5 years then it's all 3D?

[Cracker Funk]

First... never call people out. It's rather poor form.

I have never said that I "refuse to pay the money to go see one". I have said that I will not pay the excessive rates that current shows charge. In fact, if you source my information that you are paraphrasing, you'll see where I was talking about $18 tickets. I'm pretty sure that in that same discussion (or thereabouts) I mention Alice (and some other 3D material) that I had free tickets for, that I have seen... and commented on.

It's no secret I'm a cheap bastard. I have also not found it necessary to mention that the local dollar-theater I frequent (I'll wait 30 days to catch films at the second-run, no prob) has a 3D projector. For the unholy price of

Spoiler

FOUR dollars

I can view exactly what you have been watching - after a brief delay 'til it hits the second run.

Imo, even first-run non-3D films are overpriced and not worth my wallet.




No, it's not even comparable. Improvements in animation & CGI ain't even the same ballpark as being a 3D experience.

The 3D experience of today is almost exactly the same as that of the 80's... but with better eye-candy.

Whoah, dude. Beep, beep, beep (that's me, backing up). Sorry, man, I didn't actually mean anything by it (calling you out). I'm a pretty straight-forward person, when I'm serious about something. You've seen the way I've dealt with he who shall not be named. If I'm serious in a thread, I'm very upfront and clear. If I use a phrase like "calling you out" (or "don't be hatin", like I did in another thread, with sonnyboo), I'm just messin' around. To me, phrases like those are inherintly silly, and I wouldn't ever use them in a serious way. My mistake.

That is pretty sweet that you've got what sounds to be like a terrific second-run theater nearby. It's worth noting, however, that not all 3D screens are built equally. And I'm not just talking about Imax. Even just between different cineplexes, I've noticed considerable difference, sometimes, between the 3D imagery. So, maybe you've seen modern 3D at it's best, but honestly, I can't be sure that you have (not calling you out, just saying that I can't help but wonder if there's a possibility that you saw "Avatar" in a substandard theater).

Especially since you're saying it's the same today as it was in the 80's. I mean, from a technological perspective, that's just false (though, I assume you were talking about the viewing experience, not the technology). But even from the perspective of the viewing experience -- I guess it's just opinion, and mine is no better than yours, but I don't know where you're coming from with that one. I was around in the 80's, too, and I remember the 3D being quite different.

sonnyboo, I'm not sure that 3D will "fall on it's face", but I do agree with you that there will be a backlash, of sorts, and it will die down in popularity (unless someone can figure out how to use it well, in live action). I think with animated movies, it's here for the long haul. But with live action ? "Journey to the Center of the Earth" - crap. "Alice" - crap. "Titans" - crap. "Last Airbender" - crap. "Pirhana" - crap (yes, I actually spent money on that stupid movie). "Destination" - crap (never wasting money on a stupid horror flick again). "Valentine's Day" and "Resident Evil" - (I never saw them, but reliable sources tell me they were) - crap.

Sooner or later, people are gonna notice the trend, no? So, I guess in that sense, I can concede that it's popularity is a fad. I just don't think it'll disappear completely, cuz it seems to work pretty well with animation.

 

[bhikkhu]

I think we all can agree that camera angles, lighting, colours, sounds and music in film are not used for their own sake but to "tell the story". All these aspects have to "make sense" within the film; they're tools.
3D on the other hand is "flashy", it doesn't serve the story because it draws the attention to itself.
I can't think of how 3D could possibly support a story, unless you build the whole story on "the 3D experience" and that alone won't make a good film.
The main problem of 3D is, like others have already pointed out, that it didn't evolve out of an "artistic need" but because studios thought of a way to make more money; sure, sound in film and colour-film were created because of the same reason, but it provided filmmakers with more creative opportunities to "design" a film; sound and colour are variable; 3D on the other hand is either there or it isn't and (since it requires more attention than "normal" film [someone wrote something about this already]) limits creative choices.
In addition to that I found 3D to be extremely unnatural; or do people "in the real world" walk around in awe because of how perfectly three dimensional everything is? most people don't even "notice" colours in real-life.
I never have the feeling that there's something missing when I look at ("2D") pictures or watch films.

So my point is there is a universal law at work.

Tape cassette=Dead
CD=Dying
MP3=Alive

Universe has a law that works if you like it or not.

