Why are 3D Movies So Bad?
via NPR.org
via NPR.org
Sorry, Cracker Funk
- Thread starter Dreadylocks
- Start date
In defense of the great CF..
This bit....
Could have easily been said in the olden days of cinema.. ( I replaced a few words)
.... don't know, just being difficult today..
This bit....
Could have easily been said in the olden days of cinema.. ( I replaced a few words)
.... don't know, just being difficult today..
I consider 3D a gimmick which hinders my enjoyment of a film.
I avoid them at all costs. Hopefully this fad can go away in the near future.
Also, @wheatgrinder - I disagree. Colour can absolutely enable a different kind of storytelling.
I avoid them at all costs. Hopefully this fad can go away in the near future.
Also, @wheatgrinder - I disagree. Colour can absolutely enable a different kind of storytelling.
You make my point.. at first I bet many folks thought it wouldn't..
now that 3D is a reality in films, and not just a gimmick, maybe a NEW kinds of storytelling can happen.. just thinking... here by the way, Im not particularly invested.. but it seems that like it or not, 3D has grown up, and will be with us for the duration.. think of what this NEXT generation of filmmakers, hardcore 3d video gamers etc are going to do..
Particularly, maybe well see an "Escher" style of filmaking, where 3D positioning is IMPORTANT to the story in a way you could never portray in flat space..
now that 3D is a reality in films, and not just a gimmick, maybe a NEW kinds of storytelling can happen.. just thinking... here by the way, Im not particularly invested.. but it seems that like it or not, 3D has grown up, and will be with us for the duration.. think of what this NEXT generation of filmmakers, hardcore 3d video gamers etc are going to do..
Particularly, maybe well see an "Escher" style of filmaking, where 3D positioning is IMPORTANT to the story in a way you could never portray in flat space..
I dread to think..
I don't like to constantly whip a dying animal, but I'm still not a fan of 3D...
Three main reasons:
a.) It gives me headaches.
b.) I think it is distracting and fake looking. People who say 3D makes things seem 'more real' are just plain wrong, to quote Aziz Ansari 'Julie and Julia looked real'.
c.) I've yet to see a truly 'good movie' which has been made as a showcase for 3D movies. They look pretty but there's not a lot going on behind the goggles.
However I think that it is wrong to suggest that it is just a fad. Sure, it's been around for a long time but cinema has to make progress and this is certainly the most logical direction for it to go.
That said, I don't think it will ever fully work until you can take the glasses out of the equation.
Three main reasons:
a.) It gives me headaches.
b.) I think it is distracting and fake looking. People who say 3D makes things seem 'more real' are just plain wrong, to quote Aziz Ansari 'Julie and Julia looked real'.
c.) I've yet to see a truly 'good movie' which has been made as a showcase for 3D movies. They look pretty but there's not a lot going on behind the goggles.
However I think that it is wrong to suggest that it is just a fad. Sure, it's been around for a long time but cinema has to make progress and this is certainly the most logical direction for it to go.
That said, I don't think it will ever fully work until you can take the glasses out of the equation.
Last edited:
Also, what annoys me is that film is hardly 2D anyway. They still have depth and a sense of scale. I don't see why things have to jump out of the screen for them to seem real. It misses the point.
(not to mention it's an embarrassingly shameful money spinner)
(not to mention it's an embarrassingly shameful money spinner)
I don't see it as a new way of story-telling at all, but rather having the potential to be immersive (at some future time).
Looking back at some film history, colour film itself took quite a while to get going. Sure, it was prohibitely expensive (and not very good) at the start - sometimes only being used for very brief segments in a 99% b/w film - but people kept working on it. From the 1915-ish to 1930's it remained fairly experimental. When the Wizard of Oz came along with its brand-new whatever-vision it sure looked a whole heck of lot different from the regular b/w fare that was also showing and, even after that great presentation, colour didn't become ubiquitous overnight. B/W was still extremely common all the way into the 50's and beyond, but the lack of colour certainly didn't subtract anything from any story that was solid to start with.
I still haven't seen Avatar (waiting for the re-release to hit my dollar-theater), but I'm feeling that maybe Avatar is gonna be that Wizard of Oz spectacular that showed that something could be done well - and everyone else is just 30 years behind that.
Maybe. I dunno.
I wasn't impressed with AVATAR's 3D (but that may be because I was so let down by that movie).
TOY STORY 3 had the best use of 3D I've seen so far. The opening fantasy scene and the garbage dump scenes were amazing in 3D.
TOY STORY 3 had the best use of 3D I've seen so far. The opening fantasy scene and the garbage dump scenes were amazing in 3D.
Wow.
A new technology is created for a movie, and you were let down,
A (WARNING: CATFISH SPOILER AHEAD)
woman creates 21 different personas from her mind and speaks on the phone in upwards of 5 different voices (including a teenage male babysitter) to convince a technologically savvy New York photographer that she's a 19 year-old girl
What movies do you like or impress you? Seems like a high standard
What-evah!
MWAAAHAHAAHHHAAAAAAAAHAHA!!!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4241126/Jackson-to-direct-The-Hobbit-in-3-D
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4241126/Jackson-to-direct-The-Hobbit-in-3-D
That was a really interesting article, thanks Dready.
