The EGO speaks... I just threw up in my mouth.........

if cameron were to buy me a 3d television, 3d player, 3d glasses, and a bottle of excedrin, i would totally watch his 3d movies.
 
I don't see myself watching everything in 3d.3d is not that amazing, for most films 2d is better. For the once in a while block buster like avatar i'd pay for the 3d, but that's it
 
3D is white trash theatre.

Personally I'm not a fan of having my optics tricked into seeing something that isn't there for extended periods of time.

What intrigues me are aspects of video game virtual tech where you actually put on a panoramic visor and pressure sensitive clothing and gear. That's not a manipulation, it's just complete immersion. 3D is just as lame now as it was in the 50s.
 
I am neither for nor against 3D, merely neutral.

I see the use of 3D as just another tool in the creative toolbox that filmmakers have been reaching for since the beginning of the art form. Just as each director needs to decide whether black and white over color is best, or whether a film should be shot on location or in front of a green/blue screen and adding in the background scenery later.

Of course, black and white films are pretty much gone, which is a shame. When black and white is right for the material, it can really improve a film. I think "proper" 2D will unfortunately die the same horrible death that black and white has. It doesn't need to happen, but when almost all of modern cinema is pretty much catered to people who don't care much for the actual art of it, and are just in the theater to make out with their sweetheart or just to kill some time and get out of the summer sun, then fads rule all.

Maybe a little harsh, but there is some truth to what Brian Rice said a few posts up above. "3D is white trash theatre."
 
I'm not one to get headaches from 3d (which is odd as I'm more prone to get headaches). But then I decided to check out the Nintendo 3Ds. Boom, headache within 2 minutes of playing. The new 'no glasses' technology does nothing to help the headaches issue, that's for sure. My eyes were hurting from strain. It felt like I was looking at those magic eye books but for a prolonged period (I'm assuming it's a similar 'technology').

Though I'm curious to see how 48fps on the Hobbit will help 3D. That's what Jackson is claiming at least.

I think the only way 3D will really crush studios is if they only use 3D for films people don't want to see, as a gimmick to make them want to see it. The Hobbit for example would get huge sales with or without 3D, but because it's in 3D the producers will see this as a advantage they want to keep.

Producers see numbers, not the loud complaints of the few.
 
Jon Starr said:
I think the only way 3D will really crush studios is if they only use 3D for films people don't want to see, as a gimmick to make them want to see it. The Hobbit for example would get huge sales with or without 3D, but because it's in 3D the producers will see this as a advantage they want to keep.
Click to expand...

Same with Avatar. Even without 3D, Avatar had the groundbreaking digital effects/motion capture stuff, and a universally simple but effective story that drew people in, plus cool creatures and action and all kinds of things that big blockbuster movies have. I think it was a mistake for the industry at large to attribute Avatar's success to being primarily due to the 3D.

But then take a 2D drama, like Mystic River, which I was watching the other day. Mystic River would have been distracting in 3D. It doesn't need it. Of course, Cameron has already stated that he wants to see a regular real world set drama to be shot in 3D. I just feel like they are gonna possibly over saturate things with too much 3D too fast. If they let it develop with some natural and sensible progress, then maybe it will stick around for good as a part of the filmmaking process, but not the be all end all of it.

I still think the biggest thing is 3D is a technique/tool. Just as directors choose anamorphic over regular 1.85:1 aspect ratios, or film vs. digital cinematography, 3D needs to be part of that same decision making process. I doubt it will though, as studios and producers are already telling filmmakers they must shoot in 3D.
 
Nektonic said:
Cameron has already stated that he wants to see a regular real world set drama to be shot in 3D.
Click to expand...
Of course he would. Because right now it's a risk since no one's done it, but once one studio invests in a straight drama that's shot in 3D, the other studios can follow.

But really, over here a 3D ticket costs 4.80 USD extra. Like who's gonna pay five bucks extra to see people talking about stuff in 3D?

And what director will they get for that? All directors that are nuts about 3D and technology (James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Robert Zemeckis, George Lucas) are all blockbuster directors and don't really do drama. Not saying they can't, just saying they don't.
 
I also think one of the subtexts which they never reveal or talk about (to avoid being villainized) is it's an attempt to avoid piracy. Can't film a 3D movie.

So of course they want Cameron to boast about it being perfect for Drama films. If it's going to stick around, it should be only for big visual epic films. That's all it works for...
 
"Adolf Hitler expects to win WWII within the next five days." (May 3th 1945)

We are witnessing the downfall of a legend. Cameron is loosing his mind.

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
"Adolf Hitler expects to win WWII within the next five days." (May 3th 1945)

We are witnessing the downfall of a legend. Cameron is loosing his mind.

