Spider-Man 4 in 3D?

[SpeterMan3]

Forbesto Sony Pictures Entertainment's co-chairmen Amy Pascal and Michael Lynton and asked whether they were considering doing Spider-Man 4

Pascal answered, "Could be," while Lynton added, "People are paying a premium to see movies in 3-D and that's a very big deal. It's never been done before that someone says you have to pay more to see Spider-Man than a romantic comedy."

2-D or 3-D, we'll be seeing Sam Raimi's fourth installment on May 6, 2011
http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8269
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/sony-pascal-lynton-business-media-sony.html

Would you guys be interested in seeing Spider-Man 4 in 3D? Would it be a good move or add to possible cheesiness? Discuss...

[Spider-ManHero12]

Hmmm, well, honestly, I'm fine with it either way. I think it could work.

[Mister J]

If it was done in a fashion similar to Superman Returns, where selected scenes were highlighted, it might make some action sequences a bit more spectacular (:spidey:), but it's not something, I'd get particular excited over.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the comments, but I doubt beyond all hell that I'd be willing to pay a premium for it.

[thejon93]

Sweet, maybe my dream of seeing a first-person swing sequence in a future film will come true (even earlier than I expected)!

[Dragon]

This movie isn't going to get the kind of numbers they want if it's run in 3D.

[webhead731]

No. I don't want it myself. I think it's too gimmicky.

[Goran]

I'm not quite sure what to think about it...
the statements sound vague..

[Figs]

I selected yes but that would only be if they used the highest quality 3-D effects possible.

In this day and age I still happen to see some films that fail at the 3-D aspect. Journey to the Center of the Earth's 3-D was half assed, should be no excuse with today's technology.

[NewYorkSpider]

I don't like the sound of this. It really doesn't appeal to me. I think they're exploring the idea since James Cameron's "Avatar" will be in 3-D.

[marvel001]

i'm not to fond of this idea.
idk, imo, 3-D movies are corny, its like they try to make each shot have something popping out, and it just looks stupid. i can see it now, a scene showing spidey shooting web balls coming at us, another scene were he's swinging coming towards the audience, i just think its not a great idea. like i said, 3-D movies are corny, and comic book movies are corny enough.

[Episode29]

Oh please God no...

[Batman137]

Worry about the STORY, not this type of ****. Plus, Sony shouldn't make those decisions. If Sam wants to, he will. Don't push him to do something he does not want to do. Again, Sony, LET SAM AND THE TEAM DO THEIR WORK, STAY OUT OF IT!

STORY FIRST!

[Sentinel X]

Yes...3D would be awesome!!

And I don't know what everyone is talking about. 3D doesn't necessarily mean random hands sticking out to the audience for no reason but the 3D effect alone. 3D is there to enhance a person's movie experience and for it to work well it needs a good director. If the director is good he/she will know how to incorporate the 3D properly into the film....if not you will get crappy 3D movies (which have been most of the 3D movies people have been getting lately, unfortunately.)

Some movies do good job at it though. The IMAX original 3D movies are always amazing to watch :up:.

[Sentinel X]

Since this is a double post I might as well:

watch spectacular spider-man people, I don't want the show to get canceled!!!....okay, now ignore the rest of this post.

[Episode29]

Yes...3D would be awesome!!

And I don't know what everyone is talking about. 3D doesn't necessarily mean random hands sticking out to the audience for no reason but the 3D effect alone. 3D is there to enhance a person's movie experience and for it to work well it needs a good director. If the director is good he/she will know how to incorporate the 3D properly into the film....if not you will get crappy 3D movies (which have been most of the 3D movies people have been getting lately, unfortunately.)

Some movies do good job at it though. The IMAX original 3D movies are always amazing to watch :up:.

No it isn't. It's there to boost ticket prices and lower piracy risks.

[venomvsspidey]

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9488/pulh4.jpg

[Episode29]

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9488/pulh4.jpg

Um, okay... :huh:

[SpeterMan3]

Since this is a double post I might as well:

watch spectacular spider-man people, I don't want the show to get canceled!!!....okay, now ignore the rest of this post.
:applaud:up::applaud:up:
Great use of a douple post.

