Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › 3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers" - Page 2

post #31 of 109
3/10/10 at 10:41am
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.




Reply
post #32 of 109
3/10/10 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worth View Post

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.
Reply
post #33 of 109
3/10/10 at 11:11am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Worth View Post


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. 

 

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. 

I guess that leaves me out when it comes to allocating any review samples for upcoming 3D hardware. If I know what's good for me. 
Reply
post #34 of 109
3/10/10 at 12:14pm
Not interested in 3D movies.
Reply
post #35 of 109
3/10/10 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post

[...]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! :)
Reply
post #36 of 109
3/10/10 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worth View Post


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.

Reply
post #37 of 109
3/10/10 at 1:34pm
Thread Starter 

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.

Reply
post #38 of 109
3/10/10 at 1:46pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post




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

Reply
post #39 of 109
3/10/10 at 1:49pm
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
Reply
post #40 of 109
3/10/10 at 2:27pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF View Post

Quote:


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

Eh, it's only a faux dimension.  
Reply
post #41 of 109
3/10/10 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post

Eh, it's only a faux dimension.  
That's new technology, not yet out. We've got the fir, secon', and thir but are still waiting on the faux dimension.

Reply
post #42 of 109
3/10/10 at 4:42pm
You two should've hosted the Oscars.

--
H
Reply
post #43 of 109
3/10/10 at 8:32pm
Consistent with the title of this thread, the following is from a Wall Street Journal blog entry today:


Quote:

Domestic ticket sales to 2-D theaters last year edged up just 0.8%, to $9.47 billion, according to a numbers-heavy report released Wednesday by the MPAA. Meanwhile, 3-D admissions for the year were up nearly fivefold, to $1.14 billion, compared with just $240 million in 2008. Put those together and voila: $10.6 billion in total ticket sales.

 

The trend is only going to get more pronounced this year. For one thing, 2009 included just a couple weeks of “Avatar’s” record-setting theatrical run; the film has done more than 60% of its theatrical business since the New Year. And the 2010 release schedule is packed with other new 3-D releases, from last weekend’s record-setting “Alice in Wonderland” opening through the next “Harry Potter” installment, due close to the holidays. And let’s not forget the third, 3-D installment of the “Step Up” franchise, which promises to bring the same kind of technological transformation to steamy dance dramas that “Avatar” brought to interplanetary romance.
 


http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/03/10/3-d-films-added-new-dimension-to-box-office-grosses-says-mpaa-report/

Let the groaning resume!
Reply
post #44 of 109
3/11/10 at 9:23pm
 I might be willing to give a movie shot entirely in the "Digital Backlot" style a pass on being 2D converted to 3D. The live action elements are pulled out of green screen photography and are, in effect, floating on their own layer. All of the 3D animated elements and node-based effects compositing work exists in computerized 3D space. With some extra work a second camera eye view of all that material can be rendered.

However, some things aren't so simple. If the decision to go "3D" is made after certain key CGI/compositing sequences have gone through their final rendering stages then those flattened 2D scenes might have to be artificially converted to 3D instead of re-rendered for 2 camera eye views.

If you're dealing with imagery that is 100% 2D live action photography going 3D with it is exceedingly difficult. I'm not convinced there is any "auto" buttons to inflate a 2D image to 3D. Lots of abstract decisions computers cannot handle must be made in the process -meaning lots of human intervention. Anyone who has done a lot of work with Photoshop knows how difficult it can be to remove backgrounds or pull photographic objects out of an image. Not everything has a hard edge. Objects like hair, smoke, water, ice, glass, grass, fire, transparent fabrics and many other things are a real pain to isolate. Live action movies have lots of that stuff.

