Another fargin' Transformers movie?

[Hailey Knight]

Within the next week I'm gonna watch Avatar and I'll bet the only difference I see besides no Navi tails poking out of the picture is that it's on a smaller screen. 3D is only being considered the next step in movie-making because we're in its fad-phase right now. It was a fad in the 60s and 80s as well. I think saying "all movies will be 3D" is ridiculously short-sighted and being swept up in the momentum of the gimmick. Not to mention how silly that sounds--I'm sure the dramatic Oscar bait isn't going to be in 3D.

But as for its merits, I don't think tossing golf balls or spears at the audience is immersion, and when it does become perfected, it'll be visual immersion that jars and sacrifices story immersion. It's not just conversion films (which are certainly worse than any other 3D venture).

And then again for argument's sake, let's say it becomes the way of the future. The difference we'll see in watching a movie in 2D will be what we see now, such as in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, where a skeleton hand waves at the camera, and would've popped in 3D. I thought "I guess that comes out of the screen in 3D." I guess if I'd gone to see it in 3D, that waving hand sticking out would've improved the experience?

 

[Jiarn]

Yeah, it's not remotely like that actually. The 3D in alot of films doesn't cause things to "pop out of the screen" in my experience. Instead, it gives movies a MUCH deeper "depth" that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

The flying scenes in Avatar REALLY showed that "depth" off as well as Alice in Wonderland and UP. However, I would only enjoy that experience in the theatre and only for VERY select films.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Yeah, how does that "3D is the future" fly when it comes to home video? Are we all gonna have 3D TVs in the future? (Addressed to steinman, not Jiarn, as people seem to be mistaking who I'm talking to lately, even when I quote.)

Depth I got with the Coraline show, but I didn't feel it really improved the movie and I loved that film. I saw Avatar in theaters twice, not for the 3D effect, but because the visuals were interesting and the story was engaged me, regardless of what Charlie said.

I was watching some film study thing, and it's amazing to me how the original 1933 King Kong achieved depth of the jungles through layering of background, mattes, and foregrounds too that made the jungle feel like it went on and on. This was during the first few years of sound's existence in film, let alone before 3D had emerged. Yet they achieved that and so much more with their limited time of experience and much less technology.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Yeah, how does that "3D is the future" fly when it comes to home video? Are we all gonna have 3D TVs in the future? (Addressed to steinman, not Jiarn, as people seem to be mistaking who I'm talking to lately, even when I quote.)

Depth I got with the Coraline show, but I didn't feel it really improved the movie and I loved that film. I saw Avatar in theaters twice, not for the 3D effect, but because the visuals were interesting and the story was engaged me, regardless of what Charlie said.

I was watching some film study thing, and it's amazing to me how the original 1933 King Kong achieved depth of the jungles through layering of background, mattes, and foregrounds too that made the jungle feel like it went on and on. This was during the first few years of sound's existence in film, let alone before 3D had emerged. Yet they achieved that and so much more with their limited time of experience and much less technology.

That the makers of King Kong were able to do so much with so little is an achievement, certainly. But that doesn't automatically mean that having more would lead to less. On the contrary, you can have better technology -and- good talent, albeit the latter is often harder to come by.

 

[AshburnerX]

Let's be honest... 3D isn't about enhancing the movie, it's about making it that much harder for people to pirate movies. I'm pretty sure video cameras can't capture the image properly, which makes them look awful. Also, most people don't have the foresight to save a pair of 3D glasses.

 

[DarkAudit]

More than one tech writer believes the current 3D wave is a scam. What's the difference between now and the 50's wave or the 80s wave besides bigger budget movies getting the 3D juice hosedown in post-production?

I reject the "just watch it in 2D, then" argument. If they're going to keep pushing the fake 3D, they're going to have to do it on someone else's nickel. They won't get it from me in any D.

 

[figmentPez]

What's the difference between now and the 50's wave or the 80s wave besides bigger budget movies getting the 3D juice hosedown in post-production?

I don't know if it'll be enough for 3D to stick around, but differences:
- Higher quality glasses (you can't honestly compare red/blue glasses from the 50's to modern polarized glasses. Even compared to 80's tech, glasses are now circularly polarized instead of linearly)
- Home versions that can closely match the theater quality
- Video games are also in 3D

And if it doesn't work now, the future still holds:
- 48fps+ video might solve the strobing issues with fast motion in 3D
- Glasses free tech continues to advance.
- Holographic tech and who knows what else.