[venomvsspidey]

Um, okay... :huh:
Spider-Man 4 In 3D = Double Facepalm

[Episode29]

Spider-Man 4 In 3D = Double Facepalm

Oh, okay. I thought you were referring to my post.

Anyhoo, I agree with you completely.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Since this is a double post I might as well:

watch spectacular spider-man people, I don't want the show to get canceled!!!....okay, now ignore the rest of this post. Hell yes, I agree! :up:

[venomvsspidey]

Oh, okay. I thought you were referring to my post.

Anyhoo, I agree with you completely.

gotcha

[Spider-ManHero12]

IMO, I think 3-D really would be somrthing special to see, but I don't know.

[NewYorkSpider]

It's too risky IMO. It could easily backfire on them.

[Crook]

I vote 'No'. Wait until Cameron does it, and then see if it's actually all that it's hyped up to be. I've seen most of the 3-D movies, and judging solely on the technology, I think it's a distracting gimmick at best.

The whole depth perspective is only true to a point. Yes, objects pop out at you, but it's a very limited execution. There's basically background objects which are flat, and then the foreground objects which pop out. There's only 2 levels of depth. That's like only having the primary colors in a movie. Hardly an improvement over B&W.

It's the equivalent of those pop-up story books you read as a kid. Doesn't come anywhere close to depicting true perspective that immerses you into the scene. It's just distracting. :down

[Mogwai]

if it doesn't take away from the story (like adding scenes just to 'wow' viewers), then yes.

[American_Hobo]

3D movies suck.
No 3D.

[ross2287]

I vote 'No'. Wait until Cameron does it, and then see if it's actually all that it's hyped up to be. I've seen most of the 3-D movies, and judging solely on the technology, I think it's a distracting gimmick at best.

The whole depth perspective is only true to a point. Yes, objects pop out at you, but it's a very limited execution. There's basically background objects which are flat, and then the foreground objects which pop out. There's only 2 levels of depth. That's like only having the primary colors in a movie. Hardly an improvement over B&W.

It's the equivalent of those pop-up story books you read as a kid. Doesn't come anywhere close to depicting true perspective that immerses you into the scene. It's just distracting. :down

This is how I feel. It hurt my eyes while I was watching Beowulf and since I wear glasses, it's a ***** to take them off to put the 3D ones on and vice versa.

Leave 3D in the 70s and just worry about making a damn good Spidey film.

[Crazy Spidey]

It's just what i think about 3d.
No way because it won't be spiderman style you know? I loved the old films and whenever I have time I watch them to see if i find sth new! But in 3D it won't be fun anymore! THink about he would look too unreal!

[Cyma]

I’ve never experienced 3-D movies :csad: other than Spy-Kids 3-D on my TV screen. And it just looks…..awkward. If an IMAX cinema is needed for the full 3D experience, then won’t it be ruined for us folks who don’t have one?

[Episode29]

Heck, even Coraline, which was probably showed the most flawless use of 3D thus far, hardly needed it to tell its story. You could have shown the film in 2D and it would have been just as beautiful, minus the minor headache and eye-blurring. Thus far, the only way 3D has helped anything is boosting business for lesser works (Monsters Vs. Aliens, My Bloody Valentine, Journey To The Center Of The Earth).

[Adrian89]

I can't believe they are even considering this crap! Soon all movies will end up being in 3D and all the realism will actually die!

So lame!!! I hope it won't happen.

[Goran]

If they're really going to use 3-D then I want them to create new spidey-web-slinging sequences rather than re-use the ones from the first three films... :whatever:

[Spidey0]

I'm actually against the idea as well. It didn't quite work for the TMNT movie imo. If they were to go for realism incripted into 3-D, then they might not have any luck finding any good engine to make it. The best engine right now is the one used to make many of the Square Enix games but that's far too expensive. Although I was really impressed by how they rendered CG in SM 2, SM 3 was okay but they had a little too fun with Spidey swinging around in the black suit.

An animated movie would be pretty interesting though, but I know that's not Raimi's style.

[dark_b]

in 2009 when they say 3D they dont mean the old 3D . this is now something new.

only tim burton is stupid enough to make the old 3D .

