More words on 3D -- what is your opinion?

PaulGriffith said:
Just as a reminder, many said the same thing about sound in movies almost a century ago. "why do you need to hear them talk?" Same with color film and later color TV. It seems like 3D may be less important than some of those things, but in 50 years when nothing is 2D it will be the norm. Color doesn't make a movie good, but it helps.
Click to expand...

50 years from now it will be more holographic, an idea I'm probably fine with. Let me ask you this: Did they jack up the prices by $4 - $5 per ticket so you could see the sound/color film? When I went to see JAWS 3D or SPACEHUNTER: ADVENTURES IN THE FORBIDDEN ZONE in 3D, I don't remember those movies costing more than the regular cinema!!!!!

My family of 5 costs $80+ after drinks (and that's with sneaking the candy in)! Give me a $7 3D movie and we might all go, each month and I'll be happier to endure the headache. I used to pay to see 2 -3 movies every weekend. Now, (regardless of Dimension)my family goes 2 - 3 times a year. Screw that, I just want to watch more movies in a theater. It's one of the few things I like to leave the house for and experience with an audience.

All my perusing/hanging out culture is being taken away - Borders Books is going out of business. No more going to Tower Records, Odyessy, Virgin Mega Store. Now, I have to go to Amazon.com, but I can't have a latte and talk to people there.

I was wearing a shirt with the two teleporters, from THE FLY. This guy at the store says, "That was a great movie....back when I used to go to movies." There are a lot of people like that. A lot of my friends only do downloads now. Some of them have seen 3D in years.
 
Opened the thread, this quote was towards the end:

3D will NOT make a bad script a good movie! We've seen that carrot in front of the horse many times! A movie is only as good as it's weakest link. Whether it be director, cast, limited budget on cheesy SFX or a bad story to begin with... ETC.
Click to expand...

Really digging the different views expressed here. I can appreciate almost every one's sentiments. But I have to agree with Nate North's comment above.

If I could afford to shoot some of my scripts (especially DOWN or SOUND OF NIGHTMARES - available for perusal) -- if I could take them from script to scream -- I would love to work in high-end 3D. Call me a dreamer, but some scripts in the eyes of this writer, scream for 3D.

But yes, many movies do not -- many movies coming out of the biz right now suck -- period, whether they are 3D or not. AVATAR blew me away. As did UP.

But for those that have not seen ACTIVE 3D on a high-end 3D hi-def flat screen, let me tell you. There is a difference from the look of IMAX or other passive 3D presentations! 3D picture quality is more accurate in ACTIVE lens.

I also want to say, that watching the NBA finals, College ball and even some otherwise boring viewer sports (like tennis, golf and soccer) can be awesome! I cannot wait to watch the X Games...

I am enjoying everyone's comments and views, understanding most all too well.
 
Rising ticket prices are going to rise regardless, sure 3D costs more, but it costs more to make and it costs more to project (two projectors).

I watch a lot of movies 2 or 3 times in theaters. A lot of local ones have Half price Tuesdays, one has a "twilight" pricing where everyday (weekends too) the showing that starts between 4 and 6pm is only $4.50 2D and $7.50 3D.

Even at $12-16 a ticket for 3D, it's fine in my mind. It's the industry I want to work in, so if people are willing to spend it then the day I'm on the receiving end of it is all the sweeter haha.
 
That's a nicely tempered and logical response, Paul. :yes: I don't mind 3-D being around, but I am scared of the idea of it becoming a standard - and 2D being phased out as a production process. As long as there are both and I can choose which to shoot, I'm fine.

However, I do look forward to watching PROMETHEUS in 3D the first time I see it, cause it's going to be weird. I won't even tell the family; I'm sneaking out for that one.
 
I'm on the fence. I have been thinking that the hurdle to greater acceptance was getting rid of the glasses. But actually it may be getting rid of the premium. Okay, they cost more to make. Boohoo. If people with families or working class folks like myself can't afford them, then we'll just choose not to go. Just like we're buying fewer videos, cd's, and books, as well as doing things like eating out less or not at all etc. They tell us the recession is over, you sillies, but how many of us really think that means anything at this point? Gas prices are only going to rise. They're saying 5 bucks a gallon in 2012. And guess what, it's only going to go higher as more and more in China and India buy cars and will want gas too. But we'd still like you to pay this premium to see our movies so we can get even filthier filthy rich.

So, I saw Deathly Hollow Part II in 3D on the advice of a critic who normally dislikes 3D. I won't mention any names (Christy Lemire :P). Anyway, for the first time I experienced in 3D what I'd only heard others complaining about; that is, the picture was too dark, too murky because of it. I regretted the choice of 3D. So now I think I'm down on movies shot in 2D but converted to 3D. Yeah, it diminished my experience, and I'm thinking they're just cashing in on it.

