3D Takeover: Is It Too Much Too Soon?

[JakeFanGirl]

http://www.collider.com/2010/03/29/t...much-too-soon/

Using Toy Story and the CGI craze that followed as an example, Cameron discussed the resulting difference between shooting a film with 3D in mind and simply converting a 2D film into a 3D in post-production:

“After Toy Story, there were 10 really bad CG movies because everybody thought the success of that film was CG and not great characters that were beautifully designed and heartwarming. “Now, you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did [with Avatar]. They’re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.” Cameron does, however, feel that the conversion can be done properly, which he announced he will attempt with the release of Titanic in 3-D in 2012.

In an interview with USA Today, Cameron took a stab at the rushed process of converting the upcoming, Clash of the Titans to 3D,

“They’re converting Clash of the Titans in eight weeks. But I’m guessing six months to a year to do it right. We’re targeting spring of 2012 for the release (of a 3D version of Titanic), which is the 100 year anniversary of the sailing of the ship.”

Despite Cameron’s warning, the success of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, which was converted to 3D, has only added fuel to the fire. However, there is a noticeable difference. A reviewer from Film Junk had this to say, “[Alice in Wonderland's] end result is that the world does not feel quite as fully realized and as immersive as Avatar. Granted, it is a more stylized world, but Wonderland is somehow not quite as enthralling as Pandora. At times the environments feel a bit washed out and empty, which could be a result of the 3-D not meshing well with some of the darker colors.”

[rapunzel77]

I agree that it is to much to soon, especially when they are converting 2D into 3D. I'd much rather see a movie that was originally filmed in 3D. I also find it odd that they are trying to convert Clash of the Titans from 2D into 3D in about 8 weeks. That to me sounds rushed which probably means I will save my money and see it in 2D instead of 3D which is what I was planning to do. How to Train your Dragon looked good in 3D. The colors were vibrant (not as vibrant as Avatar) and it gave you the sensation of flying, etc. Alice in Wonderland was ok in 3D. It wasn't very enthralling. It probably would have done better just staying with 2D.

I look forward to seeing better quality 3D but right now, it is the fad and fads are almost never good for quality. Also, with the added expense of a 3D ticket, I will be more cautious as to which movie I will see in 3D. Honestly, do we need to see Toy Story 3 and Shrek 4 in 3D? Does it help to advance the plot, the art of the movie? I don't think so. With How to Train Your Dragon, it introduced the audience to a new world with some beautiful vistas. It helped to enhance the movie, I think.

I don't think that Shrek or Toy Story will be best served in 3D. It doesn't make sense. I don't want stuff jumping out at me. I think that 3D needs to be reserved for fantasy/sci-fi movies, ones that take you to new worlds, etc. I agree with Cameron, it is to much to soon.

[Gunny]

I agree completely! Really dont have much to add lol.

[Vauktu]

Cameron is right about people starting to favor 3D over 2D now because of Avatar. However, this was going to happen eventually, just like how people are preferring Blu-ray over DVD, it's just happening at a quicker rate. Avatar really has shown how lucrative 3D can be.

[Sovereign]

The biggest problems I see are twofold.

One: Everyone and their mother wants to re-release old films in 3D in hopes of cashing in. I'm sorry, but not every film is meant to be 3D. Titanic, anyone? So there's going to be a dearth of new films to start.

Two: There aren't enough 3D theaters out there to handle all these releases and have them make any money. Avatar did well because there was no competition, literally. Now there are going to be hordes of films vying for scarce 3D space. They're not going to be able to run as long and thus profits will be impacted. Too many 3D films and not enough 3D capable theaters means even if these were all "Avatar"-level 3D, they'd still compete too much with each other and not do as well as they should.

[Pa'li Makto]

Everything that I was going to say has been said already

However I have to say that I won't go and see another movie in 3D unless it's Avatar.
The quality of other movies is not on par when they convert the format from 2d to 3d.
I hope Geoorge Lucas isn't serious about converting his Star Wars films to 3D..
I see a disaster waiting to happen..
To sum up, I think if film makers want to make a 3D movie, they should take the time and effort to make it properly..
(Instead of dishing out half-baked movies with a few effects)

[Seamus]

Toy story looks like pseudo-funny garbage from the previews. Shrek looks better, just because I like the characters. Especially Puss in Boots

[zongtseng]

Everyone is trying to cash in on Avatar, because they actually think 3D and the CGI is why it was so successful. We know better. Those were enabling factors, but they would have been nothing without the movie's emotional impact.