[Immortalfire]

I say no. I think that 3D is way passe for one, but also because I can't see 3D stuff...bad eye.

[SpideyTheBest]

No.

'Nuff said.

[Doctor Jones]

Christ no.

And no again.

3D is still a gimick no matter which way you put it.

[TheScarecrow]

The only time I think it would ever work is if you had Mysterio as a villain. If that's the case...maybe. If not, no way. Too distracting.

[Adrian89]

in 2009 when they say 3D they dont mean the old 3D . this is now something new..
It doesn't matter. The answer is still NO!;)

[Crazy Spidey]

back to the roots!

[GoldGoblin]

3-D is a bad move for this movie.People aren't gonna want to pay more just to see it in 3-D after they remember how bad part 3 was.Just give us a good story,good character developments,no cheese,more action,that's what this movie needs to focus on to redeem itself.

[DorkyFresh]

Christ no.

And no again.

3D is still a gimick no matter which way you put it.

yeah...3D is a gimmick! we live gimmicky lives in a gimmicky 3D world. the only video games that aren't gimmicky now-a-days are the ones that are still 2D and you know when Cameron started using 3D programs for effects in film? that was totally gimmicky also! :whatever:

i can understand SOME complaints (not having good vision, focus on story first, this should be the director's decision/not the studio's) but 3D is about as much of a gimmick as color and sound were when they got introduced. in fact, there were a lot of the same complaints when they first introduced audio but most humans with 2 eyes have depth perception so it's only natural for us to want to see depth perception in our movies the same we we want to see color and hear sounds.






now i'll say this much...a good script is infinitely more important to SM4 than 3D can ever be, so they should go through the trouble and make sure that they have a good script before they go through the trouble of making it a 3D film. however, if they happened to accomplish both successfully then i would definitely love to see SM4 in 3D.

[Retroman]

If it was done in a fashion similar to Superman Returns, where selected scenes were highlighted, it might make some action sequences a bit more spectacular (:spidey:), but it's not something, I'd get particular excited over.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the comments, but I doubt beyond all hell that I'd be willing to pay a premium for it.

I think/hope it's going to be something like on Superman Returns and Harry Potter where only select sequences are shown in 3D not the entire movie.First and foremost though the priority should be to create a great script and film.:o

Incidentally there were rumors that 3D was been considerd for the 3rd film (http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=11683) too.

[Dragon]

yeah...3D is a gimmick! we live gimmicky lives in a gimmicky 3D world. the only video games that aren't gimmicky now-a-days are the ones that are still 2D and you know when Cameron started using 3D programs for effects in film? that was totally gimmicky also! :whatever:

i can understand SOME complaints (not having good vision, focus on story first, this should be the director's decision/not the studio's) but 3D is about as much of a gimmick as color and sound were when they got introduced. in fact, there were a lot of the same complaints when they first introduced audio but most humans with 2 eyes have depth perception so it's only natural for us to want to see depth perception in our movies the same we we want to see color and hear sounds.

Nah... It's a gimmick. While, sure initially some saw sound and color as gimmicks, their effectiveness was soon evident. Early films like the Jazz Singer, The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind showed how these inventions could enhance a film. Although at the same time there are many works of silent film and black & white that are great masterpieces and had no need for color or sound. Indeed, there are examples of films shot in black and white that would have not been as good had color been used.

However, 3D technology has been available for more than 50 years and not a single film can be said to have been made better because of it.

Yes we see depth. But film is not real life. It's its own language. We don't hear background music or zoom in and out in our field of vision.

[Crook]

I think 3D, conceptually could provide a revolutionary way of viewing film. But the tech isn't there at the moment. Cameron could change things so who knows. But right now, the films utilizing the method have been gimmicky to me. It has little to no improvement, which is why I'm not in favor of it at the moment.

It'll only escape that criteria if it truly provides a means of immersing the audience in the same way that audio did when it was introduced. And by that, I mean actually feeling like you're IN the movie. Somehow I think we're decades off from that capability.

