1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

3D Top 10 Movies That Should Never, Ever Be Converted to 3D

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by kemcha, Mar 10, 2010.

  1. kemcha

    kemcha Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found this list quite interesting. Discovered it on Wired.com:
    Source: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/03/the-top-10-movies-that-should-never-ever-be-converted-to-3d/



     
  2. ManW_TheUncool

    ManW_TheUncool Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    30
    Real Name:
    ManW
    I like/love most of those, but I gotta say they probably shouldn't be remotely close to the top 10, if you ask me, unless we're simply talking about personal favorites w/ a heavy slant toward those genres.

    _Man_
     
  3. kemcha

    kemcha Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree about the 7th point. I wouldn't want to see the Big L peeing on me in 3D, there's just something inheritantly wrong about that.
     
  4. Guest

    Most of John Water's movies would probably not be good in 3-D!
     
  5. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    24,968
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard
     
  6. Richard--W

    Richard--W Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,527
    Likes Received:
    166
    Stereoscopic cinematography is not an arbitrary thing.
    Movies that are conceived and executed in 3-D should be watched in 3-D.
    Depth is part of the visual language and part of the story-telling; it isn't just a gimmick.

    Movies that are conceived and executed flat should be watched flat.
    Converting a flat movie to 3-D distorts a film, and disrespects the creative intention of the filmmakers.
    Converting a flat movie to 3-D is tantamount to colorizing King Kong or Casablanca.

    No flat movie should be converted to 3-D.

    Sorry to rain on the parade.
     
  7. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    [SIZE= larger]Tell that to James Cameron who will be converting Titanic to 3D this year.

    To be honest I don't know that I would shoot a 3D film all that much different than a flat film. I tend to shoot with fairly dynamic angles that emphasize the difference between the foreground and background elements anyway. Look at one of the greatest 3D films of all time, Dial M For Murder. Watching it flat, you would never know that it was a 3D film. The best 3D films are that way. Not poking you in the eye every 5 min. You are right however that seeing them in 3D is a different experience.

    Doug[/SIZE]
     
  8. Hollywoodaholic

    Hollywoodaholic Edge of Glory?

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,701
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    Somewhere in Florida
    Real Name:
    Wayne
    Porno should not be in 3D. Especially anything with Ron Jeremy.

    But, alas, I suspect that even though it may not have been reported at CES, the 3D porno video business is undoubtedly in the works because we all know what cashes in the most on the Internet.
     
  9. Richard--W

    Richard--W Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,527
    Likes Received:
    166
    The ability of stereoscopic cinematography to place the action or objects in the audience space is a nice bonus that should be applied judiciously. I agree there is more to 3-D than poking people in the eye every five minutes.

    Once you start working in depth you'll find it's another tool at your disposal with which to tell a story. Because of the science involved in utilizing depth, you'll find yourself blocking, lighting, and editing differently. It's a not a matter of choice. For example, blurred backgrounds in close-ups simply don't work stereoscopically unless the backgrounds in all the shots are blurred. In flat films these shots don't convert well. Cutting from a focused background to a blurred background jars the eye. Stereoscopic cinematography is necessarily a deep-focus discipline. That doesn't mean deep-focus films like those directed by Kubrick and Frankenheimer will convert easily, and you can be sure the directors will have staged depth differently than their flat film represents when converted. If you're in the habit of shooting fairly dynamic angles that emphasize the difference between foreground and background elements, you may find that you have to pay more attention to the space in between foreground and background so that the background doesn't crush and the foreground doesn't pop out. Lighting and staging change in stereoscopic films; at least, they should change.

    Hitchcock was very discerning. He found a way to shoot Dial M For Murder so that it worked both ways. But his blocking was more shallow than usual. The flat version of Dial M For Murder has always seemed diminished to me, perhaps because I've seen the stereoscopic version about a dozen times (last time in 2006) under optimal conditions.

    Converting the flat lensmanship of Titanic to 3-D must be a problematic undertaking. The 3-D documentaries that Cameron shot after that are like a shopping list of stereoscopic mistakes. He obviously learned from them, however, because Avatar is a much more sophisticated use of 3-D. Although Avatar is a fine film in many ways, its stereoscopic cinematography does not compare well to the state-of-the-art 3-D films of 1953 and 1954. George Lucas promised to convert the original Star Wars trilogy to 3-D for its 30th anniversary but failed to deliver, I gather because of conversion problems. Miniatures lack physical mass under two lenses and are exposed as miniatures. Star Wars is layered with miniatures and other methods that look fine flat but are problematic in 3-D.
     
  10. Eric F

    Eric F Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 1999
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    0
    How long until 2001: 3D arrives? As if the final scenes didn't encourage doing drugs in 2D...
     
  11. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    189
    I doubt the Kubrick estate would ever allow that to happen.

    Vincent
     
  12. Chad R

    Chad R Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Messages:
    2,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Chad Rouch
    I think the conversion of flat movies to 3D holds the same drawbacks that colorization does. Thankfully all the 3D blu-rays will be backwards compatible to 2D.
     

Share This Page