Your Garage Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Samsung S8 Launch Limited time offer Luxury Beauty Handmade Mother's Day Gifts spring Book House Cleaning henriettalacks henriettalacks henriettalacks  All-New Echo Dot Starting at $89.99 Kindle Oasis Nintendo Switch Shop Now disgotg_gno_17
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

What has 3D contributed to cinema?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 534 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 22, 2012, 1:05:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 22, 2012, 5:00:59 PM PST
Joe Anthony says:
It seems to me that there is a drive to make more movies in the 3D format or even restore old movies in 3D. I saw "The Lion King" in 3D and I recently saw previews for "Titanic" in 3D. Personally, I hope it's a passing fad, like it was in the 1950s.

While I think 3D is fine if one is at an IMAX theater at a science museum or at Disneyworld where the intent is to make dinosaurs or Donald Duck pop out of the screen, I don't think as that sort of thing as the stuff of "real" drama or cinema.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to see "Citizen Cane" or "Casablanca" in 3D. Indeed, when I go to see a 3D movie, I usually think it's "cool" for about the first ten minutes, then I'm more interested in the story and by that time it seems as though the novelty of 3D has become a distraction.

What say you?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 22, 2012, 2:19:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 22, 2012, 2:20:05 PM PST
Contributed? Diddly.

I agree 100% on the Disney World idea; "Mickey's Philharmagic" is sensational. But it's a theme park attraction, a fun gimmick.

This topic should gain some interesting conversation. I don't like 3D but it seems it is becoming all the rage. Some say it will fade quickly, others are hoping it will last.

Some 3D is better than others, it seems. I watched "Coraline", a stop-motion fantasy, and the 3D version seemed like all the color had been muted down to a washed-out, dull mess. Then I watched it in 2D and it looked wonderful.

I always think, 3D is okay for something like the CGI "Alvin and the Chipmunks" stuff (disposable family fare to spend a Friday night on) or okay for action flicks with flying debris and such. But is it truly going to become the next big thing after blu-ray? Frankly I don't WANT to see classics like "Gone with the Wind" or "North By Northwest" in 3D. They weren't created with that intention. Think about it-- it's like the colorization fad in the 1980's: doing something just because you have the means. Stupid.

I'll pass on this 3D altogether. I'll be fine without it. And I will save money (glasses, TV, disc player) ... and save some fatigue on my eyeballs. Don't want to keep up with the Joneses, anyhoo. There's something new and better every month. Who needs that nonsense?

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 6:01:14 AM PST
Cavaradossi says:
To me the mystery is why Hollywood and the hardware manufacturers keep pushing 3D when the media have reported for years that audience interest has been on a downward spiral ever since its highpoint in Avatar. Some trade reports have intimated that the sale of 3D HDTVs is due less to interest in the format than to the preponderance of such sets in the marketplace and their reputation (real?) of being very good 2D reproducers. How many 3D HDTV purchasers are actually using the feature or even have a 3D Blu-ray player? Personally, my interest in 3D lies somewhere below -0.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 6:13:20 AM PST
3D movies are more events than films. AVATAR was a beautifully done film, but I was so distracted by the 3D effects (which did remind me of an amusement park ride!) that I honestly lost focus in the story (such as it was). It was a fun experience, but it wasn't at all like "going to the movies."

Theaters like the format because they can charge more. Hollywood hasn't been doing as well of late, and they were hoping the whole 3D thing would breathe new life into their profit margins (thus the re-release of favorites like BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and LION KING and TITANIC in 3D). More and more people (like me) are purposely avoiding the pricey 3D releases and looking for theaters showing films in good old-fashioned 2D (i.e. HUGO).

I did see the new MISSION IMPOSSIBLE film in IMAX last month -- that was an amazing cinematic experience, much more impressive and immersing than 3D could ever be. In my opinion, this format could wake up bored film-goers, but so far not enough theaters have been converted to IMAX to make it take off. The TITANIC release will be in both IMAX and 3D. If it was available only in IMAX (without the 3D gimmick), I'd definitely buy a ticket.

Bottom line, I hope 3D dies out. I haven't seen a 3D film since AVATAR, and I doubt I will in the future.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012, 6:20:55 AM PST
Balok says:
@Baron Sardonicus:

> Contributed? Diddly.

