3D Movies...Great Or Sucky?

[Gail Simone]

I'm not sure I care about 3d at all. I though Avatar was an asspain and part of it was the 3d.

What do you guys think?

[afroloq]

I'm not sure I care about 3d at all. I though Avatar was an asspain and part of it was the 3d.

What do you guys think?

Wasn't all that crazy about Avatar's story but I liked the effects...but you want to talk sucky 3D??

Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans!

...'nuff said


You want good 3D? Toy Story 3

I just don't feel vested enough in 3d to buy a 3D HDTV and all the extras.

[spidey_mon]

I never cared for 3D, the idea is quite pointless

[Gryphon]

Im not a fan of 3D movies.

[Kevin T Brown]

3D Movies...Great Or Sucky?

The answer to that is YES.

It really depends on the movie. It seems 3D works and looks a LOT better with computer generated cartoons than live action. I loved Avatar and though it looked very good in 3D, but the strongest 3D aspects of it were computer generated.

[Silent G]

Cheap sucky gimmick. If Hollywood wanted to put a gimmick back in to theaters they should have bet on Smell O Vision.

[Kevin T Brown]

Cheap sucky gimmick. If Hollywood wanted to put a gimmick back in to theaters they should have bet on Smell O Vision.

Nah, Feel Around (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCq_nzlou0Q) is a much better option....

[Infra-Man]

So far, 3D has been irrelevant to my experience of movies. The depth effects haven't really wowed me that much to a point where I think it's a new step forward in cinematography--in fact, I think the ingenuity of lens choice in 2D manipulates depth more expertly and subtly--nor have I seen a movie where I've thought 3D was integral to the experience. And since it's estimated that up to 10% of the population cannot even experience stereoscopic 3D, its appeal and supposed benefits are lost on a lot of people.

I still believe that if filmmakers want to give audiences an immersive and unforgettable experience, then it will involve a compelling story, characters you care about, and a unique vision rather than the use of stereoscopic glasses.

EDIT:
One movie that I was glad to see balk at the trend of 3D-ification was Inception.

[Thequeerjock]

Depends on the film. Avatar looked pretty good, but I heard a lot of people stating that the 3D effects in the Last Airbender (unsurprisingly. It was an M Night Shamylan movie after all.) sucked.

[Gaelforce]

I saw Avatar in 3D and in 2D (Mom can't do 3D) and I found it much more enjoyable in 3D.

However, other movies like Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland didn't improve any with the 3D.

I think my favorite 3D movies are the ones where they use it on a more subtle level. I saw the animated movie Bolt in 3D and was blown away just by the opening shot - a very simple 'push' through the window from the street to see the puppy in the shop. It was very well done.

In general, I don't think movies benefit that much from the process, though I heard Pirhana was a lot of gimmicky fun (so was Brendan Fraser's Journey to the Center of the Earth a few years back - bad movie but the 3D there was kinda fun in places)

[Cth]

As mentioned earlier, it depends on the movie.

If it was shot with 3d in mind, it becomes a LOT better. Despicable Me, Monsters vs. Aliens, etc.

When it's not, it's at best pointless (Toy Story 3) to horrible (Clash of the Titans).

It's part of the reason why I'm looking forward to Transformers 3, as it's being shot with 3d in mind by a director who got an eye towards visuals and a background with CGI (as Cameron did)

But yeah, it's a cheap way for studios to get some extra cash from fans, but also a way to cut down on some piracy. Some people will skip on the regular showing and see the 3d once and then pirate the film.

Sony's got the wrong idea though with 3d sets at home. Toshiba's making a 3d tv that doesn't require glasses.

[scout1279]

It depends. Avatar looked great and managed to use 3D as an enhancer and not a gimmick. It still didn't make it a good movie though, but it managed to take a completely unreal world and make it look real, which is impressive. When that gets applied to a movie that actually is good, it's going to be amazing.

I haven't seen Piranha 3D or any of the other movies that have fun with the gimmick of 3D, so I can't judge them yet. I'd like to though, and I think that James Cameron is being a bit of an idiot for criticizing them. Does he not have a sense of humor?

The stuff that wasn't filmed in 3D and then gets transferred, like Clash of the titans, is awful and should not be seen in 3D. It doesn't work.

[Infra-Man]

Film Forum did a recent 3D retrospective and I went to see Dial M for Murder in 3D, which is really not enhanced at all by the experience. There's a few foreground effects and the iconic image of Grace Kelly reaching her desperate, quivering hand to the audience, but it wasn't a film that lent itself to 3D.

Wound up missing Inferno (not the Argento movie, but another one) at Film Forum because of a cold last week, but that is supposed to be a really well made and forgotten classic of 50s 3D.

[Thequeerjock]

It depends. Avatar looked great and managed to use 3D as an enhancer and not a gimmick. It still didn't make it a good movie though, but it managed to take a completely unreal world and make it look real, which is impressive. When that gets applied to a movie that actually is good, it's going to be amazing.

I haven't seen Piranha 3D or any of the other movies that have fun with the gimmick of 3D, so I can't judge them yet. I'd like to though, and I think that James Cameron is being a bit of an idiot for criticizing them. Does he not have a sense of humor?

The stuff that wasn't filmed in 3D and then gets transferred, like Clash of the titans, is awful and should not be seen in 3D. It doesn't work.

James Cameron doesn't like anyone not named James Cameron.

[ever_seeking]

I don't care for 3D at all.

The glasses are annoying and yes, it's a cash grab.

I like having the option of not seeing a movie in 3D.

[Evan Waters]

The technology has a lot of potential. I thought Avatar used it well, taking a picture-window approach.

The problem is, though the technology for filming in 3-D has improved to a good degree, the viewing technology still has problems. It does diminish color and light (which in theory a filmmaker can combat by having the colors start out very saturated), it can cause headaches if you don't have perfect 20/20 vision, you can't tilt your head, etc.

[scout1279]

James Cameron doesn't like anyone not named James Cameron.

Excellent point.

[Alatheus]

The problem with Avatar was not the 3D. It was that terrible dialogue. It killed all my birds.

[c. page]

As mentioned earlier, it depends on the movie.

If it was shot with 3d in mind, it becomes a LOT better. Despicable Me, Monsters vs. Aliens, etc.

When it's not, it's at best pointless (Toy Story 3) to horrible (Clash of the Titans).

It's part of the reason why I'm looking forward to Transformers 3, as it's being shot with 3d in mind by a director who got an eye towards visuals and a background with CGI (as Cameron did)

But yeah, it's a cheap way for studios to get some extra cash from fans, but also a way to cut down on some piracy. Some people will skip on the regular showing and see the 3d once and then pirate the film.

Sony's got the wrong idea though with 3d sets at home. Toshiba's making a 3d tv that doesn't require glasses.

that's my view. if a movie was shot with 3-d in mind, and uses the effect for some innovation, i'm okay with it. it's when they try to add 3-d to movies after the fact that i get annoyed.

[AndrewCrossett]

I've never seen a movie that was improved by 3-D. It seems like a gimmick... keep people so fascinated with visual effects that they don't notice they're watching a bad movie.

It hampers the artistic freedom of the director and cinematographer, since shots can no longer be framed for best effect, but rather for purposes of sticking something in the viewers' faces to justify those high-priced tickets they bought.

The worst is when studios slap 3-D on a movie in post-production, because "every movie's gotta be in 3-D now! It's the new big thing!! Like Facebook!!!" There are no examples of movies that had 3-D added in post-production that did not suck as a result. It makes mediocre movies awful ("Clash of the Titans") and awful movies soul-suckingly atrocious ("Last Airbender").

I saw two good movies in theater this summer. The first, "Toy Story 3," was in 3-D. I loved the movie, but I can't think of a single scene that was enhanced at all by the 3-D. Not even the incinerator scene. It seems like it was nothing more than a ploy to suck an extra $4 out of me for the ticket.

The second, "Inception," was not in 3-D even though it easily could have been. And I think it was a much better movie for it.

I consider it a tacky distraction, for the most part. I'm glad to see that many directors are now insisting that just because a movie can have 3-D doesn't mean it should.

[MacQuarrie]

Let's look at film history...

