THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: scarred on 30 Apr 2010, 13:20
-
Why I Hate 3D Movies (http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110) by Roger Ebert.
Yep, he's on my good side again.
-
While it's an interesting effect, I am one of those people who gets headaches from it. I also find it pretty much unnecessary. I saw Avatar without it and liked it just fine. I saw Alice and How to Train Your Dragon in 3D and while both were fun, both would have been just as good without it and the latter had a surcharge, which sucked. (I saw Alice at a different theater which has a flat rate price.) Will I see more 3D movies? Only if other people want to, otherwise I'll stick with the "flatness".
-
The man's a curmudgeon. I haven't read the article yet, and maybe I'll like it a lot, but speaking generally he's totally a "damn kids with their rock and roll" kinda guy.
-
I haven't read the article yet, but I do feel that a lot of movies shouldn't have 3D. How To Train Your Dragon did it well, mostly since it was built around it, but Alice and Wonderland added it in after, making the effects nauseating and a little jarring. Basically, it's a gimmick.
-
The only good 3D movie I've ever seen was Coraline, and I hesitate to even call that film 3D because it was done so artfully and with such subtlety that I don't want to associate it with other, despicably gimmicky 3D movies.
-
I saw Coraline and thought it was pretty dang awesome without being in 3D, though my cousin was a little miffed. Every time something came at us he would say, "Now, that could have been in 3D!!
-
Dang kids with their 3D!
-
The man's a curmudgeon. I haven't read the article yet, and maybe I'll like it a lot, but speaking generally he's totally a "damn kids with their rock and roll" kinda guy.
He has a point this time though. There's drawbacks to 3d and sometimes they hurt films more than they help and for various reasons it's being pushed as a standard as opposed to an option. Until very recently, for example, you couldn't really have 3-d and vibrant colors in the same film, and that's still true to an extent due to the light issue. Sometimes it's a fair trade (Coraline, for example, isn't really hurt by a muted color palette, although tbh I think the loss of 3d for moar color is a pretty fair trade even in that case), but in other cases it really can be a case of "What were they thinking?" when you see the film both ways. Granted, I'm pretty sensitive to such things; I took part in a study once that was intended to help establish/revise how good people are at distinguishing between different hues and I ended up in the 97th percentile.
Some of his reasons are kinda bullshitty though; Just because something isn't currently being used well doesn't meant that it is impossible to do so, which is why I'm somewhat annoyed by some of the clamor for 3d but not really upset about the idea of 3d in principle.
-
I think by making sure he praises Avatar a few times, as well as the drops of Herzog and Scorsese, he's making it clear that his issue is when films do 3D purely for the sake of it in post-production. I'm inclined to agree with him there, the films that weren't filmed in 3D are generally pretty rubbish at doing the 3D thing, whereas I thought it was done very well in Avatar.
-
Oh hey, big surprise, 90% of [specific creative pursuit] sucks, and is done for commercial gain than for artistic reasons! Wow
-
Yeah, but in this case it sometimes causes headaches and disorientation for reasons other than moral outrage.
-
Once people develop something similar to all the visual shorthand people have with colour using whatever properties 3d has then I think it'll be more useful for films that aren't big gimmicks. I think the tacking on of 3d in post is pretty awful, but if it's filmed in 3d with 3d in mind then I have no problem with it. It still might not be the best use of the technology but the language of 3d isn't developed yet and it's not going to happen without people trying it.
-
Yeah, but in this case it sometimes causes headaches and disorientation for reasons other than moral outrage.
I could say the same for certain sub-genres of electronic music.
-
The only good 3D movie I've ever seen was Coraline, and I hesitate to even call that film 3D because it was done so artfully and with such subtlety that I don't want to associate it with other, despicably gimmicky 3D movies.
See, I actually think Coraline sorta lacked in the 3D department. I just felt like there was so much more they could have included in the 3D, and I was disappointed to not see it used.
