3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers" (1 Viewer)

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

Clash is a legitimate issue, but Alice isn't. It was intended for 3D from the time it was announced in 2007:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117976106.html?categoryid=1050&cs=1

However, Burton made the decision to film with 2D cameras and convert to 3D in post-production, which drew criticism. Wikipedia has a convenient summary of the whole debate.

Isn't that like saying, this move was meant to be color from the start, but was shot black-and-white and colorized in post-production?

 

[Andrew Pierce]

I saw the IMAX version of Superman Returns with a couple of scenes in converted 3D. A couple of the people I was with didn't have issues with it but I thought it was godawful. The effect was about as impressive as a colorized movie. Big things work, but when you get a scene with a bunch of fine detail you're never going to get it right. You can get it to look close, but close isn't good enough. And if the filmmakers were willing to put in the effort to make it look right, they would have been willing to do it right from the start by capturing it 3D in the first place, which is probably less work than converting it in post.

Also, Jim Cameron raised the bar for 3D filmmaking way, way higher than it was a year ago. What may have been passable before Avatar may not pass muster now.

 

[Hanson]

Originally Posted by TravisR: As for the reason no one complains about 'artificial 3-D', it's probably because most people like 3-D or find it a fun addition to a movie. In my experience, alot of people are only bothered by changes when they don't like them. And if anyone feels that 3-D is an unacceptable alteration to the movie, there is 2-D versions of the movie that they can see.

I think if the public understood the shot in 3D vs post-processing 3D better, there would be a backlash against Clash for charging Avatar prices for a sub-Avatar experience (3D-wise, that is). After Avatar, audiences are expecting 3D to be like Avatar, and it's a certainty that it won't even come near that bar. So it's a bit fraudulent that this will probably be the norm until Hollywood gets the hang of Cameron's 3D camera system, and I don't think that will be for a while.

 

[DaveF]

No backlash from me: But I won't pay the money to see movies in post-processed 3D. I'm sure they will be fine in 3D, but after Coraline, Up, and Avatar, there's no need to waste precious popcorn money on 2.5D viewing

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by DaveF


I think if the public understood the shot in 3D vs post-processing 3D better, there would be a backlash against Clash for charging Avatar prices for a sub-Avatar experience (3D-wise, that is). After Avatar, audiences are expecting 3D to be like Avatar, and it's a certainty that it won't even come near that bar. So it's a bit fraudulent that this will probably be the norm until Hollywood gets the hang of Cameron's 3D camera system, and I don't think that will be for a while.

A backlash? Unlikely. Nothing will be as big as Avatar, simply because nothing will have its combination of novelty, storytelling and sheer hoopla. But audiences tend not to be as picky as the jaded crew that hangs out at HTF.

 

[Steve Christou]

The jaded pickiness does get tiresome after a while Michael, I concur. Should I have put "I concur" at the beginning or end of that sentence, does it matter? Now let me see what this thread was all about... hmmm hmmm yes, more 3-D, that's the ticket laddie. Otherwise I'll just stay home and watch them in 2-D.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by Jose Martinez

I've decided to only watch a 3D movie if it was shot for 3D from the get go, like Avatar. If it was "upconverted" from 2D to 3D because the studios want to make more money out of it, I'll only watch the 2D version or just not at all.

This is my philosophy too. The fake 3D just doesn't work and in fact distracts from my enjoyment of the movie. Avatar in IMAX 3D, incredibly immersive. Superman Returns and Half-Blood Prince in fake 3D at IMAX, distracting and disorienting. The only effective 2D to 3D conversion that I've experienced is The Nightmare Before Christmas. Despite Alice in Wonderland always being intended as a 3D release, Tim Burton only shot it with one camera. That makes it fake 3D in my book. If I had any interest in the film, I'd have caught it in 2D.

