The People vs. 3D

Cracker Funk

Cracker Funk

If 3D is on trial, Ang Lee is Johnny Cochran!

In previous debates, though I've been a supporter of the recent 3D trend, I've been open to the opposing view. I'm no longer open to the opposing view.

3D is legit. It is a filmmaking tool that can be used to further the story. And if you don't believe this to be the case, that's just because you personally haven't imagined any way to do so. Don't feel bad, we can't all be Ang Lee. Go see Life of Pi in 3D, and eat your crow's pie.

In retrospect, frankly, I see no logical reason for a filmmaker to reject 3D as a legitimate artistic tool. Maybe you don't want to use it in your movie, and that is your prerogative. But it is a thing you can do. It is an added thing that can make your movie different. It is up to you to discover how this different thing can make your movie better. An extra tool is an extra tool. Period. End of debate.

P.S. I like hyperbole (let the debate rage on). ;)
 
I hate 3D... and watercolors :P So filmmakers can stop trying to change film... and painters can stick to oil painting and the world will be a happier place.
 
I've seen 3 movies so far in 3D. Avatar, The Avengers, and Thor. Avatar was the only one that was impressive by any means, but it only was for about 20% of the movie. Hardly enough to pay extra for the glasses. I also found that the background was way too blurry. I know it's suppose to be shallow DOF but with 3D, it's too shallow. Perhaps they should a 3D all deep focus, and then once put in 3D, the DOF will be more of a natural shallow and not too much. But what do I know. All I know is that it's not good, and I hope it fades away. Most people say they don't care for it so I can't see it taking off.
 
I've seen probably a dozen 3D films, mostly kids fare with my daughter. They were okay, I would have been fine with 2D. "Avatar" was interesting, but again, 2D would have been just fine with me. However, I thought that "Hugo" was terrific in 3D; it's the only one that didn't pull me out of the story at any time and I wish that I could see it in 3D at home.
 
Cracker Funk said:
P.S. I like hyperbole (let the debate rage on). ;)
Click to expand...

Hey wait a minute. I could have sworn that you previously said that you hated hyperbole.

I like the 3D. Although, there is also, it seem to me, that there might be something artificial about it. Is it really more 3D than the other? I still wonder if Ebert isn't correct about regular 2D already simulating three dimensions in a more natural way than the so-called 3D.

Also, another caveat, my eyes are nearsighted and I got the astigmatism. I can enjoy the 3D because of the contacts. But, if I couldn't wear contacts, how could I enjoy the 3D? I don't know, do they offer 3D glasses for four eyes people? Even if they do, how comfortable can they be? If I couldn't wear contacts for whatever reason, I think the 3D wouldn't be so cool. Which wouldn't mean it wouldn't be cool for good sited people. Just sayin, it's a caveat.
 
Last edited:
Richy I have 'four eye' friends and at least at my cinema they have had no trouble watching the film, however I've noticed each cinema I've seen 3D they each had different fitting glasses.
My first 3D experience was pretty average, I had a shining green exit sign somewhere behind me and it reflected onto my glasses which was really distracting.

Of the 3D films I've seen I've enjoyed animated ones the most, I'm not sure I'm big on life action 3D. That being said I will be watching The Hobbit in 3D because that is the only way to view it in 48fps by my understanding, and I wish to see it in 48fps because of the experience and that is how the director has designed the film. If I don't like it I probably won't watch the sequels in 48fps, besides it's only a waste of $20, not a massive deal in my opinion :)

I'm for 3D if it suits the film. Ie I don't think an action film would look good in 3D
 
Last edited:
The only "recent" 3D movie I watched, where I wasn't confused, was "Paranorman". Maybe I'm getting old, but I think most 3D effects are too overwhelming and they are just "too much".

EDIT: Well, after a second thought maybe I liked the effects, because it was an animated movie and not live action. Not every movie "works" in 3D.
 
Last edited:
I lied... I love 3D - I have glasses, and the glasses in my theatre work just fine for me... I'll be going to a theatre with 48fps for the Hobbit as well... (I figure it's 24p / eye that way).
 
