Has 3D become the "new" CGI-audience reaction

[Tinalera]

Here's what I mean:

There's a discussion on one of the other threads about Thor, and it was mentioned about how 3D either "wasn't used well" or "didn't really work" with the film, and it got me thinking:

Are we starting to view, as an audience, 3D the way we currently view CGI (with an analytical eye-the famous "I dldn't like the effects, they looked to CGI (re fake)" Regularly now I read reviews about films with CGI, and the "quality" of the CGI is as much analyzed as the rest of the film (perhaps overly so sometimes)

With the Thor comments, and others I've read about other films, I'm seeing that analysis again (not just for Thor) "3D didn't work", "wasn't used properly" ect.

Just wonder if we are (already) entering this domain the 3D, compared to CGI which (IMO) took longer before people started talking about "fake" CGI.

Thoughts?

 

[Jack Lynt]

Sure, makes sense. I don't know. How do we properly qualify the new 3D? Is it itself CGI, or is it something else? I mean, I've heard it explained that the new 3D tricks the eye. Is CGI not apart of that, or is it something apart from CGI? Initially, I was thinking that I might have rather seen it in 2D. However, I can't say that it hurt the viewing experience, and I can say that it grew on me. I did have the new and unique experience while watching some of the wide vista shots in Thor that I was seeing some strange sort of miniature set. But somehow I mostly found that charming.

The bottom line is that I think Thor is a class production. I've always liked Kenneth Branagh, and I'm glad that Thor has turned out so well. Seems to me that he's really and successfully flexed his directing muscle and proven that he can be given an action spectacular and do a good job with the genre. I'm happy for Mr. Branagh, and I hope this only means more and fulfilling work for him.

Anyhoo. I have to think that there will be good and there will be less good use of the new 3D.

 

[Tinalera]

Sure, makes sense. I don't know. How do we properly qualify the new 3D? Is it itself CGI, or is it something else? I mean, I've heard it explained that the new 3D tricks the eye. Is CGI not apart of that, or is it something apart from CGI? Initially, I was thinking that I might have rather seen it in 2D. However, I can't say that it hurt the viewing experience, and I can say that it grew on me. I did have the new and unique experience while watching some of the wide vista shots in Thor that I was seeing some strange sort of miniature set. But somehow I mostly found that charming.

The bottom line is that I think Thor is a class production. I've always liked Kenneth Branagh, and I'm glad that Thor has turned out so well. Seems to me that he's really and successfully flexed his directing muscle and proven that he can be given an action spectacular and do a good job with the genre. I'm happy for Mr. Branagh, and I hope this only means more and fulfilling work for him.

Anyhoo. I have to think that there will be good and there will be less good use of the new 3D.

Basically the bolded what I was looking at-like I said, it just seems that there's the "analysis" of 3D the way CGI (which can incorporated into 3D).


Guess it's just my age-I remember a number of years ago when Ghost Rider trailer came out, and I was pretty impressed, thinking "wow, if I had seen this as a kid, I would have flipped!" then I read comments on it "looks too fake CGI", and with recent reviews of movies talking about the "effectiveness" of CGI, as well as viewer reviews, I was just wondered if we're headed down that path:

Basically instead of saying "Wow 3D!" collectively, we, as viewing culture are now saying "Hmmmm, the 3D for (insert film here) is alright, but I don't know.....doesn't quite work" (and maybe just forgetting to enjoy the film for what it is-but then it seems to be popular on any subject to be a "put downer"-but that's another thread )

 

[don patterson]

3D

I love most advancements in technology. Few people would call me a geek, (if any) but I love seeing where technology has been going over the past 60 years. Especially in the arts, maybe because I remember the 1950's so well with all those bad special fx (over acting, weak directing, sloppy editing and etc.). Or maybe because I loved science fiction, horror and the like (even the first B & W George Reeves 'Superman' was cool when you were seven years old). But all facets within such genres were considered B movie material at best (with cheap budgets). Keep in mind science fiction before Kubrick's 2001 and horror (with few exceptions like 1959's The Haunting of Hill House) was never considered a true cinematic art form as a good the war, western, romantic or thriller. Today they are finally making the quality, big budgeted, movies (with believable FX, acting, directing, etc.) I have waited so long and wanted to see.

All FX just keeps getting better, whether it be CGI, animatronics, puppetry, makeup, prosthetics or stop motion (feel free to add). And yes, contemporary movies are uneven due to budgets, creativity of the artists (the quality of the acting, directing, editing, etc.) -- you know, the over all story-telling on every level, not just the CGI.

But today's science fiction and horror -- wow! 1956's Forbidden Planet or 1951's The Day The Earth Stood Still or any of the 50's and 60's science fiction by today's standards are really lame.

3D has also been around since the 1950's (although in different formats and delivery systems). Today's 3D can be as awesome as the best of today's CGI. Sorry, I was floored by IMAX AVATAR 3D and Resident Evil 4 on the big screen.

We just bought a 73838 Mitsubishi with 3D glasses, etc. and I am floored by the 3D I see on Direct TV's free 3D channels. If the subject matter doesn't interest me, I put on some great music (Porcupine Tree works) and just watch.

I am sure that down the road the '3D' will loose some luster (can't wait to watch NFL, Baseball and NBA on ESPN 3D). But my belief is that 3D is here to stay. Yes there will be improvements. That's technology. I just hope I am around long enough to see future entertainment (30 or 40 years down the road) making today's best productions look lame.

My 2 cents.