Whether you consider Tapes to be dead or alive and kickin depends on what (sub)culture you belong to. Small indie-labels and punkrock bands still use cassette tapes to release their music, in India most of the people still buy tapes.
Though you didn't mention them, Vinyl records too are very much alive, I'm a vinyl guy myself.
People still prefer books over e-book readers.
I don't agree with your "universal law", especially because 3D doesn't belong to the category you were talking about, as you listed media and not "tools". The equivalent in "film" would be Film vs Video.
Not every development is necessarily a good development, and just because there's something new coming up doesn't mean that we should cease to use the old stuff; on the contrary, very often the best results come from people who understood how to combine both. Super 8 is a perfect example for that, modern filmstocks and 2K telecine made it look better than it ever did in the past.

 

[Cracker Funk]

3D on the other hand is "flashy", it doesn't serve the story because it draws the attention to itself.
I can't think of how 3D could possibly support a story

In "Beowulf", there's this gorgeous shot, in which the camera flies from the ale-house, or whatever you call it, out of the village, up the mountain, and into Grendle's cave, then to his ear. The shot takes forever, not rushing to get to where it needs to go. As the sound slowly dies down, we fly through trees and over valleys, and stuff, and the vast distance between Grendle and the townspeople becomes very noticeable. So, when we enter Grendle's ear, and hear how the beat from the townspeople's music thunders in his head, we understand how their presence is driving him mad. This shot does not have anywhere near the same impact, in 2D. In this respect, the spacial reference is absolutely crucial to telling the story.

Also, in the same movie, there are a good number of shots that give the viewer a voyeuristic feel, as we peek out at the action, from say, a mouse-hole. Again, in this respect, the feeling of being in that space absolutely has an impact on the feel of the shot.

In "Avatar", when Jake steps into his avatar body, for the first time, there is a brief shot that is one of the few exceptions to the rule in the movie -- that the 3D is mostly used to just give it "texture" or "depth", without really having anything pop out at you. But in this shot, the "camera" is wide angle, and placed at a close distance to Jake's feet, making them really pop out at the audience. The camera, and especially the 3D aspect is clue-ing you in to something that should be obvious -- Jake wiggling the toes, that he's so sorely missed. Sure, this shot works the same, in 2D, but I think the argument can be made that it works better in 3D.

In "Monsters vs. Aliens", the 3D is used nicely, to convey just how completely huge Gigantagirl is, or whatever her name is. Same info can be conveyed in 2D, but it has a bigger impact in 3D.

These are just a few examples, and it's worth noting that this is a young technology (in it's modern existence, which is, in fact a different technology). Sure 3D has been around a long time, but it's never been used the way it has been, in the last few years. In the past, it's ONLY reason for existence was to hurl things at the audience. That still happens today, but a lot of movies are choosing not to do that. If you can't think of any way that 3D can serve the story, you're just not thinking hard enough.

Besides, I can't agree with your assertion that EVERYTHING must serve the story. Does THX surround sound tell the story? Foley artists tell the story. Composers tell the story. But can't foley artists and composers help tell the story without THX surround sound? I mean, a good movie, with good sound, is still a good movie, with good sound, when I watch it on my regular-old stereo TV. But I really prefer my surround sound, because it's a more immersive experience. I feel it pulls me into the movie more, almost literally.

In my opinion, 3D (when used effectively) is the visual equivalent of surround sound. You don't need it. A good movie is still good in 2D. But some of us just prefer to have our movies wrap themselves around us, as best they can.

 

[Scoopicman]

The 3D experience of today is almost exactly the same as that of the 80's... but with better eye-candy.

I agree. I am one of those who gets headaches from watching it - including AVATAR. Maybe, it has to do with me being color blind. The funny thing about AVATAR 3-D, is that it is very subtle. It's a lot like watching a 2-D movie, but still having to wear glasses.

There should be no ultimatums about whether it will go all 3-D or 2-D. The fact is, 3-D will always have to be a choice. It is exclusive of the one eyed audience and those with stigmas and color blindness. Only true holographic images could lay claim as a total audience future format, because focus, color and depth perception won't be an issue.