Live action movies also play around with depth of field effects. One scene may have a deep depth of field with objects in the foreground and background in sharp focus. That image will create a lot of work for all the objects that must be isolated and extracted into separate layers to simulate 3D. A low depth of field image creates a potentially worse situation. An object in the foreground is in sharp focus while blur increases on objects farther away from the plane of focus. It's pretty difficult to isolate an object in a photo if it has a blurred edge. Some scenes have such low depth of field that only part of the object is in focus. Good luck inflating that to 3D!

Even when a live action scene can be converted into 3D the end result may have the appearance of numerous, flat looking 2D objects floating in front of each other in an odd looking 3D space. People look like the flattened celebrity cut outs you stand next to for a cheesy tourist photo.

There's lots of tough challenges in converting something shot 2D into 3D. The process isn't easy, I'm sure it isn't cheap and the more 2D live action footage there is the less effective the conversion will be.
Reply
post #45 of 109
3/22/10 at 3:38pm

Quote:
"I'm a grown man; I don't need to see things jumping out at me," says Zach Galifianakis, star of The Hangover and winner of ShoWest's comedy star of the year award. "If I want to see a bird flying toward me, I'll walk out into my yard. It seems like a great effect but not much more."

Avatar producer Jon Landau, who won the show's innovation award along with director James Cameron, says critics are viewing 3-D too narrowly. "No one would say we shouldn't have gone to sound or color," Landau says. "People are treating it as a gimmick, instead of a tool."

But not all stars want that tool applied on them. "It was hard enough accepting high-definition screens," cracks Sex and the City's Sarah Jessica Parker, who was at ShoWest to pick up the best-ensemble prize. "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I'm a 2-D girl," Parker says. "I don't want to look like I'm crawling out of the screen at people."

Katherine Heigl sees it differently. "Life," she says, "is in 3-D."

More than two sides to 3-D movie debate at ShoWest

Gimmick or Tool? I've always seen 3-D as a gimmick, an annoying gimmick until I saw Avatar and was blown away by what it can do. Though there were times it felt like I was watching the film through a pool of water.

Reply
post #46 of 109
3/23/10 at 9:58am
This is a pretty good article:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-james-cameron-skeptical-of-3d-conversions-the-jury-is-out/#more-29283
Reply
post #47 of 109
3/23/10 at 12:45pm

Quote:
"I'm a grown man; I don't need to see things jumping out at me," says Zach Galifianakis, star of The Hangover and winner of ShoWest's comedy star of the year award. "If I want to see a bird flying toward me, I'll walk out into my yard. It seems like a great effect but not much more."

But not all stars want that tool applied on them. "It was hard enough accepting high-definition screens," cracks Sex and the City's Sarah Jessica Parker, who was at ShoWest to pick up the best-ensemble prize. "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I'm a 2-D girl," Parker says. "I don't want to look like I'm crawling out of the screen at people."

 

These seem like myopic attituded to me. They seem to equate 3-D with things jumping out of the screen at you. Granted, many 3-D films were like that, but that's certainly not the way it has to be. Everyone loved Avatar in 3-D. Is that the only acceptable film that there could ever be made in 3-D? Now, I can understand the some of the skeptcism among filmmakers around converting a 2-D film to 3-D (although it can be done to perfectly acceptable effect as the Toy Story re-release showed) And some filmmakers feel perhaps that their projects wouldn't be a good fit for 3-D, and that's fine. But I still don't get where there's a certain faction of people who seem to actively against it (although I can understand why it was hard for Sarah Jessica Parker to accept High Definition Television)
Reply
post #48 of 109
3/23/10 at 2:36pm
Taza 3-D.jpg
Reply
post #49 of 109
3/23/10 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillG View Post

I can understand the some of the skeptcism among filmmakers around converting a 2-D film to 3-D (although it can be done to perfectly acceptable effect as the Toy Story re-release showed)