Frank
Click to expand...

Godwin's Law has been played, close the thread.

Why do people reckon 3d makes the movie more realistic? Avatar was about as unrealistic looking a movie as you are likely to see. The 3d does not represent the actual 3rd dimension we see in real life. It looks like flat cardboard cutouts layered on top of one another. There is no realistic sense of depth, say like when you see a close up of a face you dont see the face receding as it curves away from you (as you would see depth in real life) - rather you see a flat face layered on another flat layer behind it.
 
Last edited:
simonpwood said:
Godwin's Law has been played, close the thread.
Click to expand...

What happens if someone mentions Mussolini or Stalin? Or how about Churchill? I bet you didn't see that one coming.

Why do people reckon 3d makes the movie more realistic? Avatar was about as unrealistic looking a movie as you are likely to see. The 3d does not represent the actual 3rd dimension we see in real life. It looks like flat cardboard cutouts layered on top of one another. There is no realistic sense of depth, say like when you see a close up of a face you dont see the face receding as it curves away from you (as you would see depth in real life) - rather you see a flat face layered on another flat layer behind it.
Click to expand...

I find 3D to be more immersive, but I agree with you that 3D doesn't necessarily look more realistic. That is why I don't think 3D is the end all be all of cinematic nirvana.
 
I don't think it makes it more realistic per say, but that opening scene with the floating 3D tube like thing people were sleeping in was awesome. It did not look like cardboard cutouts. I agree that only some films benefit from 3D. Avatar was one of them.

Given I just watched Tron in 2D (have a 3D player but no screen or projector that supports) and I have to say, I thought it was excellent in either 3D or 2D. To the point I actually don't think it was worth all the extra money to make in 3D.
 
simonpwood said:
Why do people reckon 3d makes the movie more realistic? Avatar was about as unrealistic looking a movie as you are likely to see. The 3d does not represent the actual 3rd dimension we see in real life. It looks like flat cardboard cutouts layered on top of one another. There is no realistic sense of depth, say like when you see a close up of a face you dont see the face receding as it curves away from you (as you would see depth in real life) - rather you see a flat face layered on another flat layer behind it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make it look more realistic, but it doesn't look like cardboard cutouts either. Mind you if it's done with post-conversion, yeah it looks like cardboard cutouts. But for avatar you could see the curve of the faces, of the mountains, because it was shot the way we view the world. But something like Alice in Wonderland on the other hand...
 
Nektonic said:
What happens if someone mentions Mussolini or Stalin? Or how about Churchill? I bet you didn't see that one coming.
Click to expand...

Godwin's Law specifically deals with the degeneration of discussion until it reaches the point of Nazi analogy.

Hitler was a Nazi, though I dont reckon the same could be said of Mussolini, Stalin or Churchill.



Maybe I saw a lousy screening of Avatar; it looked layered and unrealsitic to my eyes.
 
Postmaster said:
Yeah, but that doesn't apply if used in a sarcastic or satyric way.
Click to expand...

The rules are clear, I'm afraid, when it comes to any Nazi analogy, in any context...

I have to call you on "Satyric" - this usually relates to a Greek goat-like woodland creature (as in a Satyr). To be 'satyric' means to have the characteristics of a satyr, for example: " that satyric, lecherous, horny old man".

Perhaps there should be a Godwin's type law for the use of ancient Greek mythological creatures. :happy:
 
What James Cameron wants and what is reality are two different things right now. Granted I respect the guy as a filmmaker and tech nut. But I think we're in the middle of a paradigm shift. I can't quite make it out yet, but on one end there are these ultra high budget 3D films and on the other are these small youtube movies. I'm not really sure where home theater stands in all of this. It seems like a lot of people have gone out and bought a 40" LCD tv and that's the end of it. I don't even really hear anyone talking about surround sound like everyone did in the 90's.

It also seems like more people are spending time in front of their computer than their TV's these days. I'm not sure people are even wanting to make the room in their homes for a proper 3D home theater setup.

Even my own movie watching habits have changed. I watch most stuff on my 24" computer monitor these days via netflix or digital download. I don't even care if it's not HD. If the movie is truly epic and enticing I'll go to the theater to see it. I don't really have any desire to bring 3D home. I don't have the money or the space for a big enough screen to make desirable.

Of course, what do I know? I could be wrong.

I have a feeling eventually 3D will take off and people won't mind wearing the glasses. But that's only going to happen when we're all walking around wearing augmented reality glasses that also take the place of our TV's, cell phones and computers. At that point I could look at any wall in my house and have an instance 90" 3d home theater. But that's at least 15-20 years away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top