i'd rather see nature docs and the like in 3D rather than films, the best use of it i've ever seen is the T2 and Spiderman rides on Universal Studios

spankmaster2000

krudler wrote: »

That would look great, i'd rather see nature docs and the like in 3D rather than films, the best use of it i've ever seen is the T2 and Spiderman rides on Universal Studios

That's the kind of place where a lot of people will have first seen 3D in a cinema environment; so it may steer a lot of opinions. I mean; I'd really be interested to see what modern children think about films which are 3D (or not) in 20 year's time.

Following on from the threads original idea; how long will it be before IMAX is considered a "necessity" for blockbuster films? (Or is that stage already here? There were 20 or so released this year, and the same last year.)

Are we ever likely to see steps towards Krudlers experience above? Moving chairs in the cinema? Blowing wind/rain effects? Smell-o-vision? Ok; I sincerely doubt the last few; but my point is; where is it likely to go from here?

Technocentral

MJ23 wrote: »

I'm so glad Christopher Nolan didnt go for 3d for the new Batman movie. It would have ruined it. I hope 3d goes away, but i fear it wont. Film companies want to cash in on redoing older films in 3d and putting them in the cinema. Just like Star Wars that was out recently. Also, if a film is crap, it doesnt matter what format its in, it'll still be crap in blu-ray or 3d.

Hate it myself, they tried it in the 50's and people soon tired of it, I'd give it another year or two.

johnny_ultimate

al28283 wrote: »

you need to find a decent cinema

Definitely, namely the ones that show 2D evening screenings instead of 3D ones.

kippy

3D was tried years and years ago, it didnt work as the technology wasn't good enough.
Avatar looked decent, however the film itself was pants, gimmicky. Anything else I have seen in 3D hasnt been worth the money.
Conclusion, 3D is still not far enough along for it to be "must have" however the movie studios are trying hard to ensure people come to the cinema as opposed to download illegally so 3D is here to stay. It might improve.

Sad Professor

Cinema owners spent a lot of money upgrading their equipment at the behest of the studios. I think this is the main reason 3D is still around. Once its believed that the cinemas have made most of their money back from their investment, I think we'll see significant reduction in the number of 3D films being released. The fact is most directors don't give sh*t about 3D and once the studios stop putting pressure on them to do it, it'll likely die off. Again.

Technocentral

kippy wrote: »

3D was tried years and years ago, it didnt work as the technology wasn't good enough.
Avatar looked decent, however the film itself was pants, gimmicky. Anything else I have seen in 3D hasnt been worth the money.
Conclusion, 3D is still not far enough along for it to be "must have" however the movie studios are trying hard to ensure people come to the cinema as opposed to download illegally so 3D is here to stay. It might improve.

Completely untrue, seen a showing of the 50s 3D film "Creature From The Black Lagoon" in New York a few years ago projected on the original 35mm (well we stayed for about 25 mins, was in the Museum of the Moving Image) it was just as 3D as the the live action elements of Avatar or U2 3D (the only 3D films I've seen), an industry desperate to push it is going to say "the old 3D didn't work the new one does", bollox. As a novelty its fine but that soon wears of after 2 or 3 viewings of films made in 3D.

kippy

Technocentral wrote: »

Completely untrue, seen a showing of the 50s 3D film "Creature From The Black Lagoon" in New York a few years ago projected on the original 35mm (well we stayed for about 25 mins, was in the Museum of the Moving Image) it was just as 3D as the the live action elements of Avatar or U2 3D (the only 3D films I've seen), an industry desperate to push it is going to say "the old 3D didn't work the new one does", bollox. As a novelty its fine but that soon wears of after 2 or 3 viewings of films made in 3D.

If you re ready my post you'll see that I believe that neither era of 3D works, but that the main reason we were seeing an emergence of it, was an attempt to get people watching films that weren't easily watched or downloaded illegally.

Sad Professor

I don't get the piracy argument for 3D at all. The pirates can just go to the 2D screenings, which will always exist because many people can't see 3D. For this supposed anti-piracy method to work, audiences would have to enjoy the 3D experience enough that they would rather see a film in 3D than watch the 2D version. Based on comments here and elsewhere, I don't see any evidence to suggest that this is the case.

3D has nothing to do with piracy. Even before people were pirating films, they were waiting for the DVD/Blu-ray rather than going to see it in the cinema. Mostly because going to the cinema is too expensive and it's filled with stupid kids who'd rather not be there but have nothing else to do. If you ask me, 3D is more about trying to save the Hollywood blockbuster - overblown theme park ride-type films that people have gotten so bored with that they are happy to watch a poor quality cam version on their computer screen rather than see it in the cinema.

krudler

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

That's the kind of place where a lot of people will have first seen 3D in a cinema environment; so it may steer a lot of opinions. I mean; I'd really be interested to see what modern children think about films which are 3D (or not) in 20 year's time.

Following on from the threads original idea; how long will it be before IMAX is considered a "necessity" for blockbuster films? (Or is that stage already here? There were 20 or so released this year, and the same last year.)