CG films are the exception to the "2D to 3D conversion looks like crap" rule, because they can go back to the original data files to render a legitimate second lens. With live action, the information simply doesn't exist to fill in what was missed by the first lens but would have been caught by the second lens if they'd filmed in 3D from the start.
Reply
post #50 of 109
3/23/10 at 4:08pm
Steve - that's awesome!
Reply
post #51 of 109
4/1/10 at 11:36pm
Prime example of really BAD conversion of 2D to 3D.. the new clash of the titans.  Woof.  Save all your money, I've heard this is good in 2D, but the effects are pointless and everything is crazy blurry in 3D.  Talk about complete suck fest.
Reply
post #52 of 109
4/2/10 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattCR View Post

I've heard this is good in 2D,


I just saw Clash Of The Titans and it would be terrible in any dimension.
Reply
post #53 of 109
4/2/10 at 11:14am
Ok, then let me just say: the 3D has to be worse.  Because that thing is like the shittiest 3d I've ever seen.  It's borderline unwatchable.
Reply
post #54 of 109
4/2/10 at 11:19am
Oh yeah, the 3-D transition was lousy too.
Reply
post #55 of 109
4/8/10 at 11:04pm
I can personally take or leave 3D, Avatar was spectacular in 3D but I still don't have a burning desire to see every new film that comes out in the format. In fact if it were to go away completely tomorrow I wouldn't miss it in the least and wouldn't even inquire as to where it went.

I also have absolutely zero desire to see TITANIC in 3D. It's one of my favorite films of all time but I don't need to see people jumping from the ship and falling off the screen at me, the film works as well as it will ever work in 2D.

I'll even go so far as to say that if this is James Cameron's idea I'm highly disappointed in him.

As for the new 3D at home technology coming out...meh, I don't like the idea of having to wear the glasses all the time to watch TV at home. Here's an idea, if this trend becomes standard maybe eye doctors can come up with a new kind of contact lens that works just like the glasses?
Reply
post #56 of 109
4/9/10 at 12:44am
It would be nice if this rekindles interest in 3D still photography. I was just getting into taking such photos in the 90's when the company that made the cameras and processed the film went under. If you've never seen a lenticular photo, you see the effect without glasses. There must be a way to do it with digital photos and video.


I'm surprised Cameron didn't think about Viewmaster reels when it came to merchandising.
Reply
post #57 of 109
4/9/10 at 10:47am

Quote:
I'll even go so far as to say that if this is James Cameron's idea I'm highly disappointed in him.

 

Redoing Titanic in 3-D would be totally his idea. That is to say, it would not be done if he didn't want it to be.
Reply
post #58 of 109
4/9/10 at 11:05am


Quote:
Originally Posted by mattCR View Post

Ok, then let me just say: the 3D has to be worse.  Because that thing is like the shittiest 3d I've ever seen.  It's borderline unwatchable.

Clash of The Titans was converted to 3-D very quickly. When you don't take the time to do it right it looks like crap - http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/clash-of-dimensions-titans-clip.html


Reply
post #59 of 109
4/9/10 at 11:48am
I know that both my brother and sister can't watch a 3D movie. They both get headaches about 10 or 15 mins into it. I know by the end of a 3D film my eyes feel like I've been wearing contacts for 3 days straight. I really wouldn't want to see every movie in 3D, and if 3D becomes the standard, I'll simply stop going to movies in the theater.

Doug
Reply
post #60 of 109
4/9/10 at 3:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer! View Post

I can personally take or leave 3D, Avatar was spectacular in 3D but I still don't have a burning desire to see every new film that comes out in the format. In fact if it were to go away completely tomorrow I wouldn't miss it in the least and wouldn't even inquire as to where it went.

I'm with you on this, John.  The glasses are the real dealbreaker for me -- I'd rather see a movie in glorious full color without the dimming you get from the glasses.  3D fails for me in the cost/benefit analysis.  If there were 3D without glasses available, I would reconsider.

Quote:
Originally posted by SilverWook

There must be a way to do it with digital photos and video.

How is the Nintendo DS 3D accomplishing this?  I assume it's similar.  That will be glasses-less 3D.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › 3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers"