3D is going to ruin movies?

puredrifting

puredrifting

Major Contributor
I think with all of the excitement and interest with 3D in our end of the media profession, it is a good idea to keep up with popular media's thoughts on 3D. FWIW, I totally agree with this article...

"3D is so mind-numbingly amazing that narrative storytelling hasn't caught up with the technology. The corporate screenwriting borgs are so busy trying to come up with plot devices to highlight all the newfangled whoosiwhatsits—objects being hurled at the audience, flying sequences, falling leaves, glowing Venus Flytraps—that no one is really bothering to tell a tale."
http://defamer.gawker.com/5484085/3d-is-going-to-ruin-movies-for-a-long-time-to-come

Dan
 
Any device, trick, camera movement or effect that is put in for its own sake instead of furthering the narrative is a gimmick, not a storytelling tool. If 3D (like color, aspect ratio or the advancements in sound) furthers the story, then it is an effective tool. If it doesn't, it's an expensive, but ill-fated marketing ploy.

It's not what you can do, it's how you use it that makes a lasting impression.
 
I agree with Jim. I think 3d has it's place, if it works for the narrative.

Right now it's a gimmick. Although the comparison isn't completely there, this reminds me a lot of the addition of sound to movies. At first it was a gimmick. There were even films with only one scene that had sound, like the Jazz Singer. It was just something to draw in crowds and to wow people. Filmmakers were scrambling. They were so used to silent films they weren't sure how to incorporate sound. You have to have the technology first to then learn how to use it properly. It reminds me a lot about how people are reacting to 3d. I'm not saying 3d is as important as sound, but it may eventually find it's place within the medium as sound did.

It also depends on the film. If I see a film like 'when in rome' or 'valentine's day' in 3d, it would just make me want to jump off a bridge.

It also has to be done right, and so few films have done it right lately, aside from some CGI films and Avatar, because they actually have the slight angles in the images. But the technology has to be there first for us to learn how to use it and incorporate it properly within the medium.

puredrifting said:
The corporate screenwriting borgs are so busy trying to come up with plot devices to highlight all the newfangled whoosiwhatsits—objects being hurled at the audience, flying sequences, falling leaves, glowing Venus Flytraps—[...]
Click to expand...

As for the 'depth shots', I do agree it can be too much once in a while, but when I compose a shot I compose it with lots of depth in mind. The z-axis is very important to me, and even in a 2d image I'm trying to make things stand out, to make a 2d image 3d. So it's not surprising that would carry over to 3d. Falling leaves I'm fine with, it's just the occasional 'let's point towards the camera' shots that are too much.
 
3D will ruin nothing. It's just another tool in the shed. Hollywood has always made shallow spectacles and it always will. Carry on.
 
I have a hard time believing that 3D will be around long enough to make much of a difference. There were a bunch of 3D movies made in 1983, too. It'll pass.
 
HorseFilms said:
I have a hard time believing that 3D will be around long enough to make much of a difference. There were a bunch of 3D movies made in 1983, too. It'll pass.
Click to expand...

No. It will stick this time. Avatar has made too much money for that to happen.
 
Batutta said:
3D will ruin nothing. It's just another tool in the shed. Hollywood has always made shallow spectacles and it always will. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

I remember a 3-stooges episode with stuff poking out at the audience... strictly for 3D effect.

3D is way past "gimmick" even though there will be filmmakers that USE it that way... just as their are filmmakers that use explosions and any other effect in a feeble effort to make a poorly constructed story more interesting. *cough* bay *cough*

It's not the future... not a gimmick... not anything... spectacle movies will be a bigger spectacle with the advent of 3D... but a good story will be a good story... and succeed as such... whether it's 3D, black and white, or silent film.

I doesn't matta'...
 
Yes it's been a fad before. But as Battuta said, Avatar was too much of a success.

But the other point is that the technology hadn't been perfected (or even very good) in the 80's.

Avatar has changed a lot... and the technology now exists to give us something spectacular.
 
House of Wax (1953) was in 3D and made a ton of money, too. This is just another fad that will fizzle out and reappear again in a few decades... only to fade again. The day it works without glasses is the day it has a chance to be here to stay.
 
Last edited:
I find this rather disturbing.

It's a ducky right?

wr-cr-outline-on_white.jpg
 
3D finally looks good. Technology aside, we are finally approaching 3D with the right philosophy. Instead of having things pop off the screen, we see more depth in the image. Instead of their world jumping out at us, we are drawn into their world.

I like that. But the story has to be worth becoming a part of.
 
HorseFilms said:
House of Wax (1953) was in 3D and made a ton of money, too.
Click to expand...

But it didn't make Avatar money. Releasing a movie in 3D adds to the gross because they can charge more at the gate. It also guards against piracy, and gives people an experience they can't yet get at home. Also, as others have pointed out, that old 3D was horrid, blurry crap compared to what's out now and it will only improve. Studios have no reason NOT to do it for their big tentpole projects.
 
Last edited:
My personal take on 3D, after interviewing many of the leading proponents as well as consumers is that it will succeed this time simply because the studios and electronics manufaturers will will it to succeed. Thy have billions of dollars tied up in this bet so they will make it pay off, one way or another. It may take decades before it pays off, but eventually, I think it will.

As far as consumers go, I think that the studios and manufacturers will do fine with 3D theatrical for tentpole releases. For home video though, I think it will be a tough sell. Besides the cost and replacing HD sets that are fairly new, the glasses are the sticking point for consumer acceptance. At this point, it will be years before consumers WANT 3D in the home but as the Millenials come of age where they are making considerable disposable income and as the Boomers die off, I think that 3D in the home will become more popular. Gaming will drive it to begin with, then eventually filmed entertainment, news, variety programming. But it is going to take a LONG time, longer than the long slog to HD in the home took.

Those are my thoughts on it.

Dan
 
I would be fine with 3d games! Although I am nowhere near what anyone would call a gamer that is where 3D is going to go. I go into bestbuy and they are already advertising that 3d TV is coming. Will I buy one... No. Who wants to wear glasses while your watching Hockey?

For film I dont think it will take off, there really is no point to it. Avatar=cool in 3d, Shutter Island. Not so much. It all depends on the story to justify the use of 3d.
 
I remember what a 'fad' stereophonic was when Emory Cook first invented the 45/45 stereo LP recording method. Early stereophonic recordings contained strange mixes, where entire sections of orchestra were isolated, created an invisible wall dividing the orchestra in half. Some instrument sounds were completely discreet. And some vocals would appear panned hard left, with backup singers hard right. It was a mess. But by the late sixties, recording engineers got over their pubescent urges to exaggerate stereo mixes and stereo became an asset.

I suspect it will be the same with 3D one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top