That's a bit strong. 3D has certainly made a major contribution to the never-ending parade of means invented for separating suckers from their money.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 7:58:34 AM PST
rayd says:
Nah....we need to get back to basics, good stories...drama, moderate action without overuse of CG. We've been thru 3D before, Cinerama, Cinemascope....and many theaters went under awhile back owing to lack of facilities to show such offerings. Save this kinda "stuff" for the theme parks, specialty places, not the local multiplexes having enough woes. Soon, going to a theater may become part of history if these types of movies become moreso the norm. Sophisticated gear is necessary, ample room, and admission prices go up higher yet. They're high enough now.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 8:35:57 AM PST
GarionOrb says:
"Cinemascope" wasn't a fad. It's still used today, just no one calls it that anymore. It's just called widescreen now.

3D doesn't contribute much, but when done properly it adds a visual flair. I admit, I tend to go to 3D versions of movies if a choice is available. However, I was far from impressed with The Lion King 3D.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 8:56:56 AM PST
I've seen a few 3D movies in the theater over the last couple of years or so, and I own 5 3D movies on Blu-ray so far, and I have to admit, I really enjoy the new 3D fad and I hope that it sticks around.

3D movies, if done right, make the film experience more of an immersive feeling that draws you further into the picture. In a good 3d movie, you feel much more a part of the film. I read a review of a 3D movie from a person who stated that seeing the movie again in 3D made him feel like he was seeing it again for the first time and I have to agree. I've seen a few 3D movies originally in 2D and when I saw them again in 3d, I was amazed at how much better the picture quality looked, and how cool it was that some things looked almost like I could touch them. The clarity of the image was so much more realistic and better.

Plus, I think that 3D can help a lot of movies succeed because I have seen previews of a few movies that didn't look all that appealing to me, but when I saw the same preview in 3D, it made me want to watch that film anyway just to see it in 3D.

I think 3D is here to stay, and I have heard that all new TVs are being built with 3D capabilities anyway, so, whether you use those options or not, it doesn't matter. It looks like 3D is going to be here for awhile this time around.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 8:57:28 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2012, 9:06:15 AM PST
Amazon Jeff says:
Depth?

What's with the pitchfork? Did you get upset when they went from stereo sound to surround sound, too? You know The Sound of Music wasn't shot in HD with 7.1 DTS sound, they had to remaster it.

I suppose in your world view all art must fit on a 16x9 canvas? I bet you have a huge vinyl collection and bad-mouth anything digital.

Check yourself, you've got a terrible attitude about technology and art if you're willing to dismiss an entire dimension as a gimmick.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 9:46:24 AM PST
GarionOrb says:
If any of you are gamers, 3D brings way more to video games than it does for movies.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 1:19:11 PM PST
That post by Amazon Jeff was great. I love watching people get bent out of shape, coming into a conversation all sarcastic and cranky, jumping down someone's throat.

re: "Depth?"

I believe the O.P. was trying to find something beyond the obvious, something that 3D technology offers the world of moviemaking-- besides a thrilling immersive jolt for the audience.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 2:31:45 PM PST
D. Larson says:
I've seen great 3D (Avatar) and 3D that just makes an already bad movie look dim and murky (Alice in etc). A director who knows what he or she's doing can use the extra dimension to create a more immersive environment. A hack can use it to make swords stick out of the screen and fling gore in the audience's faces.

Same as any other effect, really. When technicolor first came in, I expect there were directors who were great at it, and others who produced colorful botches that might've been better in monochrome.

But, the next TV I buy will have the 3D, if only because it might get better. Up to now, I'vve never seen a really effective demo of 3D TV, though. Maybe when we go to 4K.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 5:36:58 PM PST
I don't like being aware of the technology every second. I like to concentrate on the story. With 3-D, you're constantly being pulled out of the story to register the special effects. When you insist on fixing something that ain't broke, it doesn't make it better.

They're doing "The Great Gatsby" in 3-D. Oh, man. "The Great Gatsby"!!!

Posted on Jan 23, 2012, 6:09:58 PM PST
Boss Oxmyx says:
3D TV will be here to stay when the nightly news is reported by the Hooters girls.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012, 6:26:24 PM PST
D. Larson says:
I expect 3D will take off when it offers the same inducements that insured the dominance of VHS over Beta: pron.

The real tipping point, some folks say, was when video rental stores started having those curtained off sections in the back, where one could rent those "special" movies, and view them from the comfort of one's own couch instead of having to skulk into a seedy dangerous theater.

Maybe that's what could move 3D from a small niche market into something that could actually compete with the interwebs!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012, 6:49:40 PM PST
Hikari says:
>>>They're doing "The Great Gatsby" in 3-D. Oh, man. "The Great Gatsby"!!!

That's so when the car mows down Myrtle, we can really FEEL it, see . . .just like it's coming for us too like demented Christine-mobile . . .

