3-D in the movies: Getting in too deep

[tm20]

over here it's harder to get a normal viewing than a 3D viewing. bastards are forcing us to pay higher prices even if we don't want to D: so many films i would've prefered to watch in 2D but noooooooooooo i just had to pay extra money didn't i?

[TxonTirea]

When 3-D is able to be viewed without glasses, I'm okay with them putting it into what they want, until then, it's mostly Lackluster. Except Avatar. <3

[dstroudswan]

Originally Posted by tm20

over here it's harder to get a normal viewing than a 3D viewing. bastards are forcing us to pay higher prices even if we don't want to D: so many films i would've prefered to watch in 2D but noooooooooooo i just had to pay extra money didn't i?

Here too. And what's worse is that I can't even see 3d - I'm stereoblind, meaning that I can only see in 2d. I wonder if 3d is just a fad and will die out eventually...

[Moco Loco]

That's one point I can for sure agree with. I don't really foresee it happening, but it would be really nice if the prices could come down over time, even if it was just because all the other prices inflated around it

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

That's one point I can for sure agree with. I don't really foresee it happening, but it would be really nice if the prices could come down over time, even if it was just because all the other prices inflated around it

It's likely when glasses-free 3D becomes practical and widespread.

Think of it as like increasing resolutions. Modern digital projectors are now installed in most cinemas, which far outperform older ones - yet generally cost no more to see a film. Many yeas ago, your choices were a standard film projector, or IMAX.

[MOMS Ball Avatar]

Originally Posted by misstammie

Though 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon' and 'Avatar' show the technique's fabulous side, increasingly its use is a commercial rather than a creative choice.

It's bad enough that animation, action, fantasy and horror have been hijacked by 3-D mania. But the ground shifted for me when Werner Herzog's breathtaking documentary "Cave of Forgotten Dreams," a Zen meditation on ancient cave paintings and peoples, came with a bulky pair of 3-D glasses and a bloated ticket price.

What I didn't get was a better moviegoing experience. The artistry of black brush strokes on cold stone brought those stampeding horses to life, not the legacy of a thousand greasy fingerprints I was forced to gaze through. I don't blame Herzog for trying, it was an interesting experiment and if anything it's the boundary-pushers, James Cameron chief among them, and tradition-breakers who've historically taken 3-D to new artistic heights.


Even B-movie horror meister William Castle was going for a better boo with the rudimentary 3-D of his 1960 campy thriller, "13 Ghosts." It's hard not to wonder how Kubrick might have reimagined "A Clockwork Orange" if he'd had all the 3-D tools available today or to have hopes for the inventive Peter Jackson's 3-D vision of "The Hobbit."

I'm not suggesting that 3-D can't be fabulous or shouldn't be something that filmmakers employ — Michael Bay just scored a big one for the team in his visually immersive and explosive "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." The technique brought an eerie hyper-reality to the stop-motion animation of 2009's "Coraline," and its midnight garden coming to bloom was glorious in all its multidimensionality. With Cameron's "Avatar," I admit to finding the pull of that blue magic irresistible in ways that simply didn't translate when I watched it on DVD at home.

It's equally clear that 3-D technology is not going anywhere, as a tidal wave of ads are pushing everything from 3-D TV to 3-D video on cellphones, turning it into a made-for-the-masses gizmo. Classic is an ad that features a frustrated dad, his kids' pingpong game and a 3-D cell. Not content with the "action" he snatches a paddle and slams the ball at the camera, something he's sure will "play" better with 3-D.

Here's what typically happens. The most exquisitely realized 3-D moment of most 3-D films comes in the first few minutes when the very proud studio, beating its 3-D chest, has its title floating "miraculously" in midair. As for all the objets d'art — the swords, spears, fireballs and the lot — that require countless hours of work to ensure that they come barreling through space towards us? I have yet to see even one person duck at anything being "hurled" from the screen. Well, there was the 4-year-old and the popcorn incident, but that's another story.

Not that long ago, 3-D films were an anomaly, two or three a year was the norm in the U.S., so the artistry question wasn't as weighty. In 2008, there were only five and the 3-D "Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus" and "U2" concert films should barely rate a count. By the time we close out 2011, the figure will top 40.


What's troubling in the move from unusual to ubiquitous is that the choice to go 3-D has increasingly become a commercial rather than a creative one. We all realize that making movies is a for-profit business. Instead, let's talk about the fear factor. There is the worry that a studio saying no to 3-D might offend a filmmaker it seriously can't afford to offend. But more often, it's fear that "we the audience" want, desire, even demand 3-D in this technocentric age.