Also,
Oh hey, big surprise, 90% of [specific creative pursuit] sucks, and is done for commercial gain than for artistic reasons! Wow
And
Once people develop something similar to all the visual shorthand people have with colour using whatever properties 3d has then I think it'll be more useful for films that aren't big gimmicks. I think the tacking on of 3d in post is pretty awful, but if it's filmed in 3d with 3d in mind then I have no problem with it. It still might not be the best use of the technology but the language of 3d isn't developed yet and it's not going to happen without people trying it.
Something somewhat new is shitty, big surprise! But people keep using it because it is a new, and exciting technology with a hopefully bright future ahead of it. We aren't gonna get to good great fantastic uses of 3D unless we keep using it. I did not like the movie Avatar. BUT I will say that I thought the 3D was really nicely done. I look forward to seeing something do better than that.
I also look forward to them making 3D glasses that fit me ok.
Also, I just started reading the article. How is 3D "unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness"? I mean, shit. Can we talk about Amelie in 3d? Or The Fountain? Or any Aronofsky film, for that matter. Or any film involving the sea, or outer space? These would be fantastic in 3D.
Also, "What would Fargo gain in 3-D?" Awesomeness, thats what! People being killed with Axes IN 3D! Body in a wood chipper IN 3D!
Also, when it gets to the bullshit about Cameron, I just read "ohmigawd! I love James Cameron! My lips are so chapped from kissing his butt and my nose so brown!"
-
Yeah, darn that Ebert and his opinions about directors who make consistently decent films.
-
Plus, he actually does go out there and call the Titanic 3-D thing what it is: a cash grab.
-
I'm glad that Ebert could finally find a way to put into words how I've felt about this for the last few years. I've always hated the advent of 3D films, and what it might mean for the future of the film industry. But every time someone made a comparison to talkies, or technicolor, I could never come up with a good retort for how I felt that didn't have me coming off like the people who said sound in films would never take off. But now Ebert is able to formulate the real difference.
We see in color, we hear things, we see in three dimensions. This should be the same for our movies. But with technicolor and sound, we're not trying to trick our brains into accepting these things as reality. It is reality, the colors are really there, the sounds are really being made. But with 3D, it's all just a trick. We're already creating the depth in our head in the same process we always do. We don't really see in three dimensions, we take the two dimensional image we perceive and add depth to it. That's exactly what happens when we watch a 2D film, and 3D is just a gimmick, trying to mess with your brain, not recreate an experience that is missing with film currently.
When technology gets to the point where we can have holographic films, that is something I will fully endorse. But I'm not going to pay twice the money for a gimmick.
-
Something somewhat new is shitty, big surprise! But people keep using it because it is a new, and exciting technology with a hopefully bright future ahead of it. We aren't gonna get to good great fantastic uses of 3D unless we keep using it. I did not like the movie Avatar. BUT I will say that I thought the 3D was really nicely done. I look forward to seeing something do better than that.
Also, I just started reading the article. How is 3D "unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness"? I mean, shit. Can we talk about Amelie in 3d? Or The Fountain? Or any Aronofsky film, for that matter. Or any film involving the sea, or outer space? These would be fantastic in 3D.
Also, "What would Fargo gain in 3-D?" Awesomeness, thats what! People being killed with Axes IN 3D! Body in a wood chipper IN 3D!
I think my biggest problem with 3D is some parts are blurry, which really messes with my head and, other than the glasses, are part of what causes my headaches. I don't think it's shitty, but I doubt I'll be seeing many 3D movies until they fix this problem. I don't like having to take off the glasses and pop some tylenol halfway through a movie. It does not make an enjoyable experience. The reason Avatar looked so great in 3D was because it was filmed in 3D. Also it was mostly computer generated, which seems to make the process a bit easier. But really, it's still pretty stunning in 2D.
Amelie and The Fountain are visually stunning as is. But I don't want them in 3D. It'll mess up the color, which is the strongest visual element in both films. (Also The Fountain was terrible, so I'm not watching it again regardless.) And again, it will look odd since neither were filmed in 3D.