Actually at last report, I read that Baz was reconsidering the whole 3-D thing. Let's hope he drops it. 3-D is fine for science fiction, fantasy and children's films. An introspective dramatic piece of classic American literature? I don't see how it's in any way appropriate. "Moby Dick", maybe, with the whale and all . . .

(Actually I'm kidding about that, too.)

3-D is not a selling point for me; I actually go out of my way to avoid it. Makes me queasy and I get headaches.

In a fitting tribute to the 1517 lives lost in the Titanic disaster, to mark the 100th anniversary, James Cameron will re-release a 3-D version of Titanic this summer.

(the comment above was brought to you by Sarcasm.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012, 7:37:22 PM PST
Hikari:

This may be oversharing, but when I was in college a trash-o soft porn film titled "The Stewardesses" came out. It was in 3-D. A bunch of us went. Silly as hell but it was erotic. Guess what the 3-D effects accentuated? Rhymes with "bits". About five minutes later, "flight attendants" entered the lexicon, and this movie may have had something to do with that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012, 9:20:27 PM PST
Hikari says:
@D.
I have no problem with that application of 3-D whatsoever . . .so long as there was a similar one for the ladies entitled "Enter the Cockpit".

You may add trash-o soft porn to my list of genres which appropriately exploit the 3-D technology. That makes four. It would also be very useful in flight/safety services training videos; cooking shows, maybe . . .still not Great Gatsby.

But if Woody had shot Midnight in Paris in 3-D, I might have found that one more fun. Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali in three dimensions would have been like an acid trip.

Posted on Jan 24, 2012, 8:59:55 AM PST
I'm all for everything being available for viewing in 3D, even classic movies such as Citizen Kane. I mean, what's the harm in it just as long as it is still available in it's original format, whats it hurting? As I said before, the 3D may just get more people interested in viewing it out of curiosity. If it can breath all new life into old forgotten films I can only imagine that would be a good thing. I wonder what Orson Welles would have thought about it?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2012, 9:28:29 AM PST
The illusion of depth perception for people with no deep perceptions.

Look at a classic black and white movie and you'll seen much better sculpted depth to the images, or even a color movie such as 'In Like Flint' has clearer depth of field than something like 'Hugo'.

3-D is like a pop-up book. It can be a clever novelty every once in a while, but it cannot compare to a good, artful illustration.

Most movies, when they aren't indistinguishable from TV, are becoming theme park rides. And my moviegoing experiences are reminding me more and more of my experience on the Rockets ride at Futureland ca. 1993: 'stop the ride, I want to get off!'

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2012, 9:37:44 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 24, 2012, 9:50:40 AM PST
Amazon Jeff says (to the OP I guess, he didn't say who he was replying to:)

>"Did you get upset when they went from stereo sound to surround sound, too? You know The Sound of Music wasn't shot in HD with 7.1 DTS sound, they had to remaster it."<

"Remaster"? Wrong, they altered it from the original, but it was a down-grade.
It was in high definition originally, shot in 65 mm, 2.20 : 1 ratio, and printed in 70mm, 6-Track recording. That's how it was shown originally, and Blu-ray is not an improvement over that in image or sound.

>>"Check yourself, you've got a terrible attitude about technology and art if you're willing to dismiss an entire dimension as a gimmick"<

Correction: illusion of another dimension.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2012, 9:39:51 AM PST
D. Larson,

Didja just indirectly call Tim Burton a hack?

I know at least one Tim Burton fan that would jump on you for that!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2012, 9:47:09 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 24, 2012, 9:52:33 AM PST
"The illusion of depth perception for people with no deep perceptions."

The illusion of deep thought from a person with no life outside of movies.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2012, 9:47:28 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 24, 2012, 9:47:44 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2012, 9:48:34 AM PST
>Rock N Rolla says:
"I'm all for everything being available for viewing in 3D, even classic movies such as Citizen Kane. I mean, what's the harm in it just as long as it is still available in it's original format, whats it hurting?"<

It would be hurting the original movie the same way colorizing and re-cropping the frame hurts the original: it goes directly against the filmmaker's intent, which in some cases the went to great lengths to accomplish.

The answer is that it would be detrimental to the work such as 'Citizen Kane', which already has ample depth, thank you very much, no more artificial stimulants required.

What's next, re-releasing Bergman's 'Wild Strawberries' in Smell-O-Vision?!

>>"I wonder what Orson Welles would have thought about it?"<<

Wondering is one thing. Speaking for the dead is another. When you alter the original without an authors permission, it's no different in effect than modernizing the language or phrasing in a book by Twain or Dickens.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Movie forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  58
Total posts:  534
Initial post:  Jan 22, 2012
Latest post:  May 10, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers