This "business" of "3-d"...

scorpionldr · #1 04-13-2010, 12:33 PM

OK, so lately I went to see the new Clash of The Titans. We showed up late for the showing of the average "2-d" movie, so we opted for the 3-d film instead, which would come up sooner.

So we waited, paid the extra five bucks for the "effect", came in, saw it. Ok, so the movie itself was ok, a bit boring in my opinion. I saw the 3-d perception with the pop-out font and pictures here and there. Great.

But am I missing something?? I thought 3-d has been out for at least the last 15 years. I mean, when we had super nintendo, we had 3-d characters traveling 2-d environments (Donkey Kong Country anyone? Clayfighter? How about that one racing game that I can't remember its name?...). When we had Nintendo 64 we had Mario in 3-d. PC had 3-d for a pretty long time.

So why the thrill of 3-d movies now? 3-d in my opinion is a waste of time and money by now. You still wear the glasses, and you still pay extra for it. By this time, I'm sure most of us had even seen that silly POS Michael Jackson Movie that was at Disneyland ages ago, with the 3-d imaging.

The only movies I'll ever truly consider 3-d are the popular ones that Pixar animation put out, which are far and few.

So why the big fuss now?

PrimusNut · #2 04-13-2010, 12:37 PM

One word: Stoners.

TheDarkReaver · #3 04-13-2010, 12:38 PM

You're getting 3d graphics confused with 3d visualisation.

The 3d at the movies is 3d because it appears that the picture is moving beyond the 2 dimensions of the screen.

With 3d graphics in games the 3d is referring to move in 3 dimensions within the games construct, as opposed to the limited 2 dimensions of traditional platform games.

Deluge Of Sound · #4 04-13-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrimusNut

One word: ~~Stoners~~ Avatar.

Fixed it for you.

TheDarkReaver · #5 04-13-2010, 12:45 PM

I think this current wave of 3D films has something to do with the technology now being cheap enough to do on a large commercial scale and the fact that it's still gimmicky and people will pay the extra to see films in this way.

Deluge Of Sound · #6 04-13-2010, 12:46 PM

Its definitely a gimmick, but if Avatar had flopped, you wouldn't see a single new film offered in 3D.

TheDarkReaver · #7 04-13-2010, 12:48 PM

Probably not, it certainly caused all the big producers scrambling to add 3D to all the latest blockbusters.

bongomania · #8 04-13-2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkReaver

Probably not, it certainly caused all the big producers scrambling to add 3D to all the latest blockbusters.

Exactly, the problem with Clash and all the other 3D titles that will be coming out in the near future is they were entirely produced as 2D movies, and later got "3d-ized" in a pathetic manner just to cash in on the craze spawned by Avatar. We won't see more "good 3D" until that crop of fake-outs and cash-ins has run their course and made as much money as they can for the distributors. Only after that will they fund new 3D projects, actually produced as 3D from the beginning.

Deluge Of Sound · #9 04-13-2010, 12:57 PM

I'm not so sure about that... Films like Monsters Vs. Aliens were made long before Avatar was released, but people have been buzzing about Cameron's 3D epic long before it was released.

hover · #10 04-13-2010, 12:58 PM

As I said before, the Clash movie was not filmed with intention for 3D, so the results are sub-par. I personally think 3D is gimmicky, IF it's not used, in the current subtle / immersive style of Avatar, UP and a few others, where it draws you in instead of making stuff pop out at you.

Since attendence is down across the board at theaters, unless it's a major "event" film like Avatar, Hollywood is scrambling for the second renaissance of 3D. So much so that they are really trying to push it (in cahoots with hardware manufacturers like Toshiba and Sony) in the home. I personaly think it's going to be a niche market at best. The problem is the proprietary glasses you have to wear to make the home setups work. Too intrusive. Too costly. Yet ANOTHER harware and content platform to adopt. I mean HD is finally in just about everyone's homes, and it took almost a decade of bigtime push for that to happen.

I feel not too many people are ready / willing, $able$ to embrace yet another new platform when there isn't even any real amount of content to go with it. Avatar notwithstanding, you really think Hollywood has it in itself to continue to produce grand epic movies in that kind of scope and budget? They simply don't.

And forget buying "re-purposed" older movies, I'm not buying them again. Nor am I wiling to sit through new cheesy 3D rom-com and dramas and the like, they just don't call for it.

Lame lame lame.

TheDarkReaver · #11 04-13-2010, 01:04 PM

I think in it's current format it's always going to be an added feature, that works best in the cinema itself, rather than a mainstream technology like HD (which one day we will all be on when standard def get's phased out, much like analogue vs digital).

baalroo · #12 04-13-2010, 01:08 PM

Actually the tech push for 3D TV is towards sets that do NOT require special glasses.

In regards to films, when done as 3D from the start and not used as a simple gimmick to sell an otherwise below par film, I love it. Why WOULDN'T you want your favorite films shot with an extra level of immersion?

**baba** · #13 04-13-2010, 01:09 PM

I was listening to NPR a couple weeks ago and some industry expert was saying by 2014 something like 40% of TV's sold would be 3D capable. Evidently it's the networks' next play to fight for market share against the internet's streaming shows, youtube, etc.

I may have that percentage or qualification off the mark, but the point is TV is headed in that direction quickly.

scorpionldr · #14 04-13-2010, 01:12 PM

technologically advanced or not, if there are the stupid goggles to wear, I'm still saying **** it.

Deluge Of Sound · #15 04-13-2010, 01:14 PM

I've never seen a 3D movie that's impressed me (full disclosure, I saw Avatar in 2D).

Whenever possible, I prefer 2D. For me, the glasses make it harder to maintain a suspension of disbelief.

TheDarkReaver · #16 04-13-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baalroo

Actually the tech push for 3D TV is towards sets that do NOT require special glasses.

In regards to films, when done as 3D from the start and not used as a simple gimmick to sell an otherwise below par film, I love it. Why WOULDN'T you want your favorite films shot with an extra level of immersion?

It doesn't surprise me, my comment however, was based on the technology in it's current form.

I think the level of immersion is subject. Yes it can make you feel more involved with the film. However, I have personally found myself being very aware that I was experiencing a 3d effect, which was enhanced by the fact I was wearing shades over my glasses. In other words it was distracting. For me it was a gimmick, I'd watch a film in 3D but if I were to ever watch it again I'll be happy with 2D.

hover · #17 04-13-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baalroo

Actually the tech push for 3D TV is towards sets that do NOT require special glasses.

True, it is, but I have read in countless trade rags and sites that this will NOT be the case with the first and second-gen sets for home use. There are commercial applications being developed uping auto-stereoscopic displays, but again, nothing being developed for the home market.

CapnSev · #18 04-13-2010, 01:24 PM

It needs to stop. I don't want to watch all this crap in 3D. If the TV and video game world goes the 3D route where I have to put on some stupid-*** glasses in my own home, I'm going to be pissed.

bongomania · #19 04-13-2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

I've never seen a 3D movie that's impressed me.

You gotta check out "Blonde Emmanuelle", "Wildcat Women", and "Lollipop Girls In Hard Candy".

TheDarkReaver · #20 04-13-2010, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapnSev

It needs to stop. I don't want to watch all this crap in 3D. If the TV and video game world goes the 3D route where I have to put on some stupid-*** glasses in my own home, I'm going to be pissed.

I kind of feel the same. I'd like to see it occasionally as a DVD extra, for the LOLs, but that's about it.