Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 12:21:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Bye bye 3D?

Started by VegaLA, September 29, 2011, 12:38:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

VegaLA

I certainly hope so, like the 80s and the 50s before then, this shit fad will fade away, not to make a comeback until some stupid cunt decides its a good idea in another 25 years!

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/21923/the-latest-nails-in-the-3d-coffin

eluc55

#1
Its not surprise, is it? Charging that much money at a time like this was always a mistake. Normal cinema tickets are expensive, 3D was extortionate, and right now people cant afford that kind of thing. 


BlodwynPig

Get Mark Kermode's new book "The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex". Chapter 2 is all about 3-D and echoes the OP. Interesting stuff.

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: BlodwynPig on September 29, 2011, 08:55:00 AM
Get Mark Kermode's new book "The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex". Chapter 2 is all about 3-D and echoes the OP. Interesting stuff.
I didn't even know he had a new one out, I thoroughly enjoyed his last one so I will give it a go.

But seriously, fuck 3D.

Jemble Fred

3D cinema was only ever going to be a phase which comes and goes and will no doubt come again one day – it's the people who spent good money on 3D TV's who should be burgled.

Consignia

Quote from: Jemble Fred on September 29, 2011, 09:36:12 AM
3D cinema was only ever going to be a phase which comes and goes and will no doubt come again one day – it's the people who spent good money on 3D TV's who should be burgled.

All new (mid-range and up) TVs these days have 3D integrated into them, though. Quite a lot of come of the glasses and syncing devices free as well. So it's a bit unfair to chastise people with them.

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on September 29, 2011, 09:16:03 AM
I didn't even know he had a new one out, I thoroughly enjoyed his last one so I will give it a go.

I like Kermode's show, but I really don't like his writing style. I gave up on his first book about a chapter in. The second book is much more interesting though, even if 90% is just his radio show on paper.

Jemble Fred

Quote from: Consignia on September 29, 2011, 10:47:14 AM
All new (mid-range and up) TVs these days have 3D integrated into them, though. Quite a lot of come of the glasses and syncing devices free as well. So it's a bit unfair to chastise people with them.

I'm talking about the people who very loudly bought them specifically for the 3D element, claiming 3D in every media to be the future, and never fucking shut up about it. If you want names, I'll PM them. Then burgle them.

BlodwynPig

Name please - these people are the downfall of civilisation. True dat.

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: Consignia on September 29, 2011, 10:47:14 AM
All new (mid-range and up) TVs these days have 3D integrated into them, though. Quite a lot of come of the glasses and syncing devices free as well. So it's a bit unfair to chastise people with them.
Really? The last few times I've been to a big electrical goods shop, the only few TVs with 3D facility are way at the back in their own space, like royalty.

Consignia

Well, I've been looking for a new TV, and nearly every one I've looked at is "3D ready". I've not looked in stores though, only online. The thing is, it's very easy to implement 3D ready-ness that most manufacturers chuck it in to tick a box.

PAGATRON

To be honest the only 3D film I've seen that's any good is Avatar. The rest that feature 3D seem like half arsed attempts that they've blatantly added in last minute.

Big Jack McBastard

I've dodged the recent 3D-athon in it's entirety so I have no right to comment but I'm still going on the record saying: 'It's still shite.'

SavageHedgehog

I think 3-D can be great fun. I saw Final Destination 5 last week and had a blast (loved the previous one too). Monsters Vs. Aliens was also great fun. I've seen less evidence that it can be used in a brilliantly artistic way, but I think the potential is certainly there. But even so 3-D should be used as a shameless gimick or if the director (or whoever) truly believes the film wouldn't reach the level they want without it. Releasing every other Blockbuster in 3-D because it's the done thing and will add 30% to the gross doesn't work, and has eventually turned the general public against it.

Still the 80s 3-D wave isn't really a relevant precedent; the only big 3-D hits of the era were Jaws 3-D and Friday the 13th 3-D, neither of which were huge.

Jackass 3D featured the most effective 3D effects of any 3D effects I've been affected by.

WORF IT

AsparagusTrevor

I agree. Since it was basically a few mates fucking around with an expensive toy they managed to actually come up with effective ways of using it.

Santa's Boyfriend

Considering most movies have a turnaround of 3 years (or a year and a half it's really fast-tracked) it's not surprising that we've not really had the slew of 3D movies yet.  (Harry Potter 7 would undoubtedly have been filmed in 3D if they'd been able to do it in time, rather than retrofitted.)  But many of the biggest films this year were 3D, Pirates 4 and Transformers 3D for example.  Tron Legacy had an interesting use of 3D, doing the Wizard of Oz thing.  But I think it's films like The Hobbit and World War Z (or for me, Dredd) that may well swing it.  A classic of the medium has not yet really been made - Avatar was ok and showcased what was possible but was far too generic to really be a classic in my mind.  But if the technology can last long enough (and become cheap enough for it to be worth smaller productions like Moon to use it), I do think it'll happen.  Can you imagine what Private Ryan would have been like in the cinema if that'd been made in 3D too?

Tiny Poster


BlodwynPig

Anyone know how to retrofit a 3D movie?

Noodle Lizard

I'm generally with Kermode on this one - I've never seen a film in 3D which wasn't equally as good in 2D.  And I don't appreciate having to pay £4 extra for the privilege, when this is a really unnecessary add-on fee; as far as I'm aware, it doesn't cost any more to show a 3D film, once you have the right piece of equipment in place.