I'm still not really sure if I like 3D or not. I think Toy Story 3 used it brilliantly, and Avatar used it well too - but it's hard to say whether that's just because I preferred Toy Story to Avatar in general. Final Destination 3D used it… entertainingly. No subtlety about it, and it didn't add anything to the story, but I must admit it was fun.
At the moment, I think us indies are in the position we were not so long ago when things were beginning to move from SD to HD. Perhaps the equipment is affordable to a few of us, but broadly speaking it isn't worth the money yet, and I haven't seen many people here wanting to shoot in 3D. As a guy who quite often edits what he shoots, the extra workload in post would put me off enormously, and I don't know anyone who would want to do any post-production for less than normal.
FWIW, I heard via a camera assistant friend when she was at Panavision the other day that the Pirates of the Caribbean main unit are having lots of problems with their 3D rigs… if the big boys can't cope with it, I'm not sure I'd want to.
I'm still not really sure if I like 3D or not. I think Toy Story 3 used it brilliantly, and Avatar used it well too - but it's hard to say whether that's just because I preferred Toy Story to Avatar in general. Final Destination 3D used it… entertainingly. No subtlety about it, and it didn't add anything to the story, but I must admit it was fun.
At the moment, I think us indies are in the position we were not so long ago when things were beginning to move from SD to HD. Perhaps the equipment is affordable to a few of us, but broadly speaking it isn't worth the money yet, and I haven't seen many people here wanting to shoot in 3D. As a guy who quite often edits what he shoots, the extra workload in post would put me off enormously, and I don't know anyone who would want to do any post-production for less than normal.
FWIW, I heard via a camera assistant friend when she was at Panavision the other day that the Pirates of the Caribbean main unit are having lots of problems with their 3D rigs… if the big boys can't cope with it, I'm not sure I'd want to.
Why are 3D movies so bad?
Tomatometer Ratings:
"Toy Story 3" 99%
"Up" 98%
"How to Train Your Dragon" 98%
"Bolt" 89%
"Coraline" 89%
"Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" 89%
"Avatar" 83%
"Despicable Me" 81%
"Monsters vs. Aliens" 72%
If you consider how many 2D movies are released every year, vs. how many 3D movies are released every year, the success-rate of 3D movies is actually rather high, by comparison. The ones that suck have tended to be cheap horror schlockfests and shitty family adventures, that would've sucked anyway.
The entire article is based on an opening question that isn't even valid, and everything that follows is pure conjecture, based on an assumption that stands on shaky ground.
The above examples are obviously all animated ("Avatar", sort of, basically, animated). Personally, I doubt if 3D will work for live-action any time in the near-future, but it is true that Cameron's fancy new technology is in it's infant stage of use.
Let's see how Peter Jackson puts it to use in the "Hobbit" movies. Give it a few years; it's not fair to judge it by movies like "The Last Airbender" and "Clash of the Titans" that obviously used it in a haphazard attempt to make more money.
Why are so many 2D movies so bad? That's just as fair a question to ask.
Tomatometer Ratings:
"Toy Story 3" 99%
"Up" 98%
"How to Train Your Dragon" 98%
"Bolt" 89%
"Coraline" 89%
"Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" 89%
"Avatar" 83%
"Despicable Me" 81%
"Monsters vs. Aliens" 72%
If you consider how many 2D movies are released every year, vs. how many 3D movies are released every year, the success-rate of 3D movies is actually rather high, by comparison. The ones that suck have tended to be cheap horror schlockfests and shitty family adventures, that would've sucked anyway.
The entire article is based on an opening question that isn't even valid, and everything that follows is pure conjecture, based on an assumption that stands on shaky ground.
The above examples are obviously all animated ("Avatar", sort of, basically, animated). Personally, I doubt if 3D will work for live-action any time in the near-future, but it is true that Cameron's fancy new technology is in it's infant stage of use.
Let's see how Peter Jackson puts it to use in the "Hobbit" movies. Give it a few years; it's not fair to judge it by movies like "The Last Airbender" and "Clash of the Titans" that obviously used it in a haphazard attempt to make more money.
Why are so many 2D movies so bad? That's just as fair a question to ask.
All of those films are as good/better in conventional '2D', though. They're not 3D exclusive films so quoting their scores is completely irrelevant.
The point is 3D doesn't add anything to the quality of the film (takes away in my experience).
The point is 3D doesn't add anything to the quality of the film (takes away in my experience).
I don't see why it has to be so black and white - some people love it, some people hate it. It's all very well to be critical of other people's positions, but saying that people are wrong to dislike 3D is just as stupid as saying that people are wrong to dislike Hitchcock 
Oh, well then in that case, this entire discussion is irrelevant, because every 3D movie of this latest resurgence has been released in 2D.
Does being in 2D add anything to the quality of film? I'm sorry 3D takes away from your experience, but it doesn't mine. So, in that respect, chilipie is spot-on to mention that this doesn't have to be a B/W issue.
ROC, should I do it? It always gets them riled up. Aww, what the heck.
$2.7 Billion