When technology gets to the point where we can have holographic films, that is something I will fully endorse. But I'm not going to pay twice the money for a gimmick.
This.
-
I think 3-d can be pulled off well, anyone who's seen Morrisey's Frankenstein knows exactly what I mean, but as Scorsese said somewhere I'm too lazy to look up it is usually far too taxing on the director. With the teck they have to think in an other dimension and will be spread to thin in most cases.
-
I think my biggest problem with 3D is some parts are blurry, which really messes with my head and, other than the glasses, are part of what causes my headaches. I don't think it's shitty, but I doubt I'll be seeing many 3D movies until they fix this problem. I don't like having to take off the glasses and pop some tylenol halfway through a movie. It does not make an enjoyable experience. The reason Avatar looked so great in 3D was because it was filmed in 3D. Also it was mostly computer generated, which seems to make the process a bit easier. But really, it's still pretty stunning in 2D.
But these are problems that should be fixable. And they can only be fixed when their is more pressure for 3D to be better, which won't happen unless more people are using it.
Amelie and The Fountain are visually stunning as is. But I don't want them in 3D. It'll mess up the color, which is the strongest visual element in both films. (Also The Fountain was terrible, so I'm not watching it again regardless.) And again, it will look odd since neither were filmed in 3D.
I'm not saying that now they'd look great. I'm saying if these films were filmed in 3D they'd be stunning. I'm staying that it is not impossible to imagine 3D used for artsy films, or "grown up" films to be in 3D. I just feel like Ebert saying that is kinda bullshit because it could happen.
When technology gets to the point where we can have holographic films, that is something I will fully endorse. But I'm not going to pay twice the money for a gimmick.
This.
[/quote]
And thats all cool and understandable. And when they start making those and the first few tries aren't fantastic, are you gonna complain? I mean, yeah, 3D right now isn't where it could and should be, but it has some pretty great potential. And to discredit it because right now it isn't going what you want is kinda crappy. I mean, if I completely stopped going to the movies because 90% of films released are crap, I'd miss out on some pretty great things. If you just stopped watching movies altogether, just because some are crap, you'd miss some great advancements.
I'm not saying you should run off and watch every 3D film you can, and live with a constant headache. I'm just saying give it time, and don't discredit it right away.
-
I'm not discrediting it. I'd love it if it were better, but that'll take time. I mean, Nvidia is working on 3D gaming technology. It's on the same level as the movies right now, but one day, I'm sure it'll be fantastic. But is either necessary? No. They're luxuries. I can do without them while they're working the kinks out. That's what I'm trying to get at here.
-
i'm one of those people who gets headaches from 3d movies, i have never had fun watching one.
so fuck this shit.
-
Yeah, something I didn't mention in my prior tirade against 3D movies is my chronic vertigo, which means that after 3 minutes in a 3D theater the room is spinning and I'm ready to pass out. But even if not for the vertigo, I'd still hate 3D.
-
Oh hey, big surprise, 90% of [specific creative pursuit] sucks, and is done for commercial gain than for artistic reasons! Wow
Hey coincidence! I was just reminded of sturgeon's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law) the other day.
ps. every time i hear the name sturgeon i cant help but think of him on his back in a russian market having his belly slit open for caviar
-
You'll know the system's made it when they start making 3D Porn :-D
-
8-)
"It's like it's coming at me"
-
Thank you for ruining my Breakfast
-
This is not why I hate 3D films but it's not helping either (http://www.techeye.net/internet/woman-says-3d-porno-made-her-pregnant).
-
that's got to be a joke right
please tell me it's a fucking joke
-
I've seen it on other, more legitimate, news sites. That's just the first one that came up on a google search.
-
It was a hoax, the woman cheated and couldn't think of a better excuse as to why her baby was a different color than its parents.
-
...YOU THINK SO?
-
That's like the guy who said "faaaake" to the youtube video of a Terminator using a vending machine.
-
Also, when it gets to the bullshit about Cameron, I just read "ohmigawd! I love James Cameron! My lips are so chapped from kissing his butt and my nose so brown!"
Lip.