I think 3D should be relegated to those "3D films" you used to get - films designed entirely to utilise the 3D aspect to its full potential.  Like those ones you got in the IMAX about 10 years ago.  They were about half an hour long, had no real story, just poked you in the face with things and shot paint all over you.  When that got incorporated into the writing process for actual films, things got ugly.

In every mainstream 3D film now, they'll have thrown in a few completely unnecessary shots just to remind people the 3D is there - Pirates Of The Caribbean 4 is a perfect example of this.

Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: BlodwynPig on October 01, 2011, 11:17:50 AM
Anyone know how to retrofit a 3D movie?

Give me fifteen million dollars and I'll show you.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Santa's Boyfriend on October 01, 2011, 01:37:41 PM
Give me fifteen million dollars and I'll show you.

Send me a portfolio of your work and cv and I will send the money

mobias

Quote from: BlodwynPig on October 01, 2011, 11:17:50 AM
Anyone know how to retrofit a 3D movie?

George Lucas is doing so with Star Wars and James Cameron is also doing it to Titanic. I'll be first in the que to see neither.

BlodwynPig

Both arseholes who have been (and feel) elevated to greatness without being deserved of mediocrity.

phes

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on October 01, 2011, 12:41:43 PM
I'm generally with Kermode on this one - I've never seen a film in 3D which wasn't equally as good in 2D. 

Watching 2d versions of films made for 3d is also a ridiculous experience though. You spend most of the film pointlessly being being directed towards things that are supposed to be interfering with you. It really lays bare just how crap and empty a lot of these novelties are.

BlodwynPig

When organisations see the public as a single hive-mind entity, 3D is what the public get. Like when Neil sees CaBers as a single hive-mind, we get homogeneous avatars.

Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: mobias on October 01, 2011, 05:47:28 PM
George Lucas is doing so with Star Wars and James Cameron is also doing it to Titanic. I'll be first in the queue[nb]Sorry, the spelling nazi in me couldn't help fixing that[/nb] to see neither.


I saw the final Harry Potter movie in retrofitted 3D, and I have to say I was very impressed.  It was an odd feeling as of course I knew it wasn't filmed in 3D, and there I was being able to see the lenses in his glasses and stuff because of the 3D effect.  There was still a flatness to people in the midground, and a lot of the most impressive 3D was actually done with the CGI effects (not surprisingly, it's relatively easy to make them 3D) but nevertheless I was surprised that retrofitted 3D could be as good as that.

In terms of how they do it, I can only assume they create a 3D model of a scene in a computer using Maya or some equivalent programme, and then wrap the original image around the 3D model as skin, thus creating a photo-realistic 3D environment.  I'm sure it's a little more complex than that, but I can't see any other way of doing it if you don't actually have a second angle from which to see the action.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

That is the basic gist of it. Hence why the CGI elements look better than photographic ones.

Quote from: Santa's Boyfriend on September 30, 2011, 05:49:28 PMCan you imagine what Private Ryan would have been like in the cinema if that'd been made in 3D too?
No doubt the battle scenes would be even more immersive (with the exception of the sniper's POV shots) but I can't see how it would have made any of the dialogue scenes better. It'd still just be going back to the 'stuff flying at you' gimmick.

However, I did think the other day that there might be interesting artistic applications for it if the director could monkey around with the perspective. If for instance you were making some family drama type of film, with two characters sitting at the kitchen table, you could somehow manipulate the 3D so it looks as if they're really far apart, thus empasizing the emotional distance between them.

Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on October 02, 2011, 07:59:10 PM
That is the basic gist of it. Hence why the CGI elements look better than photographic ones.
No doubt the battle scenes would be even more immersive (with the exception of the sniper's POV shots) but I can't see how it would have made any of the dialogue scenes better. It'd still just be going back to the 'stuff flying at you' gimmick.

It won't, any more than the quadrophonic sound in Apocalypse Now made the dialogue better or the colour in The Wizard of Oz made the songs better.  It's simply another element at the film-maker's disposal that can be used to help tell the story or enhance the experience.



Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on October 02, 2011, 07:59:10 PMHowever, I did think the other day that there might be interesting artistic applications for it if the director could monkey around with the perspective. If for instance you were making some family drama type of film, with two characters sitting at the kitchen table, you could somehow manipulate the 3D so it looks as if they're really far apart, thus empasizing the emotional distance between them.

Yes, exactly!  There's a lot of scope for it being used for emotive imagery.  One shot that springs to mind is the famous zoom-in-but-track-out shot from Vertigo.  Imagine something like that being invented for 3D.  As I said before I don't think the real scope for 3D's potential has been touched upon yet.

Blumf

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on October 02, 2011, 07:59:10 PM
However, I did think the other day that there might be interesting artistic applications for it if the director could monkey around with the perspective. If for instance you were making some family drama type of film, with two characters sitting at the kitchen table, you could somehow manipulate the 3D so it looks as if they're really far apart, thus empasizing the emotional distance between them.

The problem with that is messing with focus and location in 3D films can really bugger up viewers eyes. We've have millions of years of things being pretty static in our field of vision, depth/focus-wise, we're not equipped to handle weirdness with spatial focal points. Muscle strain from shifting focus too quickly has been a problem for 3D films already and they have to watch out for it in the editing. Getting impossible focusing is liable to be even worse and could result in various problems like headaches and nausea.

Maybe if we had some VR helmet tech (Think Sony came out with something recently) that could account for individual viewers uniquely and responsively, but with current single screen tech almost certainly not.