3-D Intervention

[redhawk23]

Was Avatar fantastic visually? yes. Is it making bukoo bucks? absolutly Has someone finally found a mature way to use 3d? arguable. Does every movie in the world need to be made that way? thats apearantly the way hollywood is thinking.

It seems like every new project even ones that are halfway done filming are being rumored to be making the jump to next dimension. Hundreds of theaters are being upgraded. 3-d televsion is being jammed down everyones throats at CES. 3-d is now all the rave.

But is this a good thing. do we really need everything in 3-d?

I think not. I think its great the technology is being taken seriously but forcing it on films as a tack on is not the way to use it. It will only make an anoyance out of otherwise solid or enjoyable movies.
Avatar was great but also had some of the best people and the budget and resources to pull it off. Other films will attempt to do the same and fail squandering the chance at otherwise decent material.

I think Hollywood needs to slow down (but then cameron will kick us in the face with his energy legs)

I think the whole thing needs more time to mature and breath before we jump the gun and start forcing the tech down everyones throats, otherwise the whole things just going to burn its self out.

anyone else agree?

 

[Figs]

I agree that all these other films going 3D need to stop. It's serious overload and I think even the general audience will start getting annoyed and rolling their eyes eventually.

With the 3D in Avatar it was a subtle 3D that worked well by not taking you out of the movie like when they throw **** at you. I don't mind if other epic films use that kind of 3D but not for every damn movie that's being released.

 

[CBGB]

I mean, Jack*** and Twister 2 in 3D? No thanks...

 

[dark_b]

i agree that they should not force it on people.

as long every 3D movie is also in 2D then there is no problem. but of course the problem is that some directors make the obvious 3D gimmick shots. so even if you watch it in 2D you get mad that things are always flying in the camera. a good example IMO is Burton's Alice. and it was not even filmed with the 3D cameras. they are converting it in postproduction. it just shows you that Burton on set decided what shots would be gimmick.

 

[redhawk23]

^for that exact reason i don't have much faith in Alice and thats exactly what i'm getting at whe everything is done for the 3d its even less enjoyable in 2-d, when if it wasn't wasting so much time pandering to the third dimension it could be very solid

 

[xwolverine2]

let the ****storm of 3d come...

the faster it comes the faster it'll leave... (thats what she said)

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I'm afraid we won't be rid of it, seeing as they just announced 3-D Televisions at CES.

 

[mr. peasant]

Personally, I don't see the major issue with regards to this current trend of 3D media. I mean, it's just the natural evolution of televisions and movies; much like color was back in the era of black-and-white. I wouldn't be at all surprised if over the next decade or so, more media will eventuall make this shift (can you imagine FPS games/video arcade games using this?). Much like color in the past, what needs to happen is for moviemakers to stop using it as a gimmick and for people to slowly adjust to this developing concept.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I don't think 3D will last. It didn't last in the 50s, didn't in the 80s and won't tomorrow.

 

[xwolverine2]

I'm afraid we won't be rid of it, seeing as they just announced 3-D Televisions at CES.

nobody will buy that...

people are still starting to get normal hd tv's...
nobody will buy blu-ray 3d lol

 

[:eek:]

nobody will buy that...

people are still starting to get normal hd tv's...
nobody will buy blu-ray 3d lol

There are always people with too much money who are more than willing to spend it on the latest technology.

 

[Nivek]

nobody will buy that...

people are still starting to get normal hd tv's...
nobody will buy blu-ray 3d lol

Thats because the slackers are finding out that HD is the standard, and that they have to step up. Blu-ray is still just a luxury (like DVD's were about 10 years ago), but eventually that will be the standard.

As far as 3D, personally I'm not sure how people will take it, but hey people have said Avatar was going to fail marketing itself as 3D because "it's a gimmick that has never appealed to the masses", and look how wrong they were.

 

[mr. peasant]

Precisely. As HD becomes more and more common, people will start yearning for something else to be the 'cutting edge'. Right now, that's stereoscopy. In the future, maybe 3D with projectors (i.e. holograms)?

