Nate (post: 1412639) wrote:And for a while, they were. I remember a LOT of movies that came out with CG effects for no other reason than to say "LOOK THERE'S CG EFFECTS IN THIS MOVIE" and I'm sure we all know about Michael Bay who thinks that explosions are cool and therefore he doesn't need a decent plot.
It seems that I misunderstood your statement. I thought that you were saying that it was bad for movies in the collective sense. As in, "3D makes all movies terrible", not "3D is ruining specific movies".
To which, all I can say is that there are always terrible movies with or without 3D. The positive side of this is that studios use the money they make on the terrible blockbuster cash-ins to make both the smaller movies that don't make much money and the few good quality blockbusters.
The unfortunate truth is that the audiences that make
Sex and the City and
Clash of the Titans huge successes also enable us to see movies like
Inception,
Invictus, and
Slumdog Millionaire. (I know you weren't a fan of Inception, but hopefully you see my point.)
Hack, decent, uber-hack, past his prime, honestly can't make a judgment on this one (haven't seen many of his movies).
Seriously the fact alone that Lucas and Cameron are interested in it should prove enough that 3D is a dead end for uncreative hacks. Unless you think Greedo shot first and the police in E.T. took down criminals with walkie-talkies. :p
I chose to not cherry pick directors that are good (or just ones that meet your approval), as I think that would be against the spirit of my argument. These are the still the leaders in various aspects of film making, so how they handle 3D is really the only thing that can save it.
I don't deny that they've done fantastic movies. I do think, though, that it's easy to sit there and go "Well they're good so they MUST know what they're doing!" We've seen it before, with Nintendo's Virtual Boy. The NES, SNES, Game Boy...those were amazing! So Nintendo rolls out Virtual Boy and we all bought into it at first because, hey, these guys made great systems! Then Virtual Boy came out and it was just garbage. Being good at something doesn't make you immune from being dumb or making terrible mistakes, and these guys are doing just that by being suckers and buying into this 3D crap.
I could list terrible directors/filmmakers that hate 3D, but that's just about as relevant as which bad directors love it. The fact is, 3D is just as divisive a subject in Hollywood as it is among audiences. Again, I'm not arguing that 3D is the future or even that it's a good thing, just that it's too early to tell.
Besides, what "new" experiences can you bring to an audience with 3D? None. You can bring them the same experiences but with an additional "WHOA IT LOOKS LIKE THAT DUDE'S ARM IS TOTALLY COMING OUT OF THE SCREEN OMG." Which I would hope they think better of their audience than that (but I suppose they don't or they'd be on Nolan's side). Though if the experiences they want to bring are humorous and silly like Muppets 3D, then I support that. But I hope they realize you can't do anything else with 3D that's useful.
Again, I think that it's too early to tell. When motion pictures first came around, people said that it was a gimmick and that it would never be a serious artistic or storytelling medium. When sound was first added to motion pictures, people said that it was a gimmick that added nothing to film. When color first came around, people said that it was useless and brought nothing to the experience. When CG first came around, people said it was a gimmick that would die out.
Yet all of these things have become important staples in filmmaking. Again, I'm not saying that 3D is necessarily one of these things, just that we should probably wait before making a sweeping judgement on it.
While not removing ALL color, I have heard from multiple sources that the current 3D removes at least some color from the film, making it look more at least a little more washed-out and dull than it would without.
In my experience with the old 3D, it removes all meaningful color. My brain certainly does not process it well. The current 3D darkens the image a bit, but when the movie is made with 3D specifically in mind, the color balance is adjusted in editing to compensate.
Actually, there is. It's because theaters are so into making more money and suckering moviegoers that it's sometimes difficult to find a theater showing a movie in not 3D. I am fortunate to not have that problem, as I said earlier. However I know Angry Joe, when he saw the Last Airbender movie, said he had to search through the paper in his area to try and desperately find a theater showing it in 2D. He said he found one, and when he went to that theater, it turned out that they were showing it in 3D after all.
You are right, theaters like money. If enough people continue to go to 2D showings, then they will keep them around. I know that I usually opt for 2D showings, since most movies aren't created with 3D in mind from the outset. The post-production 3D process is crappy, and is really only around as a money-grab.
Also Airbender is so terrible I don't know why anyone would want to see it in theaters, 2D or 3D. :p
Plus, I don't know if it would do well. Since 24 fps is the standard for movies and has been for ages, anything above that tends to look "not movie-like" for lack of a better term. The reason for this is that a lot of TV shows and home camcorders record in 60 fps, so anything going at that rate tends to look "fake" for lack of a better word. It's harder to accept it as a movie because quite plainly, it looks like a home movie on a camcorder. That's also not the fault of the studios, but it's a huge obstacle to overcome.
Yeah, it is a problem. One of the most common things that average people said about it is that it "looks like a soap opera". Which is sad, because it really does look good. One of the big hopes is that as consumers and movie goers become more tech savvy, they will be able to more readily see the difference.
If anyone is interested in seeing it, the "Soarin'" rides at Disney Land and Disney World use the 48 FPS IMAX format.
Oh yeah, 3D glasses are totally gross when you've got hundreds of people wearing them a week. Plus, I already wear glasses, and I hate having to wear glasses over my glasses. It's uncomfortable.
This is my biggest problem with 3D. Hopefully the 3D tech that doesn't require glasses will become more abundant if it turns out that 3D is a decent film making tool.
[font="Tahoma"][SIZE="2"]"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."
-Terry Pratchett[/SIZE][/font]
I used to have a few tubes of them when I was younger...
