What actually killed 3D in the silver age 1979- 85 (1 Viewer)

[BobO'Link]

Like it or not, Avatar's 3D is also gimmicky (and suffers from a cliche/recycled story to boot). The majority of 3D titles are "gimmicky" because that's what the public expects to see. If it's not there they'll say the 3D is "just OK."

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Like it or not, Avatar's 3D is also gimmicky (and suffers from a cliche/recycled story to boot). The majority of 3D titles are "gimmicky" because that's what the public expects to see. If it's not there they'll say the 3D is "just OK."

Guess it depends on how you define "gimmicky".

I think of it as Dr. Tongue territory: goofy actions intended solely to shove stuff out of the screen.

I thought "Avatar" used 3D in a more organic manner and created an immersive impression but not one with "IN YER FACE!!!" material.

Lotsa people complain that modern 3D movies aren't "in yer face" enough - many just offer that kind of sense of depth without "pop out" moments.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I enjoy the "in yer face" moments, but more when they're an organic part of the story. A Star Destroyer flying over my head? Bring it on! A wildly careening stagecoach with dirt clumps flying out of the screen? Absolutely. A sword jabbing blindly out of the screen? Not so much.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I enjoy the "in yer face" moments, but more when they're an organic part of the story. A Star Destroyer flying over my head? Bring it on! A wildly careening stagecoach with dirt clumps flying out of the screen? Absolutely. A sword jabbing blindly out of the screen? Not so much.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Also a massive SCTV fan. John Candy, RIP.

 

[Tino]

I didn’t think Avatars 3D was gimmicky at all. It was very organic and natural looking Imo.

Like it or not, Avatar's 3D is also gimmicky (and suffers from a cliche/recycled story to boot). The majority of 3D titles are "gimmicky" because that's what the public expects to see. If it's not there they'll say the 3D is "just OK.

 

[Todd J Moore]

A couple of things to bear in mind:

Avatar was the first really wide 3D release of that decade outside of the two anaglyphic features so it was the first time mass audiences really got to see polarized 3D since the 80s. All the others had a limited 3D release. Chicken Little opened in 85 theaters in 3D. I think Monster House got 150. Even Journey to the Center of the Earth had something like less than 1,000 theaters showing it in 3D. It's also worth noting that Avatar was one of the few 3D films from that decade not aimed at kids. Beowulf and Journey stand out as the others. So Avatar being the first mass release 3D movie is one of the reasons it did so well. Most people hadn't seen something like it before, much the same as Comin' At Ya! in 1981 and Bwana Devil in 1952.

As to gimmick shots, I'm all for them. But there's a huge difference between how they were handled in the Golden Age and the Silver Age. For the most part, the Golden Age films had gimmick shots that seemed a part of the story. Outside of the paddle ball scene in House of Wax, they didn't seem superfluous. The Silver Age, however, would literally take any opportunity to throw something out of the screen, no matter how silly it was. Friday the 13th Part 3 is a perfect example. I'm down with Jason's implements of death being poked at the audience. The pitchfork, poker, and crossbow bolt are all fine. What's silly is the popcorn, fruit, and yo-yo. The Silver Age films way overdid it, which is where the 3D is a gimmick mindset comes from.

 

[sleroi]

I like things coming out of the screen, organic or not. I mean, I don't want to just watch a guy standing there poking things at the camera for 2 hrs. But if a guy is on screen with a yo-yo and it didn't come out of the screen, I'd think that was a wasted opportunity. If the scene is just two people talking, why not have one character fling a yo-yo at the screen, just to keep the audience on their toes.

And I agree, I didn't think Avatar's 3D was gimmicky at all. In fact I remember being somewhat disappointed after my first screening that hardly anything really stuck out far from the screen.

Also, I defended Jaws 3D over on the scary movie challenge thread. It's just fun. From the floating fish head leading into the titles that come really far out from the screen. The film makers understood that if 3D is the hook, you've got to have a wow moment every 5-10 minutes. Comin' at ya overdid it, and the story was so bad I just can't watch it. But Jaws at least had a cohesive plot and decent actors.

 

[Artanis]

Bad movies were a big reason, but in 1982 astonishing 3D imagery made it's debut at Disneyland and Epcot.
It was a twin 70mm process that was clearer than most traditional theaters could possibly provide. The premier film was called "Magic Journeys" presented by Kodak. The cameras were specially built by Kodak, and both the cameras and projectors introduced a sophisticated pin registration enhancement that reduced the obvious jerky alignment that affected all other two projection systems.