[DorkyFresh]

Nah... It's a gimmick.
again...if 3D is a gimmick, then so are our lives. we live in 3D worlds with color and sound. naturally the next evolutionary step for movies is 3D since smell and touch are out of the question. a 'gimmick' is something that is used to make something stand out, but has little relevance. however, we're seeing more and more movies go 3D so it's obviously not irrelevant. plus, as more and more movies utilize 3D it will become less 'gimmicky'...thus, it's more of a craze than a gimmick.

However, 3D technology has been available for more than 50 years and not a single film can be said to have been made better because of it.
i honestly thought Beowulf was better in 3D. it's a great movie on it's own accord, but seeing it in 3D at the theaters really immersed me in the world...especially because the CGI was easier to believe when seeing it with depth perception than it is as flat images. i'll give you that there haven't been many movies that have benefited from 3D, but the method they've been using on the latest movies gone 3D is fairly new and definitely not the same method used for Jaws 3-D (red and blue glasses) which has been used as recently as 2003. up until a few years ago, that was the only 3D method and is inferior to the newest methods.

[Jack O Lantern]

According to a UK Film critic the entire movie business may be 3D by then anyway. It's a way to prevent pirating

[Batman137]

i don't want to wear those damn glasses either

[dark_b]

you can still watch those 3D movies in normal theaters. thats the point. its not like tehy will be made only for 3D.

[Sentinel X]

again...if 3D is a gimmick, then so are our lives. we live in 3D worlds with color and sound. naturally the next evolutionary step for movies is 3D since smell and touch are out of the question. a 'gimmick' is something that is used to make something stand out, but has little relevance. however, we're seeing more and more movies go 3D so it's obviously not irrelevant. plus, as more and more movies utilize 3D it will become less 'gimmicky'...thus, it's more of a craze than a gimmick.
*starts a slow clap*
How is 3D a gimmick, people? :huh:
Its no more of a gimmick than "color". Im sure people were saying color was a gimmick when Wizard of Oz came out and now practically everyone considers Wizard of Oz to be revolutionary.

Yes, 3D has not been perfected and we have had a fair share of crappy 3d films. However if the technology is allowed to thrive it is a great tool in film making especially if a director knows how to incorporate it into a film flawlessly.

I am giving 3D a chance, especially with the release of Avatar this December. I don't think it is a gimmick AT ALL and YES it is there to enhance someones movie experience. A few directors may have misused 3D, leaving a bad taste in people's mouths but does that mean that 3D as a whole sucks?...no not really


i honestly thought Beowulf was better in 3D. it's a great movie on it's own accord, but seeing it in 3D at the theaters really immersed me in the world...especially because the CGI was easier to believe when seeing it with depth perception than it is as flat images. i'll give you that there haven't been many movies that have benefited from 3D, but the method they've been using on the latest movies gone 3D is fairly new and definitely not the same method used for Jaws 3-D (red and blue glasses) which has been used as recently as 2003. up until a few years ago, that was the only 3D method and is inferior to the newest methods.Although the 3D in Beowulf was far from perfect, I think it still made the movie a lot better. I had a blast watching it at IMax in 3D but when I rewatched it in 2D I was not impressed. And beleive it or not the red and blue have been used actually more recently than that...they were used for the Adventure of shark boy and lava girl 3D on 2004. Ive seen the movie because my little sister owns it on DVD and the 3D effects are even WORSE than the movie....if you want to have the feeling of motion sickness watch that movie. ugh :o

[Crook]

*starts a slow clap*
How is 3D a gimmick, people? :huh:
Its no more of a gimmick than "color". Im sure people were saying color was a gimmick when Wizard of Oz came out and now practically everyone considers Wizard of Oz to be revolutionary.
gim⋅mick

  http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/G01/G0157700)  /ˈgɪmhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪk/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [gim-ik] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA –noun 1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

Does the fairly new comeback of 3-D not fit under that definition? 3-D stops being a gimmick when the film is severely diluted or different without it. As of now, it hasn't happened. It's still overmarketed false hype.

Like I said, wait for Cameron.

[Dragon]

again...if 3D is a gimmick, then so are our lives. we live in 3D worlds with color and sound.

Our lives are not movies. There are some who may wish they were, but they aren't. Just as we can enjoy music without having to see image, just as we can fully experience paintings without three dimensions or movement, we can enjoy film without three dimensions.

naturally the next evolutionary step for movies is 3D since smell and touch are out of the question.