Also this: 2-D and 3-D are different kinds of filmmaking. 3-D requires very deep focus and Point Of Convergence calculation to be effective. 2-D is the preference of filmmakers who like to control where the audience "looks." That would be use of shallow depth of field and rack focus. Shallow DOF is effective at hiding set deficiencies and company logos in the background (particularly important with indie filmmakers avoiding royalty costs and expensive sets).

You know what prosumer filmmakers are obsessed with, right now? The Canon 5D, 7D and T2i! Everything is shifting to shallow depth of field, because it is the fastest way to "filmic." Throw in some enhancements to data compression and rolling shutter and you may see a revolution. How can deep focus 3-D compete with this? That doesn't mean there isn't any place for it. There have long been 3-D film and videos, so it's not an analogue versus digital debate.

As stated, AVATAR grabbed the suits in the industry for the simple fact that 3-D presentation made more money than conventional theaters. Credit the storytelling for that. The 3-D cash cow side-effect had nothing to do with the format, otherwise, MY BLOODY VALENTINE and everything that came before it would have benefitted.

 

[bhikkhu]

Besides, I can't agree with your assertion that EVERYTHING must serve the story. Does THX surround sound tell the story? Foley artists tell the story. Composers tell the story. But can't foley artists and composers help tell the story without THX surround sound? I mean, a good movie, with good sound, is still a good movie, with good sound, when I watch it on my regular-old stereo TV. But I really prefer my surround sound, because it's a more immersive experience. I feel it pulls me into the movie more, almost literally.

In my opinion, 3D (when used effectively) is the visual equivalent of surround sound. You don't need it. A good movie is still good in 2D. But some of us just prefer to have our movies wrap themselves around us, as best they can.

Well, we both want different things from films, we've already noticed that in past discussions, imo film is not just a rollercoaster ride so I see no need for THX sound or 3D images. For the films I want to see (and for stories in general), 3D is completely unimportant; and the examples for a good use of 3D that you mentioned are the same kind of films, if a film requires surround sound and 3D to be fully enjoyed it only proves that these aren't great movies but gimmickery; on the other hand whether you watch The Seventh Seal on a 63" HD tv-set and in (assuming it had been shot in) surround sound or on a crt tv from the 1960s makes absolutely no difference, either way it's an awesome film.


btw.
Please note that I wrote: "tell the story", not: tell the story, so supporting the story is not a dogma for me, but putting it that way saved time and words and made my point relatively clear.

 

[sonnyboo]

Boo, Zen, all you awesome filmmakers, I see where your coming from It's all about making money true, but for now until we take over as INDIE WOOD HEHE! If they say we are going 3D then we must adjust and go with the curve, just saying.

I'm not right about all this but I do feel that a make a good point on where things are going.

And some of you have really good points, even if Hollywood doesn't drive it gaming will.

I am not arrogant enough to say I'm 100% right, but my guess is still that 3D is a fad that may not die down, but it won't take over. This Panasonic 3D camcorder is a start, but I think the fact that they already had a "Prosumer" 3D camcorder means the fad is closer to ending than beginning.

When director's like Scorsese and Christopher Nolan say they will never make a 3D film, I think it shows that a lot of filmmakers don't even want to try. Someone else posted that 3D is just a way to separate theatrical film releases from television - and that's right. It's a way to charge more to see the movie, give the experience something separate from the home theater, surround sound 50" Plasma experience in your living room. With 3D Plasma's already out, that negates the experience at the theater and the house of cards collapses in on itself.... none of which relates to the real problems - telling a great story which has nothing to do with 2D or 3D.

I may be wrong. Maybe 3D will explode and permeate the market more. If enough companies want to sink the money into it and drive the prices down, it might catch on.... but being in "The Great Recession" doesn't make THAT very likely. Just ask Sony if BLU RAY took off as well as they had hoped during these economic times.

I cannot accurately predict the future. Who knows?

 

[Papertwinproductions]

Someone else posted that 3D is just a way to separate theatrical film releases from television - and that's right. It's a way to charge more to see the movie, give the experience something separate from the home theater, surround sound 50" Plasma experience in your living room.

This is an extremely intelligible point. Simplistic as the definition I'll follow with may be, I believe every ounce of 3D's emergence, and the legacy it could perhaps hold, points towards the decline of Cinema. 3D, momentarily, offered what we couldn't get at home, what nobody could download, what was, for a time being, belonging to the theatre. It regained an audience, that I'm sure, found an enrichment in "The Cinema experience".