Magic Journeys was the first 3D motion picture to display CG imagery. It was in a tug a war with Tron for use of the newly developed Disney image rendering systems.
Yes, the theme park films were novelties, but they set the 3D bar very high and put general release films to shame in terms of quality 3D imagery.

And, Captain EO. While the story was not my cup of tea, the 3D and production was amazing with tons of fog and lasers throughout the theater.

 

[Clinton McClure]

I believe most Silver Age presentations used disposable cardboard glasses. We used to have to order a new supply for each film (I ran Friday 13th and Metalstorm).

I used to watch Metalstorm on Showtime when I was a kid and some of the scenes made me wonder if the film was shown in 3D at some point.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And, Captain EO. While the story was not my cup of tea, the 3D and production was amazing with tons of fog and lasers throughout the theater.

Yeah, I saw "EO" in a Disneyland visit back in 1987.

I still remember kids reaching out to grab flying characters because they looked so real as they popped out of the screen!

 

[Artanis]

Yeah, I saw "EO" in a Disneyland visit back in 1987.

I still remember kids reaching out to grab flying characters because they looked so real as they popped out of the screen!

I didn't realized (come to find out) that Capt. EO debuted at Disneyland in 86. I guess it still counts for silver age.

 

[John Sparks]

Weird Al Yankovich also had 4 3D films. Saw a couple or maybe all of them when they were playing at an amusement park here n So Cal.

 

[Matt Hough]

When I made my first (and so far only) trip to Disney World in Orlando around 2002 or so, Captain EO was nowhere to be seen, but Honey I Shrunk the Kids was available and was a marvelous 3D experience.

 

[Ross Gowland]

What always kills 3D? A surge of interest to begin with then over time the masses lose interest.

The majority see it as a gimmick like a Tamagotchi, clackers, Cabbage Patch Kids: fun for a while but not something they want to hold onto for long.

I like 3D. Its a gimmick, but a good one. In an ideal world, there’d be a 3D film as an event every few months, be they blockbusters like Avatar, family films like Hugo, documentaries like Cave of Forgotten Dreams, or trashy fun like Jaws 3.

But I’m not in denial. I won’t trot out excuses like “Oh, if only people hadn’t got headaches” or “If only the colours weren’t dulled” etc… The fact is, most people soon lose interest in it and don’t want it. It happened in the 50s, 80s, and more recently. It’s the same pattern every time.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I didn't realized (come to find out) that Capt. EO debuted at Disneyland in 86. I guess it still counts for silver age.

IIRC, Michael Jackson's excuse for not playing Live Aid in July 1985 was that he was preoccupied with another project. "EO" would seem to have been that project, if true.

 

[Lord Dalek]

The liner notes for The Ultimate Collection don't give an exact date as to when "We Are Here To Change The World" was recorded besides the year 1986. But its likely production started in late 85.

 

[JoshZ]

Yeah, I saw "EO" in a Disneyland visit back in 1987.

I still remember kids reaching out to grab flying characters because they looked so real as they popped out of the screen!

Thank goodness the technology didn't exist for Jackson to reach out and grab them back!

 

[Artanis]

When I made my first (and so far only) trip to Disney World in Orlando around 2002 or so, Captain EO was nowhere to be seen, but Honey I Shrunk the Kids was available and was a marvelous 3D experience.

Yes. Wasn't until after MJs death that Disney reloaded Captain EO Tribute in 2010, and ran through 2015. But it was hardly as immersive as the original because many of the original "4-D" effects such as the enormous fiber-optic "starfield" wall along with smoke and lasers were removed from the building at the show's first closing, and were not returned for the revived presentation. Like the video link above, it simply doesn't do the original, actual run experience.

 

[Artanis]

What always kills 3D? A surge of interest to begin with then over time the masses lose interest.

The majority see it as a gimmick like a Tamagotchi, clackers, Cabbage Patch Kids: fun for a while but not something they want to hold onto for long.

I like 3D. Its a gimmick, but a good one. In an ideal world, there’d be a 3D film as an event every few months, be they blockbusters like Avatar, family films like Hugo, documentaries like Cave of Forgotten Dreams, or trashy fun like Jaws 3.

But I’m not in denial. I won’t trot out excuses like “Oh, if only people hadn’t got headaches” or “If only the colours weren’t dulled” etc… The fact is, most people soon lose interest in it and don’t want it. It happened in the 50s, 80s, and more recently. It’s the same pattern every time.

Hold your horses, Ross. (Did John Wayne say that in Hondo?) There is some new technology right around the corner for laser 3D projectors that will make dulled colors indecipherable in brightness in comparison to non-3D - even with glasses on.