It’s the rise of theatre! Quick, STOP THE BRECHT!
Seems to me that the current fascination with 3D is all about the bottom line – that is, taking back part of the market that video games, downloadable (read:free) films, etc have stolen. It’s all marketing and hype and an attempt by a suffering industry to make more money. The same thing happened when television appeared and the movie industry started producing Cinemascope and this-and-that-scope and, yes, 3D,in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the new kid on the block and… make more money. Well, TV,didn’t kill movies, and I don’t think video games will either, because neither one of them are the same thing as film. 3D may have some success and may become an annoyingly prevalent fad, but it will most likely end up as just another tool in the arsenal of filmmakers. It is neither good nor bad in and of itself, it is simply a way to make more money. And I sure as hell don’t care about fims that just want to make money. Of course, if everybody runs out to see Avatar, which looks like a strong possibility, then that’s pretty much a greenlight to the studios to subject us to a long run of big budget 3D films…
I have flagged the above attempt at “humor”.
Three observations:
1. Basic picture quality.
Digital imaging is still struggling to catch up to 35mm film in terms of just basic 2-D resolution, let alone surpass the real IMAX 70mm format, and here they want to jump one step further and introduce a presentation gimmick that requires even more light and resolution….
2. Side effects.
Has there been any study of what the combination of the following can do to the nervous system over the length of a feature film?
Improved 3-D effects + huge screens with surround sound + (most importantly) the machine-gun style editing of most modern action films?
In Japan, a few years back, they found that children, living in the very small Tokyo apartments, were getting epileptic fits. Why? because the parents planted them right in front of very large TVs and left them to watch hyperactive Japanese cartoons. Not in 3-D, but the overload effect seems to be similar.
Even in the corporate video events I do, whenever lasers are incorporated, they post warnings on the doors for the audience, regarding the rapid flashing of the beams.
Just something to consider.
3. Bottom line: does it improve the story-telling of a film? Does it ‘add’, in the true sense of ‘making the film better’ or is it simply eye-candy? Personally, it would have to be used very subtly for me to feel that it could integrate into a good film without distracting. The notion of “stuff coming at you” is amusing in a theme park, but not if you want to focus on the story and the acting.
Just to clarify my ‘flagging’ comment for anyone who missed the ugly post, it has been removed.
3D has been around since 1915. In the early 50’s in became quite popular (Bwana Devil). It was thought of as the salvation of the film industry. It wasn’t. It’ll never be.
Claus: I have similar concerns about possible medical side-effects. I met a guy who was developing a 3D laptop, one of the ones where you look at the bottom of the screen until a little bar goes green and then everything will look “3D” (no glasses required) and it hurt my eyes after a while to do it (i wear glasses by the way). I did ask him about whether there have been many studies about 3D and the impact on eye sight but I didn’t really get a clear answer. That guy did tell me that glasses-less 3D cinema of the future will mean filmmakers will have to go for slower, smoother camera moves and less frenetic cutting if they want the images to work in this format.
It does seem like a marketing gimmick and I agree with some previous posts that certain members of the film industry are just worried about video games’ hegemony, downloading and VOD, DVD and Blu-Ray home theatre experiences rising so they’re trying to find a reason to get you out of the house.
The future is a giant gimmick.
Ok. So ‘the film industry’ want people to find a good reason to go to the cinema. Is this such a bad thing?
Unfortunately most, not all, creative endeavour is about the bottom line.
Trotting out the concerns one has for the effects of the medium is as old as cinema itself. Very nice of you to care about such things. But I’m not worried about it.
The future doesn’t have to be a giant gimmick.
crosses my eyes and gives me a huge headache, no no no no
I honestly believe that three dimensional cinema will destroy crucial filmmaking techniques and cause audiences to become lazier than they already are. One of the greatest cinematic revelations is the fact that audiences are willing to view a two dimensional plane combined with three dimensional audio and accept it as a reality. This allows filmmakers not only to create lead space and guide the viewers eyes across their frame through composition, but also through their audio.
The most obvious example I can think of where this technique is used and maybe even exploited is in Carlos Reygada’s Silent Light. There are multiple scenes where the films scene action takes place off screen, but the audio guides your eyes through the frame to reveal hidden details. The film also contains fragments where the scene action is visible, but the audio actually directs the viewer away from it. Three dimensional imagery will make it significantly more difficult to use sound to guide the viewer.
My point is if we were in all honestly thriving to achieve realism through cinema, cuts wouldn’t exist. Adding a visual third dimension causes more unnecessary distractions and leaves filmmakers with even less control of their viewers experience. It just feels like more of a gimmick than a tool to better filmmaking to me.
The reason why 3-D isn’t “the future of cinema” (in other words, why it won’t edge out 2-D cinema) is because it’s not indispensable to the medium. It’s the same situation with color film. Color has dominated film output over the decades, certainly, but we can still see plenty of examples of b&w pictures released after the innovation of color in film. 3-D is not the future of cinema, people. I don’t see how such an argument could even be maintained. If anything, it will remain an aesthetic choice. And if the industry is banking on 3-D as a reason for people to go to the cinemas, they should probably not get too excited about maintaining that advantage, since electronics manufacturers are already able to produce glasses-less 3-D on LCD TV sets.
I agree with most posters who think that 3-D will NOT take over film production.
I’ve lived through enough so-called revolutions in filmmaking and film viewing technology, and most have not changed the basics of what we see on screen.