3D is going to happen, eventually. It may take holodeck level tech hundreds of years in the future to make it stick around as more than a fad, but enough people want 3D that it keeps coming back, and it will keep doing so until a good enough version is found to hold long-term interest.

 

[AshburnerX]

I reject the "just watch it in 2D, then" argument. If they're going to keep pushing the fake 3D, they're going to have to do it on someone else's nickel. They won't get it from me in any D.

Not to mention that not every 3D release also gets a standard release as well. I know the latest Chronicles of Narnia movie was guilty of this.

 

[strawman]

Let's be honest... 3D isn't about enhancing the movie, it's about making it that much harder for people to pirate movies.

I willingly pay more for a 3D movie because it does enhance the experience for me - when it's real 3D, as opposed to post-production 3D.

Current pirating techniques have no problem grabbing the 3D image, but there's not a big market for it so they mostly focus on 2D.

The movie studios and the theaters are implementing 3D because with big screen TVs and projectors common in most homes, people are less interested in going to the theater. They get nearly the same experience in terms of visual and sound, but a much better experience in terms of lower noise, non-sticky floors, eating and drinking what they want, comfortable chairs, etc.

It's a way to make more money, and to stop the loss of customers due to good home theater setups.

More than one tech writer believes the current 3D wave is a scam. What's the difference between now and the 50's wave or the 80s wave besides bigger budget movies getting the 3D juice hosedown in post-production?

I reject the "just watch it in 2D, then" argument. If they're going to keep pushing the fake 3D, they're going to have to do it on someone else's nickel. They won't get it from me in any D.

First, 3D performed in post production is not as enjoyable as real 3D. A lot of movies are being shot with two cameras, and the 3D is very, very good. If you've only seen movies with post-production 3D, then I can understand your unhappiness.

The difference between the earlier waves of 3D is that the technology is better. Significantly better. It's still nowhere near perfect, but it's much better. Further, the bigger difference is that this time the movie studios and theaters have a reason to stick it out - in the competition between the theater and living room, they are losing out. This wasn't true two and six decades ago.

I don't understand why people are so focused on fake 3D (I assume you mean post production 3D).

And, as a consumer, you are perfectly within your rights to avoid watching movies you think are wasting D's.

Not to mention that not every 3D release also gets a standard release as well. I know the latest Chronicles of Narnia movie was guilty of this.

It had a standard 2D and 3D release here. We've got four theaters with over 10 screens each within 10 miles of my home, though. Perhaps your local theaters have to choose what they are showing more carefully, and choose the 3D version when they can only show one or the other?

So far I have not found a movie that was showing in 3D that I couldn't choose 2D if I wanted.

Every 3D movie is also released in 2D.

Not every theater is showing both versions.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Also, Pirates had a surprisingly low % of 3D to 2D viewers, so maybe theaters will be taking the hint and not showing as many 3D showtimes.

 

[strawman]

I suspect people are realizing that 3D isn't worth the extra cost for them.

For some people it will be, but eventually theaters are going to have to cut their prices for 3D showings.

 

[drifter]

Regarding dimness, some of you may find this article of interest.

 

[Espy]

I don't understand why people are so focused on fake 3D (I assume you mean post production 3D).

Because most films that are "3D" are done in post right now?

Now, lets talk about REAL 3D: I've seen 4 movies done in 3D that weren't done poorly. Avatar, Toy Story 3 Tron: Legacy and RE4. Of the 4 of them only 1 of them needed to be in 3D. TS3, Tron and RE4's 3D brought nothing to the table. Maybe a little extra depth, maybe, but in the end, unlike Avatar, the 3D felt pointless. In no way did it enhance the story, and really, any effect, be it in the movie or on the screen is there to enhance the story. If it's just there to be an effect it's pointless, gimmicky and a waste of money.

So far I have not found a movie that was showing in 3D that I couldn't choose 2D if I wanted.

Every 3D movie is also released in 2D.

Not every theater is showing both versions

I'm sure if I wanted I could find Thor in 2d somewhere, but my theater of choice is only showing it in 3D. So it's either suck it up and pay an extra 10 bucks for a dimly lit screen with crappy fake 3D or wait till it's out on DVD. Which I'm fine with, it's not a huge deal, but thats money they won't get from me.