Really? I have little doubt that someone is looking into developing this. I'm sure someone hopes to make the film experience true virtual reality, where the viewers could actually walk through the sets, watch the scenes from chosen angles. We could actually be swinging with Spidey as opposed to watching him swing. But- this is still just a gimmick. It does nothing to evolve the ART of film and filmic storytelling.


a 'gimmick' is something that is used to make something stand out, but has little relevance. however, we're seeing more and more movies go 3D so it's obviously not irrelevant. plus, as more and more movies utilize 3D it will become less 'gimmicky'...thus, it's more of a craze than a gimmick.

And thus 3D is a gimmick. It is indeed as you said merely meant to make the films making use of it stand out. 3D is an enhancement (for some) to the theatrical film experience, like surround sound or digital imaging. It gives people a reason to go to movies as opposed to sitting at home or has been menationed, pirating the movies. But again, it does nothing to make the movies better as a work of art. Sound and color did. Color and sound intensified the tools for telling a narrative. Color made films like Lawrence of Arabia or more recent films like Forrest Gump more epic.

i honestly thought Beowulf was better in 3D. it's a great movie on it's own accord, but seeing it in 3D at the theaters really immersed me in the world...especially because the CGI was easier to believe when seeing it with depth perception than it is as flat images. i'll give you that there haven't been many movies that have benefited from 3D, but the method they've been using on the latest movies gone 3D is fairly new and definitely not the same method used for Jaws 3-D (red and blue glasses) which has been used as recently as 2003. up until a few years ago, that was the only 3D method and is inferior to the newest methods.

Again, 3D may enhance the viewing experience, but it doesn't make the movies better. Using an example like Beowulf, which by its nature needed enhancement (Reakistic CG actors are not as impressive as real actors, having a "dead" look to them) is not the best example of how 3D would improve movies. In a time when Hollywood is running out of steam, with most movies being remakes or sequels, they need to be focusing on making better films, not fake breast-like enhancements.

[DorkyFresh]

Our lives are not movies. There are some who may wish they were, but they aren't. Just as we can enjoy music without having to see image, just as we can fully experience paintings without three dimensions or movement, we can enjoy film without three dimensions.
true...we can enjoy forms of art and entertainment even if we strip away some of what makes that art/entertainment complete, but that doesn't mean that those elements are meaningless. the more you add to a movie the more immersed viewers will become. that was the whole point of introducing sound and color in the first place, to further immerse viewers in the movie...so again, 3D is simply the next evolutionary step for the art of filmmaking.

Really? I have little doubt that someone is looking into developing this. I'm sure someone hopes to make the film experience true virtual reality, where the viewers could actually walk through the sets, watch the scenes from chosen angles. We could actually be swinging with Spidey as opposed to watching him swing. But- this is still just a gimmick. It does nothing to evolve the ART of film and filmic storytelling.
i'd just like to point out that this is purely your opinion and not a fact. 3D has evolved everything from special effects, to architecture, to video games...even medical practices. just because you, personally, don't think 3D evolves art doesn't make it so. convincing 3D is practically a newborn to the movie industry. you haven't even given a chance for filmmakers to experiment with this new technology...yet you're already writing 3D off as useless from a storytelling standpoint. you're not even taking into consideration the types of camera shots and transitions that might not work as 2D shots/transitions but could work beautifully in a 3D film.

Again, 3D may enhance the viewing experience, but it doesn't make the movies better. Using an example like Beowulf, which by its nature needed enhancement (Reakistic CG actors are not as impressive as real actors, having a "dead" look to them) is not the best example of how 3D would improve movies.
i don't see why not. as i expressed before, i like watching Beowulf on it's own but seeing it in 3D made me feel like i was actually in those locations. Grendel's first scene where he raids the mead hall was much more intense and effective with depth perception. there were a couple of times throughout the movie where i could almost smell the blood being spilled because the 3D added such a visceral element that seeing it, even on my HDTV with all the lights off, cannot duplicate. i'll admit that this does nothing to change the story or the plot, but it certainly adds a 5th element (if you will) that basically felt like the cherry on top. to me, Beowulf on Blu-Ray is like a sundae or banana split without that cherry. sure, it still tastes/looks good and is fun to eat/watch...but it's not quite the same without the cherry/3D.