Which is what, as a film-making community, we desire. A resurgance in the original movie-going ocassion.

But perhaps, now, this hinders those not in the 3D frame, as a technique holds the masses, bringing them from the dreaded illegal downloading, that many film-makers are not fond, nor can't afford. Would this, if it did have the life that many-myself- believe it won't, take a huge step to reviving a struggling cinema?

Does that mean the new film-maker, that is not a house-hold name, that does not have the credentials or track record of the masters, will soon venture up a mountain twice the size?

If that is indeed the case, if the technology of 3D surpasses the logging of 3D accessible televisions already sat firmly in the living rooms of many, reassurring us, that yes, there is a purity in the cinema. That you'll never have the experience of a picture that you do in the picture house surrounded by strangers, whatever your television set at home, however much you dim the lights. How do we respond?

Accept, the hypothetical - far off - chance, that 3D has re-birthed cinema, and take our challenge head on?

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

It is what it has been the 5 other times it's reared it's head, a fad. It will become somewhat popular as a marketing gimmick, then it will die down, and reappear in 10 or 15 years.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I hear a lot of people using the logic that since this has happened before, history will just repeat itself. Well, that old addage is generally true, but not always.

I look at 3D, the way it's used now, and I see history changing. It's being used in different ways than ever before, the technology itself is radically different, and it's being accepted by a much wider audience (it used to just be for teen frightfests). I see these changes, and that makes me think that it's future is unpredictable.

I think what most of what you guys are saying will turn out to be mostly true -- it's popularity will probably die-down. But Pixar, alone, should keep it alive, methinks.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

When it can done without any glasses of any kind, THEN it will actually stick, for some applications.

 

[learnfilmonline]

bhikkhu by the way nothing dies it just evolves. I think folks are afraid of change.

 

[learnfilmonline]

And Boo great depressions are when things explode.

 

[sonnyboo]

And Boo great depressions are when things explode.

How are the masses going to afford 3D being 5x-10x more expensive for players and TV's when they won't even buy Blu Rays at 20% more expensive? I think this hypothesis on economics is contrary to the realities of retail, but I who knows?

Maybe 3D is here to stay. I will concede that this is the first time I've seen studios and manufacturers push a product line this hard in a long time. It's a very fast conversion, but the consumers have not dived in head first. If they don't in the next 18 months, I doubt this trend will last. I don't know. It's hard to say.

3D may or may not be the future of indie film. I'd say it's less likely to happen, but not impossible. Everyone is waiting to see if it catches on with these 3D networks/broadcasts. The 3D players and 3D TV's are not selling at Best Buy..... yet.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

As an emplyee of the biggest DVD distributor in the country, I can tell you Blu ray certainly was NOT what we hoped it would be. Format changes are a huge boon to us. We made a mint when DVD replaced video, but Blu Ray, is barely inching upwards. People don't like HD nearly enough to pay the extra money in most cases.

There are "FX" driven movies where 3D is cool, but it adds a big fat ZERO to the experience of most films, just as HD really doesn't add much to most films.

 

[Murdock]

3D will catch on about as well as color TV did...........I really dont know. But if I may make an

uninformed opinion, I would have to say I dont want movies to be this all-encompassing "event".

What happens when I want to watch the movie at home?That same 20 ft. tall mega-scene

becomes a 12 inch Bleh. And when everyone is busy taking in the event, what happens to storyline,

acting, and all the other things that make a great movie great? I think it looks cool but its n ot my

end-all-be-all when it comes to a movie. I would still watch The Outlaw Josey Wales over them,

any day. Kill em now!!

 

[Scoopicman]

As an emplyee of the biggest DVD distributor in the country, I can tell you Blu ray certainly was NOT what we hoped it would be. Format changes are a huge boon to us. We made a mint when DVD replaced video, but Blu Ray, is barely inching upwards. People don't like HD nearly enough to pay the extra money in most cases.

Everything is simple economics, which is why DSLRs are hot with indies. I can tell you that I wish I had Blu-ray, but the economy hit my job bad!! I work based on tourism and my hours got cut by 2/3rds. Of course, I work conventions in Las Vegas, the #1 city for unemployment and forclosures. (With great growth came....) So, I'm a filmmaker with an HD camera and I can't even afford to buy the HD stuff.