On getting one of his Oscars, Francis Coppola yelled, “In five years, we’ll all be watching HOLOGRAMS!” That didn’t come to pass, except at the occasional theme park. Holograms WOULD be a great way to watch movies but we have something like it already: live theater.
3D is pretty old. I really doubt that it’s anything more than a passing fad. Notice how all 3D movies (With Exception of Avatar) are kid geared? I know all this has been said before in this thread before, and more intelligently, so I’ll shush up now.
I reckon that since a lot of the lower end live-action 3D films, not Avatar, which seems to be the only high end one have done it because they can now shoot on cheap affordable digital camera, a la RED, which are shit and no one can afford to shoot dual 35mm or no one will back them, unless they are James Cameron. Who knows, if Avatar is huge maybe peter and george and steven, who will probably be the only people who can afford and have the interest and knowledge to pull of such a production again, since avatar is meant to be one of the most expensive films ever made. Other than that, 3D animation will always be able to utilise it cos they don’t need to spend the extra money to get a dual camera rig and afford the film going through it.
And imax seem to only have interest in 1hr doco’s and its only the exciting ones that get filmed in 3D, and that’s usually for the parts with actors, like t-rex, which shit, how many years ago was that, was the last 3D film i’ve seen, possibly the only one. i’ve always wanted to go see up, and stuff but i just cant afford it. i like my ten dollar films, i’ll still ask for a concession until they ask for my concession card. i will fork out and see avatar but.
oh, and i still want to see dial M for murder in 3D too!
I saw Coraline in 3D and was not impressed.
I think that once they finally figure out a way to make it work consistently it’ll change the way films are made. Filming with a 3D concept in mind will radically evolve cinema – perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worst. Personally, I’m not a supporter, but that’s only going on 3D films so far. I’m waiting (and hoping) to be impressed.
Wow. I have just seen Avatar and I feel unusually serene. Firstly I didn’t get a headache and secondly my seat wasn’t great, far left back and the 3D worked a treat. My prevailing memory of the World Premiere was the silence of the audience watching it, perhaps alot of nervous Fox execs in attendance or perhaps more, the deeply hypnotic, psychedelic experience that is watching the film. 3D does indeed have a future. Avatar is lush, grand and beautiful. It is a film for our times and for our future, a film about the environment, a film about Pandora, this incredible, vaste and beautiful planet. The film is about the might of the industrial age and the damage we humans and large corporations make on the environment, it is the humans that are the bad guys in Avatar, the aliens are peaceful and deeply spiritual beings connected to the environment. Avatar is about giant military forces being used by huge corporations to do there bidding, it is also about the futile war in the middle east but most importantly Avatar is about seeing the world from another perspective. About awakening to a new way of understanding the world and what a beautiful thing that could be.
I don’t look forward to a future in 3d. It might be beautiful and all but I would rather have ideas over aesthetics anyday – especially if the tools needed to create such aesthetics are expensive and unavailable to thriving filmmaker.
More power to you Law. I think the idea is thatthere is room for it all. We still have painting don’t we. 3D is no longer just a gimmick. It has been used to make something important and I believe there’s no reason why that shouldn’t be a good thing. More or less everybody on this thread was a sceptic. I think they are wrong. The new 3D can create great works of art.
But what is the point of using 3D?
Because we can and we should. It creates a sense of depth which is pleasing to the eye Law. It seems to get in there. A deep connection. I like that feeling of awe. Of wow. Thats incredible! 3D lends itself to that.
How long is this film? Just wondering since I will probably be forced to sit through it.
The future is in cheap looking video from brilliant minds like Peter Watkins. See La Commune.
I believe that the future is digital too. Much of the independent work I have seen has been promising and liberating.
What is the point of color? what is the point of sound? what is the point in digitalizing books? what is the point in printing books Gutenberg??
I’m excited at the whole world of possibilities that a new tecnology could bring and surely the costs going to be more and more low (as it happens in general with technology)
The 3D is not better than 2D, neither 2D with sound and color is better than 2D without. They are just experiences all different.
I don’t understand why these devices, these media have to be mutually exclusive. It doesn’t make any sense.
From the looks of things Mike, cheap looking films are due are huge boom, times are hard and I don’t see why, with the technology so readily available, cheap films aren’t due a brilliant mind or two. I’m happy with that. I look forward to it. More power to them.
3D is another device, a tool, to create a different but similar response to film. It is no longer headache inducing in the way it use to be, in fact it bears very little relation to the old 3D which is primitive. The new 3D is not just a fad that will pass and fade, it is a new way of seeing and find this interesting. Amidst all the action in Avatar there is something very peaceful, tranquil, I dunno, I think 3D can get into interesting places in the viewers mind, it can take them somewhere else in a new way.
Hey Misael. Yeah. Spot on. Thankyou.
Ok, I think I agree with you and Misael but I certainly hope that if 3D does become widespread and “the future”, there will be cheap 3D cameras and post-production out there, less poorer filmmakers be marginalised again.
Okay, I suppose it is possible that someone will make something in 3D that I like. With Avatar, however, is there more to it than “the might of the industrial age and the damage we humans and large corporations make on the environment, it is the humans that are the bad guys in Avatar, the aliens are peaceful and deeply spiritual beings connected to the environment.” , because that message sounds like it could’ve been done in a silents from the teens, minus the 3D.
It just sounds like Cameron picked out some old cliched ideas so he could play with his toys and not have to actually say anything.
Fredo
If 3D is the future, than the death of cinema has arrived much more quickly than I had anticipated.