 

[@Li3n]

Why do ppl keep saying the 3D added to Avatar?

 

[Tress]

Why do ppl keep saying the 3D added to Avatar?

Because most of us think it did, you git. Even you understand the concept of an opinion, right?

 

[@Li3n]

I swear, if you're gonna say it's an opinion, it can't be wrong i'll go Power Loader on your xenomorph ass...

Really, it was pretty much amongst the most well done 3D i saw, but i don't see how it added much to the film itself, and no one seems to even try to explain why they felt it did...

 

[Jiarn]

You should read my post on 3D just a few up. I explained quite clearly what 3D brings to certain films.

 

[@Li3n]

Sorry, but "depth" as in the 3rd dimension doesn't bring any more to a film then pretty graphics bring to gameplay...

So i guess you guys where saying it adds something to the visuals, which is odd to me since bringing something to the visuals (another dimension) is what the tech does.

 

[strawman]

I swear, if you're gonna say it's an opinion, it can't be wrong i'll go Power Loader on your xenomorph ass...

Really, it was pretty much amongst the most well done 3D i saw, but i don't see how it added much to the film itself, and no one seems to even try to explain why they felt it did...

You say, "Added much" so you apparently agree that it added something, however small.

The question is, was that something enough to justify the extra cost.

I think at this point in the discussion it's not worth arguing. It added something, we can all agree on, but whether that something was "big" enough to justify the cost really depends on the individual.

Therefore: you are now required to go power loader. I demand still images of your exploits, else I will have a hard time believing that they occurred.
Added at: 13:53

Sorry, but "depth" as in the 3rd dimension doesn't bring any more to a film then pretty graphics bring to gameplay...

So i guess you guys where saying it adds something to the visuals, which is odd to me since bringing something to the visuals (another dimension) is what the tech does.

I must be completely missing your point. Are you saying that films should, in no cirsumstances, adapt any technology that, if removed, renders the story useless? In other words 3D should not be used except when the storyline changes significantly without it?

Might as well get rid of color. Sound. Images. Heck, you really should just go back to the library. That's where the story itself really lives, right?

 

[@Li3n]

What, you haven't see the documentary where that crazy woman went ballistic on me because of that small child... it's even on youtube:



After that those pesky Predators took out my brain and sent it to another dimension where mutated turtles and idiot ninja clan leaders are way too common.

PS See post above for what "Added much" was about.

 

[Frank]

Until 3D is done in a way that doesn't cause me physical discomfort, I want no part of it. There is a good amount of people that can't watch these messes without getting splitting headaches. So, if this future progress of the future advancement is the future accept it progress as some of you have said is the way it's going to be, they're going to alienate a not insignificant percentage of the movie going public.

That article about Pirates 4 is pretty telling.

 

[Tress]

*a bunch of stuff*

Why do I bother?

 

[strawman]

Until 3D is done in a way that doesn't cause me physical discomfort, I want no part of it. There is a good amount of people that can't watch these messes without getting splitting headaches.

Yep, this is still a big problem. They are hoping that the new 48fps speed will help with movies shot in real 3D, but unfortunately there will always be people that simply can't watch them.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I'm sure if I wanted I could find Thor in 2d somewhere, but my theater of choice is only showing it in 3D. So it's either suck it up and pay an extra 10 bucks for a dimly lit screen with crappy fake 3D or wait till it's out on DVD. Which I'm fine with, it's not a huge deal, but thats money they won't get from me.

Do not see Thor in 3D. It it very much a flatly-shot movie; normally I'd criticize that, but it works for that movie because of how the shots are done. The scenes are organized in most places to look like they'd belong in a comic panel. You made the right choice.

 

[strawman]

All the reports I'm hearing seem to indicate that Thor is better in 2D than 3D, even for people who like 3D. Misapplication of technology and all that...

 

[Espy]

Do not see Thor in 3D. It it very much a flatly-shot movie; normally I'd criticize that, but it works for that movie because of how the shots are done. The scenes are organized in most places to look like they'd belong in a comic panel. You made the right choice.

Thats what I'm thinking.

I'm a GIANT green lantern nerd though, and I'm SURE that they are only going to show it in 3D around here so I'm trying to decide what to do about that

 

[DarkAudit]

Regarding dimness, some of you may find this article of interest.

Is there anything Sony isn't fucking up lately?

 

[figmentPez]

Sorry, but "depth" as in the 3rd dimension doesn't bring any more to a film then pretty graphics bring to gameplay...