Sorry to say, but HD is not a priority for me and most of the country right now. As for 3-D....

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I have the cheapest $99 Blu Ray player you can buy. It's hooked up to the 19" HD TV my son got for Christmas (which is the only HD TV in the whole house). I own zero Blu Ray discs. I have my first film mastered for Blu Ray, and 4 or 5 copies of it left, but they are the only Blu Rays in my house.

 

[learnfilmonline]

Why do you guys keep going back to the story? Do you think just because the picture quality is good filmmakers are going to forget about story. In my opinion this is the time to jump on the new technology and add a bad ass story. Now you have Hollywoods attention. I have researched 3D for a while now, and what I see is they are looking for content like wild animals. So miss this train just because you think you can't afford it not cool. I understand you have your opinion and it's very valid, but I believe this is like the .com boom just don't sit there 20 years from now saying man I had a chance to produce some cool 3D content.

If your worried about funds there are many resources out there with people that support new technologies you just have to search.

And Boo I still don't agree. You all think this economy is bad but smart business people are making more money now than when the economy was good.

I'm not trying to be an ass I just believe filmmakers are missing out on the big picture. I know I'm not Steven Spielberg, and I haven't made millions yet, but we have a good foundation set up to help filmmakers some pretty cool ideas. I've been doing this since 1999, and filmmakers still don't support the business side of filmmaking it's always about the look, which I know is important, but how do you build a house without a foundation?

 

[sonnyboo]

Why do you guys keep going back to the story?

Because if 3D doesn't enhance the story or if it isn't a part of the 3D experience - like a Woody Allen dialogue driven style movie, why shoot in 3D at all? There's no spectacle and no point to the movie being in 3D if the story doesn't call for it. That's why people bring up story all the time. No one will pay extra to see 2 convenience store clerks making dick jokes in 3D....

And Boo I still don't agree. You all think this economy is bad but smart business people are making more money now than when the economy was good.

It's cool. We don't have to agree. These are opinions so no one is truly right or wrong. The basis for my argument is that in order to make money, you need consumers to spend money... and in this economy the data is clearly showing that people are not spending money on new technology like Blu Ray, which is far less expensive than 3D for home theater, so it seems likely, but I could be wrong here, that most consumers are not going shell out the extra 300%-500% for the 3D TV's or 3D Blu Ray players....

I agree that there are smart people making more money now, but I don't think they are indie filmmakers shooting in 3D.... Can you point to a successful independent filmmaker who disproves this? Or is it your hypothesis that IF someone dares try this, they MIGHT be the breakthrough hit... because I believe that is possible, but I personally won't take the risk on this $21,000 3D camcorder and make a 3D indie film because (and here's where I tie it all together) I don't have a story that would support 3D. If the 3D is not something that supports the story, then it's simply a gimmick and in the case of a movie, a gimmick that will fail if all I've got is people talking or doing the same things as any other indie low budget movie... but it's in 3D - then I honestly don't believe it will be successful - not creatively or financially.

If an indie is to make a 3D movie, it will have to be something where they use the 3D as a part of the story (see PIRAHNNA 3D, which bombed at the box office by the way). The gamble and risk is in that to make the 3D affective, you need to do cool things with the 3D, but then if 99% of the people on home video and TV don't get to see it in 3D, these affects and gimmicks are worthless. The bet you are making is that 3D TV and channels WILL explode and take off. There is no guarantee that is going to happen and the public will buy into it. You're asking indie filmmakers to risk the profitability and future endurability of their movie on something, at the moment, is NOT available to the majority of consumers. Looking at this as an investor, this is too risky for me.


And as strongly as I believe this - I still think it's possible I could be wrong and you might be right. You could be right and whatever indie filmmaker that jumps on the bandwagon could hold a lottery ticket by being ahead of the curve IF the 3D channels are hungry for content and there isn't enough and they pay out the nose to an indie film in 3D just to fill time. I just won't be the one to jump off that ledge with my investor's money...

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I could buy myself a lot more audience and attract a lot more investment money by using the money I would spend on 3d to hire a name actor. It's not the smartest use of those funds.

Most people I talk to are ALREADY getting to the "3D, yawn who cares" stage with this current fad. Hollywoood WANTS 3D to sell tickets, but I persoanllly think it has already pretty much started to fade.