Martin Scorsese wants to see 'DRAMAS' in 3D!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by lifevicarious

How would 3d be a con in anything? It seems people saying 3d is a gimmick are the same people who would have said color is a gimmick too. What is gimmicky about seeing a movie in the most realistic manner possible?

I didn't think 3d in avatar was gimmicky at all, it added to the experience for me. I hope for the same when I see Alice in wonderland tomorrow night.

The most realistic way possible to see a movie is using your own 2 eyes, your own brain and your own experiences to analyse what is being told by the story

[lifevicarious]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

The most realistic way possible to see a movie is using your own 2 eyes, your own brain and your own experiences to analyse what is being told by the story

If depth isn't important to realism I suggest donating one of your eyes to someone who could use it.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by lifevicarious

If depth isn't important to realism I suggest donating one of your eyes to someone who could use it.

My eyes give's me depth of perception, I don't need a director using a tool to fake 3D for me to see depth. If you need 3D in order to feel realism and appreciate a movie I suggest you see more movies, maybe some with good stories and good actors where you don't need to have shiny little tools of 3D to make it feel real. It's a suggestion of course, you are free to do as you wish

[lifevicarious]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

My eyes give's me depth of perception, I don't need a director using a tool to fake 3D for me to see depth. If you need 3D in order to feel realism and appreciate a movie I suggest you see more movies, maybe some with good stories and good actors where you don't need to have shiny little tools of 3D to make it feel real. It's a suggestion of course, you are free to do as you wish

I didn't say anyone NEEDED 3D in order to feel realism, I said it ADDS to realism. Just like color and surround sound. Neither are needed to acheive realism, but it's hard to deny that color and surround sound don't ADD to realism as they both more closely approximate what most of us see and hear in reality.

[Sussudio]

lifevicarious --

You seem to forget one of the most basic principles of filmmaking: composition. Filmmakers using composition to frame their shots in a confined environment is part of what can make a film so interesting, having that limited range to work with. 3D breaks those boundaries and ruins the idea of composition (in my opinion), unlike the introduction of color or widescreen (which expands the range but still keeps it confined). A painter paints on a board or paper just as a filmmaker showcases their work on a screen. So yes, I consider 3D to be a gimmick for the most part because it circumvents the idea of composition to try and fool an audience in becoming more immersed. I think well made movies should be able to do that without jumping out at you. My .02

[lifevicarious]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

lifevicarious --

You seem to forget one of the most basic principles of filmmaking: composition. Filmmakers using composition to frame their shots in a confined environment is part of what can make a film so interesting, having that limited range to work with. 3D breaks those boundaries and ruins the idea of composition (in my opinion), unlike the introduction of color or widescreen (which expands the range but still keeps it confined). A painter paints on a board or paper just as a filmmaker showcases their work on a screen. So yes, I consider 3D to be a gimmick for the most part because it circumvents the idea of composition to try and fool an audience in becoming more immersed. I think well made movies should be able to do that without jumping out at you. My .02

While I totally agree that composition is a huge principle (this coming from someone who also does a LOT of photography), I disagree that 3D "circumvents the idea of composition".

It certainly changes how one would go about composing certain scenes, but it does not make composition unimportant.

I'm not claiming 3D is perfect the way it is, it's in its infancy still and will evolve. Color and surround sound both required adjustments in the way films were made but I don't think anyone would want to eliminate those advances. Heck, even widescreen started as a "gimmick" in order to get people out of their living rooms and see something different in the cinema, yet again I doubt anyone would want to go back to 4:3 for everything.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

lifevicarious --

You seem to forget one of the most basic principles of filmmaking: composition. Filmmakers using composition to frame their shots in a confined environment is part of what can make a film so interesting, having that limited range to work with. 3D breaks those boundaries and ruins the idea of composition (in my opinion), unlike the introduction of color or widescreen (which expands the range but still keeps it confined). A painter paints on a board or paper just as a filmmaker showcases their work on a screen. So yes, I consider 3D to be a gimmick for the most part because it circumvents the idea of composition to try and fool an audience in becoming more immersed. I think well made movies should be able to do that without jumping out at you. My .02

+1

Give me a director who knows how to compose well, tease us with focus, and subtle zoom work and I am very happy.

I personally think 3D looks fake as hell. Yes, there is the appearance of some depth, but to me it looks highly artificial. It looks manufactured and unnatural.

I dont suffer from eye strain or headaches and I STILL dont like it.

[Gremal]

One of the rare instances where I agree with squid.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Gremal

One of the rare instances where I agree with squid.