Is 3D cinema a gimmick?

[Grubert]

This comes from Roger Ebert's review of Monsters vs Aliens:

"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?

However, Dreamworks's Jeffrey Katzenberg has been heavily pushing 3D and what it can do for the bottom line.

[reallyagi]

"it's a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look... 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?"

You may love watching movies in 3-D, but the man makes points that remain very true.

[Sussudio]

it won't be when Avatar comes out

[P@t_Mtl]

I am not a fan of 3D movies, so I guess for me it's a gimmick.

I did see Monsters vs Aliens in 3D this weekend more because the theater was being invaded by families and kids in 2D, so I decided to pick the more expensive option in other to watch the movie in peace.

The 3D was actualy not bad and I am not a fan, it was much better then Bolt was actualy. Still I am not sure how certain families can afford a day at the movies. I only pay for my ticket but a family of four with 4 tickets in 3D with popcorn and drinks for everyone, that goes over $75 easy. Very Expensive.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by reallyagi

"it's a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look... 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?"

You may love watching movies in 3-D, but the man makes points that remain very true.

To be fair, CinemaScope was also adopted for commercial reasons: the movie industry needed to offer viewers something their TVs couldn't.

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by reallyagi

"it's a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look... 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?"

You may love watching movies in 3-D, but the man makes points that remain very true.

I don't agree with him at all on this.

Yes, it raises ticket prices and helps combat piracy - but it also costs the studios more to produce.

Either way, I really enjoy it. Brought my kid to see Monsters vs. Aliens this weekend. I think I would have enjoyed the movie in 2D, but in 3D it was just a spectacular visual experience.

Isn't that why we go to the theaters?

It won't make a bad movie good, but it can make a good movie even better (visually).

So, I really don't get what Ebert's problem is. It doesn't make a movie worse. If it gives him a headache, he may just need to check his glasses prescription.

I bet he hates IPods too.

[juha]

I voted Undecided because from what I've been reading on mainstream media and internet forums, James Cameron's Avatar will present a new form of 3-D unrelated to these gimmicks from Katzenberg & Co.

Or the "Old-school" 3D. Will I go to a theater and put on cheap goggles with red and blu(e) lenses to see a movie? Hell no.

J.

[reallyagi]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

Either way, I really enjoy it. Brought my kid to see Monsters vs. Aliens this weekend. I think I would have enjoyed the movie in 2D, but in 3D it was just a spectacular visual experience.

Isn't that why we go to the theaters?

Hey, if you and your family enjoyed it, then more power to ya'.

[starbinger]

I manage a theater and I have found out quickly there are two types of 3D movies. There 3D gimmick movies and 3D enhanced movies. A Movie such a Journey was the first. It doesn't stand on it's own as a great movie without the 3D. A movie like Bolt however is great without the 3D. It's gonna depend on what the movie goers are buying for to determine which type of releases we see more of.

[Sonny]

I don't care to see movies in 3D anymore, years ago yeah it was great, but it just does not interest me these days. I don't care to have 3D at home either. Of course kids are gunna like 3D thats what's its there for.

[SquidPuppet]

I go to the theater to be entertained. After the story, how much of a movie is visual entertainment?

1. Cinematography
2. Sets
3. Costumes
4. Action
5. Props
6. Human interaction / acting/ facial expressions etc.

For me, a GOOD STORY can be enhanced by all of the above. For me, 3D used tastefully, in the right kind of movie, is a real treat. I dont want 3D in drama or war or any serious movie really. But Comedy, animation and even documentary....I am all for it. Its about fun....3D can make it more fun.

[brettallica]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I go to the theater to be entertained. After the story, how much of a movie is visual entertainment?

1. Cinematography
2. Sets
3. Costumes
4. Action
5. Props
6. Human interaction / acting/ facial expressions etc.

For me, a GOOD STORY can be enhanced by all of the above. For me, 3D used tastefully, in the right kind of movie, is a real treat. I dont want 3D in drama or war or any serious movie really. But Comedy, animation and even documentary....I am all for it. Its about fun....3D can make it more fun.

Yeah, exactly. I don't see what the big problem is for Ebert. Then again, he is paid to write and talk about stuff like this; and that is his opinion, just as all of our posts are our opinions.

I personally feel pretty similarly to many in this thread, and am not "bothered" in any sense by 3D movies. If I want to go watch a 3D movie, it's nice to have the luxury/option to do so.

[LOTR07]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I go to the theater to be entertained. After the story, how much of a movie is visual entertainment?