 

[redhawk23]

i don't see blue ray becomeing standard for a long time, if ever in fact. i see a shift away from physicle media in the future. if our internet infrastructure improves and aproaches the way it is in say sout korea, i wouldn't be suprised if downloads straight to the tv became the norm.

most people really just don't care about hd. the benefits of blue ray vs dvd just aren't as drastic as dvd vs vhs.

though the transition is easier since blue ray players play dvds

 

[TruerToTheCore]

BLU RAY 3D = The new laserdisc

 

[redhawk23]

its not in as bad of a state as laserdisc but i just don't see it becoming the standard

hddvd is the new laserdisc lolz

 

[Nivek]

BLU RAY 3D = The new laserdisc

Yeah, I also remember...

-DVD: The New Laserdisk
-High Def DVD's/ Blu-ray: The new Laserdisk

Say what you will, but let's give the tech some time to actually be released and sell before anyone baptizes it failed tech.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

its not in as bad of a state as laserdisc but i just don't see it becoming the standard

hddvd is the new laserdisc lolz

HDDVD is the new Betamax/Video 2000.

I think Blu-Ray 3D will end up like Laserdisc, a format for film snobs but not for the broad audience.

 

[mr. peasant]

How does that work out? Laserdiscs lost out because something better came out (VCDs; then later DVDs). What's in development that might make Blu Rays obsolete?

 

[TruerToTheCore]

What are you talking about? Laserdisc was superior to VHS/Betamax/Video 2000 (Video 2000 had the best quality out of the tape media) in the early 1980s. It was the forerunner of the Compact Disc, actually. Before the rise of DVD Laserdisc was the best format which got regular releases but it was for collectors. I am also talking about Blu-Ray 3D, not Blu-Ray.

In the early 2000s there was D-VHS available with HD quality, magnetic tape and much better than the common DVD, almost as good as Blu-Ray today.

Quality doesn't win usually. There are other factors.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

Was Avatar fantastic visually? yes. Is it making bukoo bucks? absolutly Has someone finally found a mature way to use 3d? arguable. Does every movie in the world need to be made that way? thats apearantly the way hollywood is thinking.

It seems like every new project even ones that are halfway done filming are being rumored to be making the jump to next dimension. Hundreds of theaters are being upgraded. 3-d televsion is being jammed down everyones throats at CES. 3-d is now all the rave.

But is this a good thing. do we really need everything in 3-d?

I think not. I think its great the technology is being taken seriously but forcing it on films as a tack on is not the way to use it. It will only make an anoyance out of otherwise solid or enjoyable movies.
Avatar was great but also had some of the best people and the budget and resources to pull it off. Other films will attempt to do the same and fail squandering the chance at otherwise decent material.

I think Hollywood needs to slow down (but then cameron will kick us in the face with his energy legs)

I think the whole thing needs more time to mature and breath before we jump the gun and start forcing the tech down everyones throats, otherwise the whole things just going to burn its self out.

anyone else agree?

I don't necessarily agree with that. Just because 3-D's being used a lot doen't mean that's a bad thing. Hell, just be glad we're still not using those cheap-ass Red-and-Blue lensed paper glasses for 3-D.

 

[mr. peasant]

What are you talking about? Laserdisc was superior to VHS/Betamax/Video 2000 (Video 2000 had the best quality out of the tape media) in the early 1980s. It was the forerunner of the Compact Disc, actually. Before the rise of DVD Laserdisc was the best format which got regular releases but it was for collectors. I am also talking about Blu-Ray 3D, not Blu-Ray.

In the early 2000s there was D-VHS available with HD quality, magnetic tape and much better than the common DVD, almost as good as Blu-Ray today.

Quality doesn't win usually. There are other factors.