When sound was added to movies, it was considered a gimmick. There were even novelty songs about how awful it was now that movies had sound; "We Can't Sleep in the Movies Anymore" by Jones & Hare ("The Happiness Boys") is one example.

It was an impressive gimmick, but only a gimmick, for a while, until Fritz Lang made "M", starring Peter Lorre, the first film in which sound became an integral part of the plot (a blind man recognizes somebody by sound, solving a mystery).

Around the same time, color became a gimmick. Lon Chaney's "Phantom of the Opera" contained an opulent masquerade ball scene filmed in Technicolor, and in another scene his cape was hand-tinted red for effect. Again there was criticism of the garish color and complaints about it being an unnecessary gimmick. Nonetheless, color gradually grew in popularity as an indicator of quality; high-budget films were in color, and low-budget "B" movies were black & white.

Finally, in 1939, color became an integral part of the story in "The Wizard of Oz", not only for the transition from the sepia (NOT black & white) of Kansas to the riotous Technicolor of Oz, but also for the significant Ruby Slippers (silver in the book) and Yellow Brick Road. Color had become necessary.

What 3D needs is a film in which the effect is actually necessary to the film, in the same way that sound was vital to "M" or color to "The Wizard of Oz." Until that happens, 3D will remain a gimmick.

[Evan Waters]

I saw two good movies in theater this summer. The first, "Toy Story 3," was in 3-D. I loved the movie, but I can't think of a single scene that was enhanced at all by the 3-D. Not even the incinerator scene. It seems like it was nothing more than a ploy to suck an extra $4 out of me for the ticket.


The movie itself didn't make much use of it, but I have to say the short preceding it used 3-D really, really well.

[AndrewCrossett]

The movie itself didn't make much use of it, but I have to say the short preceding it used 3-D really, really well.

That's true.

Things might improve if they perfect glasses-free 3-D and start utilizing it only in scenes where it can actually make a difference.

[The Xenos]

Eh. If I want to see a movie and it's in 3D (done well), that's an amazing bonus. Yet 3D isn't going to make me want to see a movie I didn't want to see. I've very much looking forward to Tron Legacy in 3D. Yet I was already looking forward to Tron. Unless I hear the 3D is sloppy and tacked on, I'm going to love it in 3D.

As much as I didn't care for Avatar's been there done that story and characters, I still enjoyed it. The 3D helped, but only helped me enjoy stuff I already liked. I wouldn't even say it was the effects as much as effects bringing to life wonderful design. The ships and alien creatures were a joy to watch. It was like a nature doc in 3D. That was the best part of the film in my eyes.

[Cam63]

The ones I've seen were pretty decent.

[JohnBehling]

I'm not a fan of 3D at all. I don't like wearing the glasses over my regular glasses, but more importantly I get a headache. Every time. Saw Avatar with a friend who was going through a hard time & I had to take my migraine meds first. So, I avoid it.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

I'm not sure I care about 3d at all. I though Avatar was an asspain and part of it was the 3d.

What do you guys think?

They're all terrible except for PIRHANA in 3-D. That was excellent filmmaking.

[ShaunN]

I'm not sure I care about 3d at all. I though Avatar was an asspain and part of it was the 3d.

What do you guys think?

I find that I don't really notice the 3D. My mind normalizes for it really fast and I don't think it has much of an effect on how I experience the film. So, for me, it's largely a waste.

That being said, two caveats: my sister saw "Avatar" in 3D and Imax and said it was an incredible experience.

Second, I recently saw a 3D TV (the kind that does not require glasses) and it really made a difference in what I was seeing. I can't explain that, but I noticed the difference right away and, in the few minutes I watched, I did not stop noticing the different in picture quality and effect. So, maybe it works in the home environment in a way it doesn't work in the cinema, at least for me.

[stealthwise]

Great for business, new revenue and selling an "experience" to people who would otherwise just sit on their ass at home and download the movie, or spend hours getting caught up on Cake Boss episodes on their PVR.

I saw the Dragon training movie at the theatre and it was... ok. The 3D was kind of irritating in some scenes though and I don't think I'd want to see it again like that.

