Gilding The Lily: A look at the merits (or lack thereof) of 3D cinema.

This has kinda, I think, been discussed a bit on the Up thread but I think maybe it deserves one of its own.

My flatmate has, for some time, been trying to convince me that, far from being a gimmick or a cynical ploy by the studios to make their films unpirateable, 3D is the next big step up for cinema; as transformative as the arrival of colour was to black and white and simply "better".

I understand this to a degree. With films like Up or, presumably, any movie where an entire "world" is created, anything that further immerses you in the experience is only going to enhance it. But what about films where you want to keep your distance from the events on screen? I was thinking specifically about The Hurt Locker, a film that I found so demanding the idea of exposing myself to more of it is actually quite off putting. I need the barrier with the screen and to remain intact in certain, if not most instances.

I could probably go on but I don't have time so.... what say ILX?

I haven't trawled thru the Up thread and we haven't been to see it yet, but we're probly gonna watch the 3D version over the weekend.

IMO 3D is a good way to gussy up a shitty movie but I don't think it will ever be a good thing for good movies. You don't really watch a 3D film in the same way as you follow a regular movie, you get sucked into waiting for the next wowee moment instead of following the story. You look at the film in a different way. Maybe people will start to exploit the medium in interesting ways but to do that you would have to make something that wasn't really a movie in the current sense I think.

I find that the wowee effects don't work for me - anything which is supposed to be "brought forward" appears to me as a vague translucent blurry shape, which completely ruins the illusion. More subtle effects- eg the impression of depth in a landscape for example- are fine. (Up is particularly good for this.)

Not sure whether the problem with my brain/eyes or the medium? I suspect the former...

I've noticed recently that it really depends on the cinema. I saw some 1st gen nu-3D (Polar Express, Beowulf) on an Imax screen, which was a genuinely heart in mouth, jaw-dropping experience, opening up a few more doors of perception.

However, I've seen all recent 3D pictures (Bolt, Monsters vs Aliens, Up etc) in local multiplexes, and it's been an increasingly unpleasant experience.

I would highly recommend not seeing Up in 3D - it adds nothing to an astonishing film except eyeache. In fact it detracts massively from both its famed emotional first act and the caper-y second half.

Yeah I might try to persuade the kids to go 2D. otoh I enjoy the experience of 3D movies, but in a funfair way rather than as a way of watching the film.

My brain & eyes don't do a good job compositing the 3D effects - I feel like I'm fighting to focus and all I get is a headache. Last 3D thing I saw (some IMAX thing at Kennedy Space Center) forced me to close one eye to get through it.

So I really hope that 3D doesn't overwhelm the market for traditional cinema.

Up! was almost completely lacking in wowee moments, they tried to be more subtle and clever. I'd like to see it again to try and spot some of the things the producer said they'd done in the Q&A I attended - e.g. when entering the house for the first time, the perspective is quite flat, and gets deeper the further the camera goes in.

But I baulk at the idea of everything going 3D. It still seems gimmicky even when not presented as such - the glasses, the short period of refocussing (everyone gets this, right?!). It's hard to see it becoming as essential as colour or sound (but it's hard to say that without imagining being proved as shortsighted as b&w or silent diehards).

I find that the wowee effects don't work for me

i wonder if distance from the screen might be an issue? The Final Destination was like that for me but we were sat very close.

There wasn't any effect in Up that made it worth an extra $3 or $4 or whatever per ticket. Haven't seen any other recent 3D.

I think you've got movies that are made with 3D in mind in order to work as a gimmick, on the level of Monster Chiller Horror Theatre, and you've got movies where the 3D is added as an afterthought, for the purpose of drawing in extra revenue, like Up or any animated movie of the day, and there hasn't been a movie yet that didn't either slap it in or have the production values of gimmicky merchandise, so you can't say. I saw Up in 3D and as far as I can tell all it did was cast the far distance into relief. Who cares? I understand why this is, because anything more dramatic would make the DVDs look ridiculous, but I don't think it's a representative use of the technology.

According to James Cameron, Avatar is the movie that's going to close this argument. He considered 3D technology from the word go and made his movie as a movie that's there to be seen in 3D. What they're gonna do about DVDs I don't know. There's no reason to imagine that it's not going to be a piece of shit, however.

Yeah, problem with Avatar is I couldn't give a toss about the Planet of the Furries.

I saw "Beowulf" in 3-D and it was entertaining, but couldn't sit through 15 minutes of it as a 2-D feature, so the 3-D did add something. That said, every parent I know is sick to death of 3-D kids features. The last thing any kid wants to do is wear uncomfortable oversize glasses in the dark for 90 minutes. These animated movies are already bright, loud big screen marvels - what kid needs fucking 3-D to spice them up? The recent/current "Toy Story" double feature is a particularly egregious disaster on this front. What kid can sit still for three hours, let alone with those glasses on?

Thus far, "Beowulf" and "Coraline" were the only two (real) 3-D movies that have impressed me, where the added depth added, um, depth. I haven't seen any of the retroactively 3-D films, like "Nightmare Before Christmas." Wasn't Lucas working on 3-D transfers of "Star Wars?" Any other excuse to add more busy shit to the screen, no doubt.

There are apparently 3-D ready TVs on the way, but who wants to watch that?

"Up" in 3-D was disappointing, because with all the bright colors and amazing landscapes I was expecting it to "pop" much more than it actually did. But "Coraline" in 3-D was amazing, like "see it multiple times because you're not going to see this again" amazing.

u kno what? it's a shitty rainy day here, i'm gonna go see the toy story 1 & 2 double feature in 3d and report back.

Jaws 3D sucked, I can tell you that.

"Up" in 3-D was specifically designed NOT to pop-out like the Disneyland 3D films which are all about shoving stuff into your face. Instead it went more 'inwards' to create depth, and I thought worked very well in adding to the vertigo in any of the air scenes.

3D can be used really well, I think, once people get over the gimmick. Obviously if it gives you headaches or whatever then it's not worth it.

I thought my wife was going to start a class action suit after seeing hp & the halfblood prince in 3d. first 10 minutes or so were in 3d, rest of the movie wasn't.

"Up" in 3-D was specifically designed NOT to pop-out like the Disneyland 3D films

When I say "pop" I don't literally mean "pop out at you," I mean give an enriched sense of texture and depth. My favorite 3D scene in Up is a little moment toward the beginning where a girl is playing in her bedroom, and the balloons go rushing past her window and she leaps up to look at them. The bedroom has depth, and the balloons change the look of the light, and it feels like you're right there with her -- awesome!

But I was disappointed that in most of the shots where the balloon house is floating in the distance, it looks flat and background-y rather than an object with dimensions existing in space. Again, my disappointment probably stems from having seen Coraline in 3D first, which gave an incredible feeling of space and depth to everything.

http://www.filmforum.org/films/classic3d.html

this looks p dope

'three redheads from seattle' is a great title

nice, imna check that

Del Toro + Cameron + lovecraft = me anticipating the fuck out of this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/del-toro-and-cameron-team-up-for-lovecraft-tale-in-3d-2042027.html