Is 3D cinema a gimmick?

[dvd_mazter]

Before I saw Monsters vs. Aliens last night, I probably would have said gimmick but the 3D factor in MVA really enhanced the experience for me. I will definitely pay the extra few bucks to see movies in 3D now and can't wait to see a live-action movie such as Avatar in 3D

[zicmubleu]

I think 3D movies haven't matured properly despite being over a hundred years old in concept. It is an expansion of the art form if it is done properly. When the producers fully utilize the potential it will allow an added level of enjoyment; what if everyone in the audience had a slightly different view of the movie based on where they were sitting like a theater performance? What if in a horror movie you could see the guy hiding behind the corner with the knife because of the camera angle and it was obvious that the victim wouldn't be aware of the danger? It could take years to develop and maybe will never happen but 3D does offer a new realm of possibilities, IMO.

[reallyagi]

When I hear or read "make sure you see it in 3D" or "a must see in 3D", it usually means the movie can't stand on it's own merits in 2D, which makes 3D a gimmick for that particular movie.

[PCiAM]

I don't mind them, though I think 3d only works for a very limited range of films--such as animation and horror. It won't work very well for your average drama/comedy. My Bloody Valentine was pretty fun in 3d--much more fun than it would have been without the 3d aspect.

[PH3AR]

I think its a gimmick cause if its in 3D more people will want to see it, most likey children, and but some 3D films use it to full advantage which i have no problem with, such as Spy Kids 3D i hated the movie but the 3D was execellent!

[[1080-p]]

I've seen monsters vs aliens and the 3d is better quality
to bad about hdtvs with the lousy red and blue

3d is how people actually see things
>depth
>perception
so it just makes sense that movies should do the same

[assydingo]

No more or less than the Imax scenes in TDK.

[jibucha]

Hello

Definitely a gimmick!

Avatar l I cannot wait to see it on Blu-ray in 2-D!


Roger Ebert l Said it far better than I can:

"Monsters vs. Aliens is possibly the most commercial title of the year. How can you resist such a premise, especially if it's in 3-D animation? Very readily, in my case. I will say this first and get it out of the way: 3-D is a distraction and an annoyance. Younger moviegoers may think they like it because they've been told to, and picture quality is usually far from their minds. But for anyone who would just like to be left alone to see the darned thing, like me, it's a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look.

The film was made in Tru3D, the DreamWorks process that has been hailed by honcho Jeffrey Katzenberg as the future of the cinema. It is better than most of the 3-D I've seen (it doesn't approach the work on "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf"). But if this is the future of movies for grownups and not just the kiddies, saints preserve us. Billions of people for a century have happily watched 2-D and imagined 3-D. Think of the desert in "Lawrence of Arabia." The schools of fish in "Finding Nemo." The great hall in "Citizen Kane."

Now that flawless screen surface is threatened with a gimmick, which, let's face it, is intended primarily to raise ticket prices and make piracy more difficult. If its only purpose was artistic, do you think Hollywood would spend a dime on it? The superb MaxiVision process is available for $15,000 a screen, and the Hollywood establishment can't even be bothered to look at it. Why invest in the technology of the future when they can plunder the past?"

Typically, 3-D takes away from movies, being extremely distracting in the twenty or so demonstrations that I have experienced.

Having said this, I agree with a previous post that indicated that some movies are actually enhanced with 3-D, and in the gaming world, it is probably quite the experience.

While Avatar might be one of the positive exceptions, I have no intention of seeing it in 3-D, and look forward to the 2-D Blu-ray when it is available.

High Definition, at it's best, is an extremely nice natural 3-D, which from the moment that I first saw it many years ago, is simply breathtaking.

Thank You

[aphilpott]

wow u guys that hate on 3D sound like a whole bunch of oldies.... its new tech its only going to get better over time and more support $$ from the consumer... let me guess ur the same guys who waited til the format war was over to jump on blu... and complain about everything thats new and faster...

[reallyagi]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008...us_for_3d.html

He has written about 3D before.

Here are some parts I like from the article above:

There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground.

Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake.