But is 3D bad? I dunno. I loved it on the IMAX watching Avatar. I loved it for Coraline. Up and Thor made decent use of it.

You know, too much of the new 3D looks like that Smashing Pumpkins video , Tonight, Tonight.

The third and final concept, inspired by Georges Méliès's silent film A Trip to the Moon, came from directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, who got the idea for the video because the album cover for Mellon Collie reminded them of early silent films.[18] Hence, the video was filmed in the style of a turn-of-the-century silent film using theater-style backdrops and primitive special effects.
Click to expand...
--Wikipedia.

Here's that video:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcuenz_the-smashing-pumpkins-tonight-tonig_music


Does that look more realistic? I think 3D's arch enemy, Roger Ebert, has a point. I'm starting to think that current 2D visual tech may look more like how our eyes and brain see the world than 3D does.

If anyone should be able to squeeze whatever goodness there might be in it and come up with something that's visually beautiful, it's Ridley Scott. So I'm with Scoopicman...before letting myself get too sour on 3D, I'd like to see Prometheus. I'm really looking forward to it.
 
3D is a load of horse s**t

The only 3D flick that's impressed me has been Tron 2, and even that film has issues.

I'm pretty much done with choosing 3D over the 2D version, when both are available.

I'd be mad as heck if I was paying full prices, too. Luckily I'm a cheap weasel, so the dollar-theater works for me ($4 for 3D) but it all adds up over time. Even at the low dollar-theater rates I'm hard pressed to fork over a few extra bucks for the glasses, when the results are so underwhelming.
 
Count me among the 3D haters.

I used to consider myself an avid movie-goer. I was the type of person who joined the cinema's club for the small discount on tickets since I went so often that it actually did save me money. I would average a movie a month, two during peak seasons. The only reason I didn't go more often was either because of funds or lack of selection.

Then this new 3D craze hit. I've been to the cinema twice since Avatar was released, and that included going to see Avatar.

Why do I hate it? Because I can't see it. The screen just looks blurry to me.

I don't think a lot of people realise just how many people can't see stereoscopic 3D. Most of the population don't have perfect eyesight and most people see better out of one eye than another. People with glasses also have difficulty with the 3D glasses.

So... fuck Ridley Scott.
 
It's going to die down very soon as recent movies like Thor have sold more 2D tickets than 3D tickets. Studios will soon realize that except for select projects it's not worth the extra fron end expense.
 
I havent seen the numbers, but when you charge the extra $4 for 3D how does that even our revenue-wise?

Also, when we're talking $60-100+ million dollar budgets, 3D relatively doesn't cost that much more to make. Especially considering that if you're shooting 2D there's a good chance you're shooting film vs all the modern 3D that's pure digital, costing much less.
 
The only 3D movie I saw was Avatar, and I liked the movie but didn't care for the 3D. My problem was that the background has to get blurry for the foreground to become 3D. So it's a sacrifice rather than an improvement if you ask me.

However I saw the trailer for Alice in Wonderland before Avatar started, and the 3D in that movie looked really good. Probably because it was animated, and in animation the background is not blurry, unlike shooting live with a camera. But the trailer for that looked better than the whole 3D in Avatar that followed for me, so it works for animation but not live action, from what I've seen.
 
I don't think there's any evidence that audiences are rejecting 3D. On the contrary, I think there is evidence that audiences are wisening up to the difference between a movie that was shot in 3D, with Cameron's cameras, vs one that was converted in post. The former (and that pretty much only includes "Avatar" and "Transformers 3") looked terrific in 3D, whereas the latter (everything else) look like crap. Both of the aforementioned movies did quite well at the box office, with their 3D screens.

I think as more and more films are shot in 3D, with Jimmy C's fancy camera system, the audience will respond. I'm predicting "Hobbit" will be gorgeous in 3D, and we know what we can expect from "Avatar 2", at least visually.

Plus, animated movies tend to look terrific in 3D, and is definitely worth the extra price of admission, for me anyway.

I know a lot of people don't dig the 3D, so we know 2D movies won't go away. But at this point, I think it's silly to think that this latest wave of 3D is just a fad. Things are different, this time around, and I think it shows signs of sticking around.
 
Am I stretching too far to make the Total Recall Remake a part of this thread? I only just heard about the remake tonight. The point is that I really thought that when I looked it up I'd find that they were shooting it in 3D. But no.

Moritz also stated that the film will not be shot in 3D, saying: “we decided that it would be too much.
Click to expand...

--Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall

The story I heard is that its budget is a whopping 200 million.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top