In a time when Hollywood is running out of steam, with most movies being remakes or sequels, they need to be focusing on making better films, not fake breast-like enhancements.
well since we've gone into metaphor land, hehe...i'd equate fake breast-like enhancements more to the introduction of special effects (digital and practical). theoretical speaking...if you actually wanted to make a woman's breasts appear larger then you would either put some prosthetics on her (ala Selma Blair in 'A Dirty Shame') or you would use digital imaging to manipulate her chest. on the other hand, i would equate 3D to TOUCHING those fake breast-like enhancements since 3D makes most people feel like they can touch what they're seeing. :D

however, i WILL agree with you (as i've said in a previous post) that no amount of 3D can ever top the importance of a solid script. i simply disagree that 3D is a useless gimmick that can only be used for cheap thrills and does not evolve the art form of film making.

[Sentinel X]

gim⋅mick

  http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/G01/G0157700)  /ˈgɪmhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪk/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [gim-ik] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA –noun 1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

Does the fairly new comeback of 3-D not fit under that definition? 3-D stops being a gimmick when the film is severely diluted or different without it. As of now, it hasn't happened. It's still overmarketed false hype.

Like I said, wait for Cameron.
If people are referring to 3D STRICTLY through this definition, then yes...3D is a "gimmick". However, I am under the impression that when people say 3D is a gimmick they mean it is a useless idea that will soon fade away and they also imply through their tone that it is inferior to 2D (and imo that is not necessarily true.)

[Crook]

The definition implies just that. "Designed to appeal" as a primary attraction, instead of "designed to evolve/enhance". That's what separates innovation from gimmick.

[mjbull23]

The idea initially sounds cheesy. BUT... if I were to see some preview footage that looked really good, then yes, I'd pay to see it that way.

[Sentinel X]

The definition implies just that. "Designed to appeal" as a primary attraction, instead of "designed to evolve/enhance". That's what separates innovation from gimmick.However that is where I disagree. 3D IS there to enhance film making. Some of the greatest directors working today have been trying to use it properly in their films because they obviously see the potential in the use of 3D. I agree with people who say that 3D is there to bring people to the theaters....I am sure that for many films that is one of the main reasons for using 3D (the primary reason for terrible films like Spy Kids, Sharkboy & lavagirl, etc) however the reason I say 3D is not a gimmick is because whenever someone says something is a 'gimmick' they imply that it is JUST there "to appeal" and nothing more.

Just because you haven't seen "The best" or the film that utilized 3D "the best" yet doesn't mean it is a gimmick. Its just taking time to get there but as you can see, 3D is certainly revolutionizing the world of film. With new technology available you see more and more 3D films every year.

And again I equate this to color and sound in films. When we first had color films it wasn't the best. Watch Wizard of Oz and you can see that the color pales in comparison to todays colored films, no pun intended. However with improving technology it has gotten better and better. The same can be said with sounds. Some older films have terrible sound quality (to the point where it seems like a pointless effort to even put it into a film) however one cannot deny the impact sound has had in film.

I have seen a wonderful progression for 3D technology. From the red and blue 3D films like Sharkboy & Lavagirl to films like IMAX's orginal documentaries. Hopefully james C. Avatar can improve the technology even more.

If you or anyone else is interested here is an interesting article I found through google about 3D:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/12/future.cinema/

EDIT: also DorkyFresh mentioned the scene in Beowulf when Grendel first attacks the villagers. If you saw it in IMAX 3D it was AMAZING. It was the best scene in the whole movie and really incorporated 3D really well. I also felt like I was there and I even felt distressed and somewhat horrified....it was a great experience :up:
If films can use 3D like robert used it for that scene then I am very open to 3D and cant wait to see what some of the most talented directors can do with it.

[Doctor Jones]

I'll wait until Avatar.

But personally, I don't think 3D is a good route to take for a SM film.

[TheSlag]

For cyring out loud!... cut the @#$%^&#$%^& gimmicks and just give us a top-notch movie.