I just got Rx glasses, for the first time in my life. My near-sightedness is fairly mild, so I actually had no idea that all this time, I have been watching movies blurry. I thought it was clear, but then I put on the glasses, and it was like upgrading from SD to HD! I love my new glasses! Anyway, long story short, I wore the 3D glasses over the Rx glasses for Pi, and it was just fine. I've contemplated using a rubber-band to fasten them together, but that might just be too nerdy.

And seriously, y'all should check out Pi. The 3D (and the cinematography in general) is as good as, if not better than, both Avatar and Hugo.

Also, I'm bummed that I won't be watching the 48FPS version of Hobbit -- it won't be playing anywhere near me.
 
Is there some sort of resource to find out what theaters are playing the 48fps version of The Hobbit? It's kind of the only reason I'm considering sitting in the theater for 3+ hours.

Another side note: can we start bringing intermission back in theaters? 3 hours is a fuck-of-a-long time to sit without a cigarette or bathroom-break.
 
Dreadylocks said:
Is there some sort of resource to find out what theaters are playing the 48fps version of The Hobbit? It's kind of the only reason I'm considering sitting in the theater for 3+ hours.

Another side note: can we start bringing intermission back in theaters? 3 hours is a fuck-of-a-long time to sit without a cigarette or bathroom-break.
Click to expand...

I saw a list, a couple weeks ago, and there was nothing in my area. But just now, I checked my local theater's listing, and it's in 48FPS! Sweet. I just picked up four tickets. So, I guess just check your local theaters (if RVA has it, surely there will be one in your neighborhood).

And yeah, I'm 100% with you, regarding intermission. Anything over 2.5 hours or so, should have a break. If I ever make a really long movie, I kid you not, I'm going to put an intermission IN the movie, with a countdown timer.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEHxaR_M-KE
(as an aside, it's a shame there isn't a better version of this on youtube)

Anyway, on topic. I appreciate 3d. I am glad there are filmmakers that want to use it. However, I'm personally not interested in it.
 
Dreadylocks said:
Is there some sort of resource to find out what theaters are playing the 48fps version of The Hobbit? It's kind of the only reason I'm considering sitting in the theater for 3+ hours.

Another side note: can we start bringing intermission back in theaters? 3 hours is a fuck-of-a-long time to sit without a cigarette or bathroom-break.
Click to expand...

There are lists around. I'm travelling two hours from my house to get to the theatre I'm going to

http://www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/
 
Central MN, the Marcus Oakdale Cinema in Oakdale MN is playing it 48fps, 4K, 3D -- or will be if they are able to do so hardware-wise.
 
I saw Spy Kids 3 in 3D, and Harold and Kumar 3...


they were both horrible, not because of the 3D, they were alright films by themselves...

it's just that WATCHING movies in 3D ruins the experience. Completely. You can't pay attention to the story, it hurts my eyes, the visuals don't gain anything except for "Ooh! look! it looks kinda slightly a little bit like it pops outta the screen! for a millisecond!"
 
I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D and it was great, but I'm not sure that I was impressed enough to warrant only seeing it in 3D. It would've been just as good in 2D.

I'm not 100% sure that the extra hassle on set, and the extra time it take to shoot everything is worth that tiny bit of extra depth on screen, especially when the cheap glasses they give you tend to hurt your nose after about 20 minutes.

I'm not sure about it's future in narrative filmmaking, especially from a home-video POV, but speaking to a friend who's just come off a wildlife doco 3D shoot, he reckons that 3D is absolutely wonderful for wildlife docos.
 
Awesome. Thanks for that list, MileCreations. =)

Just got back from Life of Pi in 3D. It was brilliant visually. Gorgeous. So, thumbs up for me as far as that goes. It would be nice to watch it side by side in 2D to compare in order to really determine the 3D's value. But yeah. A nice to look at film. In fact, that's the best thing about the film.
 
Last edited:
3D is a lot better for animation as I've noticed in previews of animated 3D movies in the theater, look a lot better than the live action ones. I think it's because with animation you get a much sharper background to work with usually or something.

As far as The Hobbit goes, I am not looking forward to 48. I don't like 60i so I probably would not like 48. 30 is not bad but I still say 24 is the best. Did Jackson shoot it at 1/96 too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top