Pretty graphics do add to gameplay or, rather, they can. If, for instance, Left 4 Dead were attempted with the Half-Life engine for graphics, the game wouldn't have worked. The lighting effects, character outlines, color correction highlighting items, and all that's just strictly functional mechanics. Add in atmosphere, characterization and other bits of subtle storytelling and you end up with a vastly different game, both from a gameplay perspective and from an artistic viewpoint.

3D in a movie is a completely different ball of wax than graphics in a video game.
Added at: 19:50

Yep, this is still a big problem. They are hoping that the new 48fps speed will help with movies shot in real 3D, but unfortunately there will always be people that simply can't watch them.

The Hobbit is being shot at 48fps. I'm wondering how many theaters are actually capable of displaying that fps.

I'm also wondering if there are already rants from film snobs about the higher framerate looking "too smooth" and "like cheap video".

 

[@Li3n]

Pretty graphics do add to gameplay or, rather, they can. If, for instance, Left 4 Dead were attempted with the Half-Life engine for graphics, the game wouldn't have worked. The lighting effects, character outlines, color correction highlighting items, and all that's just strictly functional mechanics. Add in atmosphere, characterization and other bits of subtle storytelling and you end up with a vastly different game, both from a gameplay perspective and from an artistic viewpoint.

How would character outlines not have worked with crappier graphics?! Engine limitation? That isn't about graphics alone.

But yeah, a film is already 50% visual experience, while gameplay isn't, so it's not such a good comparison, but enough to get a point across (looks a bit prettier, but won't make much of a difference if the base game/film isn't already good).

I must be completely missing your point. Are you saying that films should, in no cirsumstances, adapt any technology that, if removed, renders the story useless? In other words 3D should not be used except when the storyline changes significantly without it?

Might as well get rid of color. Sound. Images. Heck, you really should just go back to the library. That's where the story itself really lives, right?

Missed this last time...

No, i'm actually not arguing that there should be no 3D, just that i don't see what it adds beyond the illusion of depth... kinda like pretty graphics only add pretty graphics to a game... (beyond the switch from 2D to 3D and other stuff that's more then just more pixels).

So when i hear people say it adds something to Avatar instead of "It's used well in Avatar" it makes me go "Huh?!"
Added at: 12:16

Why do I bother?

Because deep down you like it... you slutty silicon based life form...

 

[sixpackshaker]

I'll see the movie, and come back here and complain that a movie about talking robots centers around a twerpy kid.

 

[Philosopher B.]

You're what's wrong with America!

 

[sixpackshaker]

You're what's wrong with America!

I used to be what is wrong with America, but I stopped teaching.

 

[figmentPez]

How would character outlines not have worked with crappier graphics?! Engine limitation? That isn't about graphics alone.

The glowing highlights around teammates that are out of direct view is done with pixel shaders. (i.e. pretty graphics tech that wasn't even present in video cards when Half-Life came out). There's something similar going on in Team Fortress 2. The character models there are given rim-lighting with pixel shaders in order to make their silhouettes pop from the background more, making them easier to quickly identify. That simply would not be possible with crappier graphics. The game would not play the same if it were more difficult to identify various classes quickly. (oh, the rim-lighting is used in L4D as well, to make smokers stand out on rooftops).

While there are games out there that just throw shiny graphics against the wall to see what creates good bullshot, there are also games out there that use advanced graphics processing to relay game information to the player more effectively. That's where the difference is. A film that makes good use of 3D may have a greater impact in certain scenes because of the enhanced sense of depth, but what it shows to the audience that they can't see without it is very limited. Gaming graphics, on the other hand, are used to convey information to the player on numerous levels. If you wanted to compare fancy graphics in video games to movie technology, you'd have to lump 3D, color correction/grading, blue/green screen, matte paintings, makeup, lighting, set creation, wardrobe, pyrotechnics and more.

 

[strawman]

I used to be what is wrong with America, but I stopped teaching.

 

[Disconnected]

I love that people keep paying shit tons of cash for all the dumb gimmicks being thrown at us movie-goers. You know what I'll pay extra for? Not dim washed out 3d crap, not gimmicky seats or fake IMAX screens. I pay extra for no kids allowed seating, loveseats, a bottle of wine and food for me and my wife. Now that's good movie-going.

FUCKING AMEN TO THAT!