I do see one positive from all of these 3D releases. As someone said, there won't be enough 3D screens. Well, if these films are at all successful, they will be the catalyst for many theaters to upgrade some or even all of their screens to 3D. It will also be a catalyst for the remaining film-based theaters to go digital. Except for IMAX, of course, where film based is the better medium. I do expect to see IMAX go all digital eventually though, it's just the way things are moving. Also, the time limit on the IMAX reel is too confining, as we saw with Avatar.

[Human No More]

Definitely. A bad 3D film will still be bad. Even a good film, with bad post-production 3D won't be the same.

[Taw Makto]

Roger Ebert came out with a great article recently on the 3D craze. What it amounts to is a single question in his mind, and I agree: Does the 3D add to the story? When we see a well lensed movie in 2D, our minds are already well conditioned to evaluate the three dimensional nature of the environment using simple perspective. Avatar has powerful impact in 3D because it can indeed say that 3D adds to the story. A wholly new planet with a very heavy lean towards a flight environment? Great opportunity there to completely use the benefits of the technology. Well, as long as you can see it and appreciate it in 3D. Not everyone's eyes are the same, so some can get it, some can't. I happen to be one that probably can't, although I need to try again this summer when Avatar is re-released. My one trip to the 3D theater was a complete disaster.

Anything that keeps movie technology going forward is probably a good thing, though. Perhaps 3D tech is still in it's infancy. I'll never forget my upgrade to High Definition. If they can accomplish a similar degree of precision upgrade to 3D, I will be pleasantly amazed. Bring it on. But don't make it happen just because it's the latest gimmick. Use it wisely.

Link to the article... http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110

[Stanley_9875]

i did try out the 3-D TV the other weekend and I must say... I was very much impressed! Was WAY better than I thought it would be. I do think it'll be the whole thing with HD and will move its way into american homes... although there are some problems, like I heard some people can't see the 3-D, others don't like the glasses... I still want one so badly. Thanks for the link!

[Taw Makto]

You're welcome, ma tsmuktan! I need to dig a bit for another link, Stanley, but I did read somewhere that there is actually 3D tech out there that doesn't require those glasses. Like I did with HD, I'm going to adopt a watch and wait approach. Patience is a virtue that saves money. Just look at all the poor folk that bought into the HDTV disc format, and then Blu-ray won the war.

[Stanley_9875]

Originally Posted by Taw Makto

You're welcome, ma tsmuktan! I need to dig a bit for another link, Stanley, but I did read somewhere that there is actually 3D tech out there that doesn't require those glasses. Like I did with HD, I'm going to adopt a watch and wait approach. Patience is a virtue that saves money. Just look at all the poor folk that bought into the HDTV disc format, and then Blu-ray won the war.

Very true ma tsmukan. and I didn't know that there were ones that didn't need glasses

[Taw Makto]

Just for you, Stanley. Glasses-free 3D HDTV in five years? | DVICE

Five years is not that long to wait.....by that time we should all be salivating in anticipation of Avatar 3.

This stuff boggles my mind. I remember it was a huge deal when my parents bought their first color TV. And all we could get were four channels. (Yup, and it was 10 miles uphill barefoot in the snow to school, both ways. )

[Stanley_9875]

Originally Posted by Taw Makto

Just for you, Stanley. Glasses-free 3D HDTV in five years? | DVICE

Five years is not that long to wait.....by that time we should all be salivating in anticipation of Avatar 3.

This stuff boggles my mind. I remember it was a huge deal when my parents bought their first color TV. And all we could get were four channels. (Yup, and it was 10 miles uphill barefoot in the snow to school, both ways. )

its really not... like you said hopefully Avatar 3, by then Avatar 2 should (hopefully) be out

and its amazing how far technology has gone