 

[Jose Martinez]

I'm going to have make a few exceptions to my 3D viewing. Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy and James Cameron's Titanic. Peter Jackson wants to convert his trilogy to 3D but Warner is hesitant on doing it (although they may have changed their minds). If it happens, I'm there. Titanic is going to take a year or so to covert (and it's already in the process) so a re-release in 3D should be around the end of 2011. I'll definitely be there to help break Avatar's box-office record.

 

[Holadem]

I was stunned by the 3D in Up last summer. I had always thought of 3D as a gimmick. I realized after Up that I couldn't remember watching any movie in 3D before then, begging the question about what the heck I was basing my negative impression of 3D on, all those years. I am now thinking it may have been a theme park ride.

Anyway based on Up and Avatar, if that's where movies are heading, that's perfectly fine by me. Heck, I want them to head that way.

--
H

 

[DaveF]

Both Up and Coraline had marvelous 3D. It felt as integral to the films as did the use of color or surround sound. They felt like they were created for 3D. My initial impressions was they used 3D more organically than Avatar.

 

[Worth]

They won't be getting that premium from me anymore. Having lived through the second 3D revival in the 80s and recently having seen Coraline, Up and Avatar, I'm done with 3D.

I guess I'm in the minority, but I find it does the opposite of what it's supposed to do - it takes me out of the movie rather than pulling me into it. I don't find it looks three dimensional - it looks more like layers of flat images stacked on top of one another - like a kids pop-up book. I also don't find that it contributes in any way to the telling of a story - unlike sound or colour. And the image - even in IMAX 3D - looks washed out and dim compared to a good digital or 35mm presentation. I'd much rather see productions shot fully or partially in IMAX a la The Dark Knight - now that I find immersive, but of course it will never happen because it's too expensive.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Worth

I guess I'm in the minority, but I find it does the opposite of what it's supposed to do - it takes me out of the movie rather than pulling me into it.

That's how I felt when I saw Avatar the first time but I checked it out a second time and that time, I had the 'immersive' experience that everyone else seemed to have.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Worth /forum/thread/298725/3-d-movies-or-...-more-money-out-of-moviegoers/30#post_3669070

 

[JonZ]

Not interested in 3D movies.

 

[DaveF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

[...]my wife has informed me that 3D adds nothing to her moviegoing experience, and that I'll be viewing any future 3D releases either in 2D or on my own.

I know marriage requires sacrifice, but I've never seen one require giving up an entire Dimension!

 

[Hanson]

Originally Posted by Worth


I guess I'm in the minority, but I find it does the opposite of what it's supposed to do - it takes me out of the movie rather than pulling me into it. I don't find it looks three dimensional - it looks more like layers of flat images stacked on top of one another - like a kids pop-up book. I also don't find that it contributes in any way to the telling of a story - unlike sound or colour. And the image - even in IMAX 3D - looks washed out and dim compared to a good digital or 35mm presentation.

I totally agree with this entire post. But hey, maybe our brains don't work right -- the clear majority of the forum loved the 3D in Avatar.

 

[todd s]

I have no problem with 3-D. As long as its made in 3-D and not just added later. I also want the option to see the movie in 2-D. Which is not always available. A poster said that only a couple of movies in the last few months are 3-D. That maybe true. But, now the studios are seeing a way to add $3 to their bottom line and are going to release more and more in 3-D. Even if they aren't made for it.

 

[Holadem]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben




You may be in the minority, but you're not alone. Having seen Coraline, Up, Avatar and now Alice, my wife has informed me that 3D adds nothing to her moviegoing experience, and that I'll be viewing any future 3D releases either in 2D or on my own.

That's awesome! So you can just watch 3D flicks exclusively from now on! Oh wait -- you actually like your wife, I think.

--
H

 

[Holadem]

I saw the trailer of some live action flick before Avatar, Knight and Day I think (Cruise, Diaz). No idea whether it's native 3D, or sourced from a 2D print, but it looked good to me. If that's what the latter option looks like, I am not sure I mind.

--
H

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by DaveF /forum/thread/298725/3-d-movies-or-...-more-money-out-of-moviegoers/30#post_3669116