PERIOD!

Where is the HELL NO option on the poll?

[Dragon]

true...we can enjoy forms of art and entertainment even if we strip away some of what makes that art/entertainment complete, but that doesn't mean that those elements are meaningless.

THat's not what I'm saying at all. First, in the examples I gave, those forms of art are complete. They don't need further enhancement. A piece of music without visuals is complete. It doesn't need imagery. WE create the accompanying imagery in our own minds and souls. That's the point. The other sensory elements are their own form of art, meant to exist independently or to meld together when necessary. Art after all isn't life, but an expression and interpretation of life. For some works, the interpreation is about sound, color, movement and dimension. For others its the lack of some of those elements that make the work complete. For example with a painting the point is capturing and freezing a moment in time, so movement would hamper that.

the more you add to a movie the more immersed viewers will become. that was the whole point of introducing sound and color in the first place, to further immerse viewers in the movie...so again, 3D is simply the next evolutionary step for the art of filmmaking.

That's not true at all. Film is again, another form of art. For some films, the lack of sound and color make the narrative MORE REAL. Films like Psyco or many of the noirs of the 40's and 50's needed the starkness of black and white to call attention to the barren and harsh nature of the characters' lives. A film like "The Grapes of Wrath" should not be in color. For physical comedians like Chaplin or Keaton, the lack of dialogue enhanced their performances. It also created a surreal world where their wackiness would not seem out of place. On the other hand, epic films like Gone With The Wind, The Searchers or the Ten Commandments needed color to enrich the narrative. Which is why I'd guess DeMille remade Commandments from his silent Black & White version.

What immerses us in narrative films is first and foremost story and character. For many films the 3D effect would detract from that. However, there are certainly some films that would, by their nature benefit from 3D. Just not Spider-Man.


i'd just like to point out that this is purely your opinion and not a fact. 3D has evolved everything from special effects, to architecture, to video games...even medical practices.

I'm not talking about any of those technical types of filmmaking, which I agree 100% would be enhanced by 3D effect. I'm talking about narrative film, which is the subject of this debate.


just because you, personally, don't think 3D evolves art doesn't make it so. convincing 3D is practically a newborn to the movie industry. you haven't even given a chance for filmmakers to experiment with this new technology...yet you're already writing 3D off as useless from a storytelling standpoint. you're not even taking into consideration the types of camera shots and transitions that might not work as 2D shots/transitions but could work beautifully in a 3D film.

There isn't a single shot and transition that doesn't work in 2D. I'd love for you to point to some examples. And the reason I'm sure 3D won't enhance story telling is because we've had over 100 years worth of great films without it, and not A SINGLE film that was made better because of it. Again, 3D may enhance for some the experience of seeing a film, but that's along the lines of people thinking movies should all be colorized.


i don't see why not. as i expressed before, i like watching Beowulf on it's own but seeing it in 3D made me feel like i was actually in those locations. Grendel's first scene where he raids the mead hall was much more intense and effective with depth perception. there were a couple of times throughout the movie where i could almost smell the blood being spilled because the 3D added such a visceral element that seeing it, even on my HDTV with all the lights off, cannot duplicate. i'll admit that this does nothing to change the story or the plot, but it certainly adds a 5th element (if you will) that basically felt like the cherry on top. to me, Beowulf on Blu-Ray is like a sundae or banana split without that cherry. sure, it still tastes/looks good and is fun to eat/watch...but it's not quite the same without the cherry/3D.

And you make my point. 3D only enhances your experience of the movie. Not the movie. In the scene when Beowulf lands in Denmark for example, and the soldier points the spear at his eye, I didn't need to "feel" like he was sticking it in my eye to make me feel any more tension. And Grendel's attack in the mead hall was intense for me because he was killing people. I didn't need to feel as though the victims were being tossed at me or thr blood splashing on me to feel their pain.


well since we've gone into metaphor land, hehe...i'd equate fake breast-like enhancements more to the introduction of special effects (digital and practical). theoretical speaking...