[ever_seeking]

Definitely be more inclined to 3D if they could figure out how to provide it without the annoying glasses.

[Karen El]

It's going to remain a gimmick until they can do it without the glasses.

Even then, I don't see it as an advance of the same level as sound, or even colour. Not sure it's even up there with stereo. I reckon I'd place it at the same level as post-stereo sound, whatever it's currently called. It enhances the experience, but you don't lose anything essential if it's not there.

I'm fairly indifferent to it. If I was going to see a movie and I had a choice of regular or 3D, I'd probably pick the 3D, but I doubt I'd pay extra for it.

[silverboy]

It was cool for a few movies, but I'm ready for it to stop.

[Aiguille]

I have strabismus, and consequently no depth perception, so they give me a headache.

[CutterMike]

I thought that the 3D was okay in Coraline. It still gave me vertigo unless I held my head rigidly in one spot, but of the couple of 3D films that I've seen (and, to be honest, if a film is available in 2D and 3D, I'll opt for the 2D version because of the whole vertigo thing), that was the film that it worked best in, IMO.

3D TV, I think, is going to be an interesting sell. Until 3D films filter down to TV, the big draw seems to be sports. I think that I saw ESPN broadcasting some events in 3D already. Curiously, this may be the first TV/media technology of the last 40 years that WON'T be driven by porn. Home videotape takeup...? Hey, you could watch porn without having to set up the 8MM projector. Video CD? Porn. DVD? Porn. The internet...? I rest my case.

But 3D TV...? This will not be porn-driven; or if it is, it will be the first time that GAY porn rules, instead of straight porn. Because no straight guy is going to want to watch a giant schlong popping out of the screen straight at his face or stare into a 3D money shot.

[McIntyre]

Honestly, Hollywood should stop focusing on 3D effects and focus more on making good films. 3D effects don't draw me into movies and I stopped enjoying eye-candy and computer-generated action sequences in film years ago.

[Evan Waters]

The thing with 3-D TV is, I often just leave the TV going while I'm writing/working/wasting time on the computer, and catching visuals by looking at it now and again, and I'm sure I'm not alone. 3-D as it exists now requires your attention- you have to maintain a good viewing angle. When I'm at the movies that's great, I'm there to watch the movie. TV sometimes has my full attention, but sometimes not.

[DarkKnightJared]

I can see why Hollywood, and more specifically the theater industry, is pushing for it. When people with even the most meager of budgets can save up for big-screen TVs and surround sound easily enough, a lot of the theater experience can be easily replicated at home.

3D, however, is something that can't be done yet (even with those 3D TVs, I imagine them only being available to the really rich), so it makes sense to try to advertise for something that can't be replicated anywhere else.

Are they any good? Honestly, I don't remember seeing any movie in 3D recently, so I can't really say. But I get it.


Let's look at film history...

When sound was added to movies, it was considered a gimmick. There were even novelty songs about how awful it was now that movies had sound; "We Can't Sleep in the Movies Anymore" by Jones & Hare ("The Happiness Boys") is one example.

It was an impressive gimmick, but only a gimmick, for a while, until Fritz Lang made "M", starring Peter Lorre, the first film in which sound became an integral part of the plot (a blind man recognizes somebody by sound, solving a mystery).

Around the same time, color became a gimmick. Lon Chaney's "Phantom of the Opera" contained an opulent masquerade ball scene filmed in Technicolor, and in another scene his cape was hand-tinted red for effect. Again there was criticism of the garish color and complaints about it being an unnecessary gimmick. Nonetheless, color gradually grew in popularity as an indicator of quality; high-budget films were in color, and low-budget "B" movies were black & white.

Finally, in 1939, color became an integral part of the story in "The Wizard of Oz", not only for the transition from the sepia (NOT black & white) of Kansas to the riotous Technicolor of Oz, but also for the significant Ruby Slippers (silver in the book) and Yellow Brick Road. Color had become necessary.

What 3D needs is a film in which the effect is actually necessary to the film, in the same way that sound was vital to "M" or color to "The Wizard of Oz." Until that happens, 3D will remain a gimmick.

I definitely see what you mean--I just wonder what kind of movie would make 3D integral for the story...