* * *

Postscript. I have witnessed a believable 3-D illusion. It was at a ShoWest demonstration of Douglas Trumbell's doomed Showscan. He projected 70mm film at 60fps. It created the illusion of depth not by leaving the screen but by seeming to recede within it. It was like looking through a window and seeing the perspective of reality. You may have seen it being used in thrill rides at Disneyland. It was too expensive for theatrical films. A more affordable process, MaxiVision, creates its illusion with 35mm at 48fps. But Hollywood is profoundly conservative and shy of technical innovation; it embraced HD video because it provides an approximation of what they're used to. Once on a panel at Sundance, I asked an obvious question: Why does HD approximate the film standard of 24 fps, or the TV standard of 30fps, when it could just as easily approximate 60 fps? None of the experts had an answer.

[toef]

Originally Posted by reallyagi

When I hear or read "make sure you see it in 3D" or "a must see in 3D", it usually means the movie can't stand on it's own merits in 2D, which makes 3D a gimmick for that particular movie.

I disagree. Maybe the movie is made in such a way that taking the 3D away ruins the movie. That doesn't make it a gimmick.

Otherwise, under the same reasoning, I could say sound is a gimmick, because if I go see The Dark Knight, but they turn the sound off, I'd conclude that sound is a gimmick, because the movie couldn't stand on its own without it.

Although now I see you said "usually", which may be the case, especially if that's it's biggest selling point in how it's advertised.

[aphilpott]

i love it how one guy says he doesn't like somthing than everyone follows?? people don't go and see a movie cuz he doesn't like it?? WTF is this america we live in or some communist north korea.. hes just some old dude who can't handle change when it comes to movies.. he grew up in a different time period... 3D is just the start...Dbox hooked up a deal with MAnn theaters with their motion seats... do they both need work?? yes a tad but it has to start somewhere if we say screw this to this tech its going to take another 10 years before we get to this point again.. we are still far behind there is 6D out there...

[[1080-p]]

Originally Posted by reallyagi

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008...us_for_3d.html

He has written about 3D before.

Here are some parts I like from the article above:

There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground.

Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake.

* * *

Postscript. I have witnessed a believable 3-D illusion. It was at a ShoWest demonstration of Douglas Trumbell's doomed Showscan. He projected 70mm film at 60fps. It created the illusion of depth not by leaving the screen but by seeming to recede within it. It was like looking through a window and seeing the perspective of reality. You may have seen it being used in thrill rides at Disneyland. It was too expensive for theatrical films. A more affordable process, MaxiVision, creates its illusion with 35mm at 48fps. But Hollywood is profoundly conservative and shy of technical innovation; it embraced HD video because it provides an approximation of what they're used to. Once on a panel at Sundance, I asked an obvious question: Why does HD approximate the film standard of 24 fps, or the TV standard of 30fps, when it could just as easily approximate 60 fps? None of the experts had an answer.

thats a boring article he's a critic for one thing

2d is snooze land

when a person looks at someting, the brain actually percieves it as 3d
I hope real-d do make hdtvs and have the lens of the glasses built into the hdtv set

in my opinion if hdtvs and cinemas are to advance they should combine 3deo with real-d cine

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by aphilpott

wow u guys that hate on 3D sound like a whole bunch of oldies.... its new tech its only going to get better over time and more support $$ from the consumer... let me guess ur the same guys who waited til the format war was over to jump on blu... and complain about everything thats new and faster...

I'm an oldy and not me. I saw Vincent Prices "House of Wax" at the Gromans Chinese Theater in Hollywood in the late 1960s in 3D. Loved it as a kid and digging it now. 3D is cool for the right movies.

[PH3AR]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I'm an oldy and not me. I saw Vincent Prices "House of Wax" at the Gromans Chinese Theater in Hollywood in the late 1960s in 3D. Loved it as a kid and digging it now. 3D is cool for the right movies.

+1 My Bloody Valentine 3D was great and the 3D was very weal used!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by reallyagi

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008...us_for_3d.html

He has written about 3D before.

Here are some parts I like from the article above:


Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake.

* * *

Ebert is wrong. Indiana Jones flicks are the exact type of film that would benefit from the fun factor that 3D adds. I give Roger a DUH on this subject.

[mikejet]

Ask me again after Avatar comes out.

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I'm an oldy and not me. I saw Vincent Prices "House of Wax" at the Gromans Chinese Theater in Hollywood in the late 1960s in 3D. Loved it as a kid and digging it now. 3D is cool for the right movies.

yeah 3d has come along way i remember watching friday the 13 in 3d didn't like it because of anaglyth red and blue glasses but now we have reald which is a nice change
to me people should get something at the theatres that they can't get from home theatre units