No way. Advancing of special effects is totally a story telling tool. From Moses parting the Red Sea to the T-1000's morphing ability, to Sandman and Spidey, those were all elements to strengthen the narrative. The fact that there are many bad films made with nothing to lean on but big special effects doesn't negate the technology's importance to make good films better. Again. look at subtle uses such as removing Gary Sinise's legs in Forrest Gump. or placing Forrest in the room with the Presidents.

if you actually wanted to make a woman's breasts appear larger then you would either put some prosthetics on her (ala Selma Blair in 'A Dirty Shame') or you would use digital imaging to manipulate her chest. on the other hand, i would equate 3D to TOUCHING those fake breast-like enhancements since 3D makes most people feel like they can touch what they're seeing. :D

Well, while your point is an enjoyable one, that isn't what I meant. I referred to fake breasts as a thing which gives the false idea of beauty. You have beautiful women deforming and injuring themselves because they can't see the beuaty that already exists. 3D technology distracts from and can even lessen the impact that the filmic narrative already has.

however, i WILL agree with you (as i've said in a previous post) that no amount of 3D can ever top the importance of a solid script. i simply disagree that 3D is a useless gimmick that can only be used for cheap thrills and does not evolve the art form of film making.


Well we go to movies for entertainment. So I would have no problem with SOME of Spidey 4's prints being released in 3D format. But I'm completely against it being forced down our throats.

[Spiderine]

I vote 'No'. Wait until Cameron does it, and then see if it's actually all that it's hyped up to be. I've seen most of the 3-D movies, and judging solely on the technology, I think it's a distracting gimmick at best.

The whole depth perspective is only true to a point. Yes, objects pop out at you, but it's a very limited execution. There's basically background objects which are flat, and then the foreground objects which pop out. There's only 2 levels of depth. That's like only having the primary colors in a movie. Hardly an improvement over B&W.

It's the equivalent of those pop-up story books you read as a kid. Doesn't come anywhere close to depicting true perspective that immerses you into the scene. It's just distracting. :down
I agree. It's a distracting cheap gimmick and i could care less one way or another for it. And not interested in being charged extra for it.

[DorkyFresh]

THat's not what I'm saying at all.

That's not true at all.

There isn't a single shot and transition that doesn't work in 2D.

And you make my point.

No way.

well i can see this is gonna go nowhere (or everywhere) and we'll just have to agree to disagree. you think i'm overestimating 3D's potential and i think you're underestimating it. we'll see just how useful 3D can be to the art of film making in December when Avatar comes out. i'd be happy to resume our debate/discussion afterwards. :)

[Dragon]

well i can see this is gonna go nowhere (or everywhere) and we'll just have to agree to disagree. you think i'm overestimating 3D's potential and i think you're underestimating it. we'll see just how useful 3D can be to the art of film making in December when Avatar comes out. i'd be happy to resume our debate/discussion afterwards. :)

Well, if you can't respond to my points now, I don't see what will be different when Avatar is released.

I've already said that some films- at least the EXPERIENCE of seeing them, might benefit from 3D. Since Cameron apparently conceived of Avatar as being a film to be made in 3D, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he's doing. Although, he could simply be feeling the pressure of his previous films' performance and thinks he needs his first feature film in 12 years to be an "event".

My point however has been that Spidey 4 doesn't need to be in 3D.

[shinlyle]

I'll be "that guy".


I honestly do NOT care.

If the movie is good, then 3-D will only enhance it and make for a more awesome film experience. If the film is AWFUL, then 3-D will feel like a paltry gimmick to get teh audience to turn off their brains.

Take "Superman Returns" in IMAX. They had, what, 3 3-D sequences? That didn't make the movie any better. Hell, after about a minute of the 3-D, you don't even pay it any attention anymore. It was a bad film, and the 3-D had nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, the kid in me can't help but think of how AWESOME the train fight from S-M2 would have been in 3-D!!! That being said, I'd release the film standard, and then, IF OTHER FILMS are successful in 3-D, maybe think about doing part 5 in 3-D. I'm just not anxous to see them "experiment" with the Spidey movies after part 3. I'm still a fan, but alot of people are on the fence about the whole series, and another gimmicky sequel will probably turn them off completely.

Af ter a rant and some thought, I'm going to go with "NO".