1. Cinematography
2. Sets
3. Costumes
4. Action
5. Props
6. Human interaction / acting/ facial expressions etc.

For me, a GOOD STORY can be enhanced by all of the above. For me, 3D used tastefully, in the right kind of movie, is a real treat. I don't want 3D in drama or war or any serious movie really. But Comedy, animation and even documentary....I am all for it. Its about fun....3D can make it more fun.

I'm in agreement, i took the family to see Monsters vs. Aliens in 3d. I initially did not want to see it that way as 3D of old gave me a terrible headache from viewing the movie. But the new technology used has dramatically improved the visual presentation and enjoyment of the film, plus i no longer get headaches. So IMO it that particular movie was better in 3D than 2D as i enjoyed the movie so much we re-watched in 2D. We all agreed that 3D was the better presentation for this type of film and maybe all the animated movies should be 3D because they can do so much with the presentation to make the experience more interactive for the audience.

[Porkchop Express]

I really enjoyed seeing Beowulf in 3d, and thought it was well done. However, I recently saw Corraline in 3d and felt that there was no need for it. It really did nothing for the movie. I actually ended up getting a bad headache while watching.

[LOTR07]

Originally Posted by Porkchop Express

I really enjoyed seeing Beowulf in 3d, and thought it was well done. However, I recently saw Corraline in 3d and felt that there was no need for it. It really did nothing for the movie. I actually ended up getting a bad headache while watching.

Haven't seen Corraline...would like to watch just to see if it would give me a headache to compare...

[Q?]

I voted no, but yes it can be a gimmick.
But not in the hands of James Cameron, I really believe that James
decided to go 3D to add another dimension to storytelling.
Not just show-off material, but giving it that uncanny valley thing a notch up.
I really don't care for 3D, but if done right like James hopefully is doing, I'm all for it.

[broganreynik]

I thought the 3d in Coraline was amazing. I saw Monsters vs. Aliens, and it left a little to be desired but it was still cool. I wanted to go see My Bloody Valentine just to see what a live action movie would be like, but my wife didn't want to go on our honeymoon. The nerve!

[robertc88]

A gimmick IMHO.

My local theater didn't even show it in 3D.

[owa]

Originally Posted by Grubert

However, Dreamworks's Jeffrey Katzenberg has been heavily pushing 3D and what it can do for the bottom line.

Have you seen the article that said it appears they somehow managed to get bailout money to pay for the 3D-tickets? I think it may have been just to pay for the cost difference between the 2D and 3D tickets. Anyway, this wasn't the site I originally read the article but one I just found doing a quick search. The other article mentioned how easy it was to get that discount (it was supposed to just be for Bank of America customers apparently) even if you weren't a member.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...rgs-bad-dream/

Wall Street analyst Rich Greenfield sent out an email revealing a potentially controversial promotion for Monsters v. Aliens, in which Bank of America is offering coupons to offset the premium that customers must pay (an extra $2 or more per ticket) to see the film in 3-D. Greenfield notes that he is unaware of any B of A announcement regarding this offer; he only learned of it through chat on Twitter. "We find it odd that a bank that just received $45 billion in government aid is paying for consumers across the U.S. to see a movie in 3-D vs. 2-D at no extra cost," he writes. "We also wonder whether the presence of [DreamWorks Animation] President Lew Coleman helped [the company] convince Bank of America to enter into the promotion, as Coleman is a former vice chairman and CFO of Bank of America."

[starbinger]

Little known fact, alot of theaters almost didn't get Monsters VS Aliens in 3D. There was a dispute going on between Paramount and the theaters over Paramount wanting 2 Dollars more per patron attending the 3D movies. Most theaters caharge between 2-5 more for 3d and Paramount wanted their cut. So theaters were booking 2D copies to keep this fee from becoming a regular deal on 3d movies. I guess the studio gave up because most theaters got the 3d after all. The coupons for free 3d fee are being done like movie money. Most the time the movie money covers the entire cost of the movie. So these actually are giving the consumers less over all. 2-5 dollars instead of 7-10.

Originally Posted by owa

Have you seen the article that said it appears they somehow managed to get bailout money to pay for the 3D-tickets? I think it may have been just to pay for the cost difference between the 2D and 3D tickets. Anyway, this wasn't the site I originally read the article but one I just found doing a quick search. The other article mentioned how easy it was to get that discount (it was supposed to just be for Bank of America customers apparently) even if you weren't a member.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...rgs-bad-dream/