Are we ever likely to see steps towards Krudlers experience above? Moving chairs in the cinema? Blowing wind/rain effects? Smell-o-vision? Ok; I sincerely doubt the last few; but my point is; where is it likely to go from here?

it works on rollercoasters and short films like Shrek 4D as its intergral to the experience and built around it, like on the T2 ride, its a big wrap around 3D screen and theres a scene where the T800 and John Connor are descending into the bowels of skynet in an elevator, and as they're moving down the chairs in the cinema rise up, its actually gives you the felling you're travelling with them and it works brilliantly. thats for a ride though I'd hate to sit through a full movie with the chairs moving, your arse would be killing you after it lol

spankmaster2000

krudler wrote: »

it works on rollercoasters and short films like Shrek 4D as its intergral to the experience and built around it, like on the T2 ride, its a big wrap around 3D screen and theres a scene where the T800 and John Connor are descending into the bowels of skynet in an elevator, and as they're moving down the chairs in the cinema rise up, its actually gives you the felling you're travelling with them and it works brilliantly. thats for a ride though I'd hate to sit through a full movie with the chairs moving, your arse would be killing you after it lol

I can imagine an audience leaving a showing of Transformers 7; covered in popcorn, coke, etc....

jaykhunter

Dang, I was hoping for a thread about movies that could benefit from 3D, not another "let's complain about 3D" thread

I'd love to see the next Wallace & Gromit in 3D I think it'd be pretty cute to see 3D clay figures move. If Blue Planet counts I think it'd be great in 3D.

spankmaster2000

jaykhunter wrote: »

I'd love to see the next Wallace & Gromit in 3D I think it'd be pretty cute to see 3D clay figures move.

You mean "The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists"?

I don't know why, but for me, the Aardman films and their style have a charm all of their own that doesn't need 3D slapped on top.

pickarooney

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

Point Break

I don't think there was much point to that film other than to highlight the skydiving and surfing bits. Which I think would look awesome in 3D.

The 3rd dimension certainly can't take away from the acting performances anyway...

Would Reeves' and Swayze's one-dimensional performances actually register in 3D?

krudler

pickarooney wrote: »

Would Reeves' and Swayze's one-dimensional performances actually register in 3D?

shurrup! Point Break is awesome sauce

mikhail

Technocentral wrote: »

Completely untrue, seen a showing of the 50s 3D film "Creature From The Black Lagoon" in New York a few years ago projected on the original 35mm (well we stayed for about 25 mins, was in the Museum of the Moving Image) it was just as 3D as the the live action elements of Avatar or U2 3D (the only 3D films I've seen), an industry desperate to push it is going to say "the old 3D didn't work the new one does", bollox. As a novelty its fine but that soon wears of after 2 or 3 viewings of films made in 3D.

Older 3D was that red-green nonsense that ruined the colour of the movie, or linear polarisation that suffered from cross-talk if you tilted your head. The current batch of 3D is better, but it's still stereoscopy - not real 3D. I gave it a chance, but I don't believe it's here to stay.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't get the piracy argument for 3D at all. The pirates can just go to the 2D screenings...

Or record the film through a circularly polarised filter. They cost about €20, from a quick google. The piracy argument is completely ignorant of the technology.

al28283

mikhail wrote: »

The current batch of 3D is better, but it's still stereoscopy - not real 3D

what would you call real 3d??? human visual system is stereoscopic, not 3d, i.e seeing out of 2 eyes

mikhail

al28283 wrote: »

what would you call real 3d??? human visual system is stereoscopic, not 3d, i.e seeing out of 2 eyes

Colour holography is real 3D. When I move my head, my perspective should change. The stereoscopy in cinemas now gives you the same two perspectives, no matter where you sit - this looks a bit off, if you're not in the middle of the cinema. It also fools your eyes into focussing on a plane in front of the screen, which contradiction causes the nausea and headaches some people find stereoscopy induces. Finally, I cannot refocus something that is out of focus on the screen. There are a lot of things that differentiate stereoscopy from a proper 3D projection.

al28283

mikhail wrote: »

Colour holography is real 3D. When I move my head, my perspective should change. The stereoscopy in cinemas now gives you the same two perspectives, no matter where you sit - this looks a bit off, if you're not in the middle of the cinema. It also fools your eyes into focussing on a plane in front of the screen, which contradiction causes the nausea and headaches some people find stereoscopy induces. Finally, I cannot refocus something that is out of focus on the screen. There are a lot of things that differentiate stereoscopy from a proper 3D projection.

I think you may be getting your terms confused. 3d are the objects, Stereoscopy is how we view them, even in the real world

jaykhunter

I'm interested in seeing what claymation looks like in 3D

How far are we off actual hologram projectors; like actually producing 3D objects into the air? 10 years?...Well i hope someone's actually working on it

al28283

jaykhunter wrote: »

I'm interested in seeing what claymation looks like in 3D

How far are we off actual hologram projectors; like actually producing 3D objects into the air? 10 years?...Well i hope someone's actually working on it

It's not really claymation but stop motion looks great in 3d. Check out Frankenweenie coming out in October this year

Zombrex

The only way to do 3D properly is to have the entire scene in focus the entire time*. Not even Avatar did that (not sure why people think that was good use of 3D). This at least gives the brain some hope of relaxing into the shot. As soon as you introduce depth of field you are essentially requiring that the viewing will be mentally unpleasent for the viewer, as the combination of 3D and out of focus image causes the brain to attempt to refocus the eye. How much they notice will depend on the viewer, but it will be mentally unpleasent to some degree as you cannot stop the brain trying to do this.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with depth of field in a movie, often it greatly increases the art of the scenes and should be used. The idea though that you would then take an unnecessary technology like 3D that effectively conflicts with this seem to my mind ludicrous.

*Keeping the scene all in focus is known as deep focus, and like all camera effects is used when the director thinks it should be used. The classic example is the scenes in Citizen Kane where Kane leaves his family home. Making an entire movie this way would help 3D, but would hardly by a directors choice I can't imagine.

al28283

A proper use of convergence is all that is needed, not to do away with depth of field

mikhail

al28283 wrote: »

I think you may be getting your terms confused. 3d are the objects, Stereoscopy is how we view them, even in the real world

I hate to resort to an appeal to authority, but no, I am not getting confused. I have a phd in a related area.