The death of 3D?

[Andrew Reid]

And just because there have been a bunch of crappy movies made in 3D, doesn't mean 3D sucks. Tell me something. Have any of you seem a movie in 3D and thought, " damn, if only if it were not for the 3D, this would have been an excellent movie".  

 

In other words, don't confuse correlation with causality. And don't dismiss a particular artist's tool just because you don't understand how it might be used effectively. 

 

There was a really oppressive sequence in The Hobbit in 3D which absolutely annoyed me and it was at that moment I wished I was watching it in 2D. Experiment over. Avatar too, when I re-watched it in 2D I found it far more immersive. I don't like being distracted CGI tree branches flying out of the screen all the time. Do you?

[MOONGOAT]

Mark Kermode perfectly explains why I hate 3D. It's not that I think 3D is bad (I do), but that in certain places like where I live, 2D screenings of certain 3D movies become second rate or nonexistent.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HaPY_mAdok

[richg101]

The point isn't really what you preferred. The point is that it was James Cameron's decision to film in 3D, not the studios. He still stands behind the format. For richg101 to say its for stupid people is, well , stupid. : )

 

From my experiences I have yet to meet a clever person who gets excited about seeing a film in 3D.  People who choose the 3D version of a film are the same numbskulls who buy a kindle instead of the book.  The people know queue outside the Apple store all night for a new Iphone..  The ones who went and saw the remake of Total Recall.

 

They do it, but don't quite understand why they do it.  I assume it's because they are stupid and have nothing else to fill their spare time. 

[HurtinMinorKey]

There was a really oppressive sequence in The Hobbit in 3D which absolutely annoyed me and it was at that moment I wished I was watching it in 2D. Experiment over. Avatar too, when I re-watched it in 2D I found it far more immersive. I don't like being distracted CGI tree branches flying out of the screen all the time. Do you?

 

The only thing i enjoyed about Avatar was the 3D.  At least it was novel (at the time).  The rest of the movie, plot, acting, script was terrible. 

 

As far as the hobbit goes, i think i'd want to kill myself after seeing a second time no matter what format it was in.

 

I really think these are the type of movies you don't want 3D for: fast action and lots of camera movements. It like forcing your audience to go through a car accident over and over again. I think 3D works best with slower shots (or static), and more realistic perspectives.  I actually think it would work really well with your style, Andrew.  

 

Rich, you're Kindle bashing is retarded. I don't know where to begin to explain to you how much easier(and cleaner) it makes my life. I read a ton of books and research papers.  Paper is no longer practical for me. 

[Bruno]

One of the main problems IMO is that 3D doesn't work well with some of the aspects that make a beautiful cinematic image in traditional film standards.

 

3D doesn't work well with shallow DOF, if we're watching a film in 3D, for it to work well, we must be able to choose where to focus, that's the main point, but it that's already defined by the shallow DOF it's a very odd experience, because one could be focusing on something that's out of focus, this happened quite a bit in Tron 2. Tintin for instance had a very deep focus, which I'm sure worked well in 3D, but when I watched the 2D version it was extremely odd and uncinematic to see everything in perfect focus.

 

Grain can also be very cinematic but also looks weird in 3D. Lens flares too, it would be quite hard to make both lenses on a stereo rig flare in sync and match in the end result.

 

I wouldn't disregard 3D as total useless, but I think we're talking about a totally different medium here, and a director should go one way or the other, but if going the 3D route, they should embrace it all the way and fully explore its potential. So far that hasn't been done, all 3D movies out there also have 2D versions, it's just an added subtle effect motivated by money, I'd like to see a 3D movie that go all the way and that wouldn't even make sense in 2D, till then I have no interest whatsoever in 3D.

[AaronChicago]

From my experiences I have yet to meet a clever person who gets excited about seeing a film in 3D.  People who choose the 3D version of a film are the same numbskulls who buy a kindle instead of the book.  The people know queue outside the Apple store all night for a new Iphone..  The ones who went and saw the remake of Total Recall.
 
They do it, but don't quite understand why they do it.  I assume it's because they are stupid and have nothing else to fill their spare time. 

We could go back and forth about what is 'stupid' but really whose opinion on film making are we going to respect more? James Cameron or richg101 from EOSHD board?

[MOONGOAT]

James Cameron's opinion is sitting pretty nicely in the negative for me, so it's not clear cut ;)

[Sean Cunningham]

We could go back and forth about what is 'stupid' but really whose opinion on film making are we going to respect more? James Cameron or richg101 from EOSHD board?

 

Is this a trick question?  James Cameron jumped the shark, nuked the fridge, whatever, before Peter Jackson even.  He hasn't said an intelligent declaration for the film press since he had the sack to get "the Letterbox Heresy" published.