So does that mean it's up to us to somehow stop the madness? Or are studios simply not listening to the actual word on the street?

I ask because I asked you, or at least some of you. Not a scientifically rigorous test, but illuminating none the less. And for the doubters, it's one you can easily replicate. Ask 10 people you don't know to name the last three movies they liked, and let's just assume we get lucky and there was one 3-D movie in the group. Then ask them why they liked it. In my survey, 3-D did not make the top five reasons for most. It only began to creep into the list with 12-year-old boys, and even then it was more an "oh yeah" than "must have." What did matter was the fundamentals — a well-acted story cleverly told.

Which brings me to another gripe about the 3-D grip. It's an ego thing — the ultimate form of studio swagger. That I could live with, the industry always has been and always will be an egocentric swampland, but it leads to a narcissistic belief that 3-D will carry the day. It will not.

Usually the result is a film like "Thor," which looks neither better nor worse with 3-D — one of several I saw both ways to put the theory to the test. At other times, 3-D actually makes things worse, as it did with the latest edition of "Pirates of the Caribbean," the Walt Disney Studios and Jerry Bruckheimer collaboration. "On Stranger Tides," which "Chicago's" Rob Marshall directed, had many problems, but the dark and claustrophobic deep shadow cast by 3-D was a significant one. A major action sequence that had Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow sword-fighting the fleet-footed Penélope Cruz's femme fatale was only a shade short of pitch black and nearly impossible to see, much less enjoy.

The subtext in all of this is that Hollywood no longer trusts our imagination. And that is the saddest 3-D ripple effect of all, because "we the audience" do indeed still have vivid imaginations, something great filmmakers never underestimate. When they believe, we believe. Then the intangibles that make humans human — fear, love, anger, surprise — can be brought to life by characters and moments that have depth as much as dimension.


Consider one example from the past — Alfred Hitchcock's 1958 palm-sweating "Vertigo" — and another from more recent times, 2007's low-tech, low-cost thriller "Paranormal Activity." Both films used the unseen and the imagined to hair-raising, heart-palpitating satisfaction (for us) and success (for the bottom line). One is still a classic more than 50 years hence, the other may become one or slip into a footnoted memory. Both understood at the most fundamental level that the mind is a filmmaker's most powerful tool, and a terrible thing to waste. No glasses required.

3-D in the movies - latimes.com

VERY WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE!! I AM IMPRESSED!!

A New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Variety, Chicago Tribune, or LA Times couldn't have done better!! Well done!!

You have an amazing grasp of the medium, and the viewing experience. Historical movie savy and knowledge.

I agree with on ALL counts! The suspense, tension, and dread that is never seen is the greatest of all! To Kill a Mockingbird is an Hitchcock thriller that you never see the doom, but feel it. All of the explosions, sex, car chases, and violence put in 3D does not a movie make. Dialogue, plot, theme, thought provoking, and making forget for hours and taking you away is what makes it great or not. This is why old radio show serials, and black and white movies are still around.

This is why Avatar, to me, is the best movie ever. Avatar, Gone with the Wind, Casa Blanca, and Blazing Saddles (I like humor).

The 3D effect was just over the top on an epic experience. The way the 3D was done still burns holes in my head and eyes just thinking about it.

When I watched it the first time (of many) in 3D IMAX I had to close my eyes and turn my head away. I didn't have vertigo, it was just too much for my senses to take in continously. I over loaded. After 3 or 4 times I could watch it all with out the over load.

Thank you Miss Tammie, and everyone for your comments on the 3D knock offs and tag a longs following a truly ground breaking movie for just the sake of a quick buck.

[MOMS Ball Avatar]

Oops my bad. I saw at the end it's a quote from the LA times. After graduating from UCLA, and living with a Best Boy, and a Grip you thought I'd seen that coming wouldn't you?

[Moco Loco]

Yay progress!

[Stanley_9875]

Just like with nearly everything else, the price of it goes down when its more accessible and available... like making movies years before, video cameras were expensive, film, ect. you needed a production company to do that stuff with. Now, video cameras are available to anyone and everyone. Its just a matter of time

[Human No More]

Not at all likely any more than colour being one, or audio before that (yes, people in their day complained about both).

Again, higher prices are largely due to glasses and equipment costs of upgrading. Once everywhere has capable projectors and it's glasses-free, there should be more parity in prices.

[Aquaplant]

Well at least colour or audio can't give you headache like some 3-D does. If it weren't for the glasses I probably wouldn't mind the whole 3-D fad, but as long as they are a requirement, it will always be a negative that can't be overlooked.