I can't really say about the U.S. However, laserdiscs were quite popular in Asia before being overtaken by VCDs and then DVDs.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Was Avatar fantastic visually? yes. Is it making bukoo bucks? absolutly Has someone finally found a mature way to use 3d? arguable. Does every movie in the world need to be made that way? thats apearantly the way hollywood is thinking.

It seems like every new project even ones that are halfway done filming are being rumored to be making the jump to next dimension. Hundreds of theaters are being upgraded. 3-d televsion is being jammed down everyones throats at CES. 3-d is now all the rave.

But is this a good thing. do we really need everything in 3-d?

I think not. I think its great the technology is being taken seriously but forcing it on films as a tack on is not the way to use it. It will only make an anoyance out of otherwise solid or enjoyable movies.
Avatar was great but also had some of the best people and the budget and resources to pull it off. Other films will attempt to do the same and fail squandering the chance at otherwise decent material.

I think Hollywood needs to slow down (but then cameron will kick us in the face with his energy legs)

I think the whole thing needs more time to mature and breath before we jump the gun and start forcing the tech down everyones throats, otherwise the whole things just going to burn its self out.

anyone else agree?

You do raise some valid point but personally i think 3-d is here to stay .
While 3-d is a filmmaking tool ike say CGI is , it is comparable to stuff like color and sound to immerse an audience into a movie. People here have every right to say that avatar didn't wow them with the 3-d ( although i'd prefer if someone brought in valid arguments and not fanboy comments) however i think that if done right , 3-d definately is great. The big mistake that filmmakers seem to make with 3-d is that they don't focus on creating depth and instead focus more about stuff flying towards you

I did say that 3-d isn't a tool like CGI however like CGI it is something that directors can either completey screw up or get fantastic results. Compare someone like Spielberg with someone like Stephen Sommers. You could give sommers 500 million dollars and he would still make a mediocre movie . It would be jam packed with VFX shots yet you would just look at the movie and go "meh". Give spielberg a fraction of that cash and he would still churn out a movie where you be on the edge of your seat.
Unfortunately like with all things , you're always going to get results that will hurt your movie.

Like mr.peasant said , i do see 3-d an a natural evolution of things as i also think that as time passes by people will be able to distinguish good 3-d from bad 3-d. Right now 3-d is truly getting recognised by the public with avatar.
I do agree with your statement that not every movie needs to be in 3-d.
For example i don't think that something like say Slum Dog Millionaire or 12 angry men or There Will Be Blood need to be in 3-d. It doesn't add anything to the movie. 3-d is purely a visual help and should in my opinion only be used when it comes to totally immersing an audience in a movie.
Big spectacle movies like Harry Potter ( making a magical world seem "more magical", or Pan's Labyrinth or Star Trek ( well you get the idea...) are perfect candidates for 3-d .
However i seriously am considering skipping a michal bay directed Transformers movie in 3-d or a Paul Greengrass action movie in 3-d.
When you can't make even make out whats happpening on screen due to ADD-camera movements and in some cases can actually induce headaches ( the bourne movies for me) or nausea ( cloverfield for me) , 3-d will only amplify that feeling.

 

[DarKJediKnight]

50 to 100 years from now we'll be having a thread titled "Hologram intervention".

 

[Phaser]

I popped my 'Avatar' cherry with an IMAX 3D showing. Followed by a regular 3D theater. I must admit - I am not that impressed. Come to think of it, I don't like it at all. I don't know whether if the image was screwed or the polarized glasses were crap but both times I watched the film there was a lot of distracting ghost or double imagery. The scenes appear to have depth, but never convincingly enough to make you feel as if you're looking into another world through a window. I'll even go as far as saying IMAX scenes of The Dark Knight were comparatively more immersive. If 3D is here to stay, it'll have to do a lot better.

I am seeing Avatar in IMAX 3D again tomorrow and hope this time it'll be a better experience. Got a crap seat though - 4 weeks in and the damn thing's still selling out like crazy days in advance. And in India, that's quite a magnificent feat for a 'foreign' film.