I don't like the comparison with colour vs. b&w, because the amount of difference between colour and 3-D is minimal relative to the difference between colour and b&w. Then again maybe that's because I'm a colour freak, since I find almost all b&w stuff boring by default. The lack of colour was a technical limitation, whereas 3-D is to enhance the immersion, because even without it, we can still see the third dimension from a two dimensional picture. With b&w, one simply can't see the colours, because they aren't there.

The prices will probably stay the same, because they are not going to drop them just because stuff gets cheaper. If people are willing to pay the amount they are currently asking, then the higher prices will become the new norm.

[dstroudswan]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Not at all likely any more than colour being one, or audio before that (yes, people in their day complained about both).

You're probably right.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Again, higher prices are largely due to glasses and equipment costs of upgrading. Once everywhere has capable projectors and it's glasses-free, there should be more parity in prices.

That's true. And once prices come down, it really won't matter anymore.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Well at least colour or audio can't give you headache like some 3-D does. If it weren't for the glasses I probably wouldn't mind the whole 3-D fad, but as long as they are a requirement, it will always be a negative that can't be overlooked.

Very true. When I want to sit down and watch TV, I don't want to rummage through a drawer to find my TV glasses - it's a pain.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

I don't like the comparison with colour vs. b&w, because the amount of difference between colour and 3-D is minimal relative to the difference between colour and b&w. Then again maybe that's because I'm a colour freak, since I find almost all b&w stuff boring by default. The lack of colour was a technical limitation, whereas 3-D is to enhance the immersion, because even without it, we can still see the third dimension from a two dimensional picture. With b&w, one simply can't see the colours, because they aren't there.

That's very true; 3DTV is just another way of viewing the same thing. Until they use the research by Dr. Torimitsu to create a true virtual reality, colour in 2d is 3d and in 3d is still 3d. And the former doesn't make you want to puke from being dizzy.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

The prices will probably stay the same, because they are not going to drop them just because stuff gets cheaper. If people are willing to pay the amount they are currently asking, then the higher prices will become the new norm.

True, but inflation has to be taken into account. When cost of living, including this, rises, then salaries also rise by a specific percentage and everything evens out.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Well at least colour or audio can't give you headache like some 3-D does. If it weren't for the glasses I probably wouldn't mind the whole 3-D fad, but as long as they are a requirement, it will always be a negative that can't be overlooked.

I don't like the comparison with colour vs. b&w, because the amount of difference between colour and 3-D is minimal relative to the difference between colour and b&w. Then again maybe that's because I'm a colour freak, since I find almost all b&w stuff boring by default. The lack of colour was a technical limitation, whereas 3-D is to enhance the immersion, because even without it, we can still see the third dimension from a two dimensional picture. With b&w, one simply can't see the colours, because they aren't there.

The prices will probably stay the same, because they are not going to drop them just because stuff gets cheaper. If people are willing to pay the amount they are currently asking, then the higher prices will become the new norm.

2D was a technical limitation. If the first films were able to capture in 3D or colour, they would have.
Early audio and colour weren't particularly accurate, but 3D does make a film more realistic if done well. Colour done badly makes a film look unrealistic too, while anything without colour now just looks wrong.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Human No More

2D was a technical limitation. If the first films were able to capture in 3D or colour, they would have.
Early audio and colour weren't particularly accurate, but 3D does make a film more realistic if done well. Colour done badly makes a film look unrealistic too, while anything without colour now just looks wrong.

It's funny how I though about the same thing, but by my rationale they are not really comparable, but maybe that's just my way of reasoning, dunno. When we use a camera to capture a picture from the real world, we can still see the depth in the picture even though it is only two dimensional. When we look at our computer screens when playing a 3D game, we see all the depth of the image even though it's not really there.

It's not so much about the quality of the implementation itself, but the lack of something altogether. For example, our lousy TN LCD panels have poor colour reproduction compared to their IPS and MVA counterparts, but they still display all the colours from bad to fair accuracy, depending on the model. But TN panels are still good enough for the majority of consumers, and thus their huge market share due to cheapest panel type and biggest volumes make competitive prices.

If anything I would call it a limitation of how we can perceive visual information with our eyes, because aside from full holographic projection, how are you going to project fully captured 3D in a way that we would all be in the appropriate place of the camera? It's really hard when I start to think about the proper implementation of 3D technology, but I have to admit that I do not profess the necessary knowledge to really go anywhere.

[dstroudswan]

And holographic displays are already available for real: 3D Holographic Display - Realfiction - Products