Hate 3D? I will change your mind

[JimKiler]

Even if you never watch 3D it is a benefiting us viewers. How can that be? Well when you watch a movie filmed for 3D they do not change angles nearly as often during action scenes and avoid shaky cam. Although i am sure they could use shaky cam with 3D i imagine a lot of nausea in the audience. Could you imagine the last two Bourne films in 3D? it would never work when in action scenes they cut the angle so much you cannot tell who is who. Think of the fight with Jason Bourne and Jarda in The Bourne Supremacy.

What i am trying to say is that 3D does not work when you cut to different angles quickly. Therefore it is making hollywood show restraint and making movies better. Movies like Domino, Transformers 2, and The Bourne Supremacy or Ultimatum would never work in 3D because of all the quick cuts or shaky cam or both. Even if you do not watch a movie in 3D you will benefit.

 

[Proprioceptive]

Even if you never watch 3D it is a benefiting us viewers. How can that be? Well when you watch a movie filmed for 3D they do not change angles nearly as often during action scenes and avoid shaky cam. Although i am sure they could use shaky cam with 3D i imagine a lot of nausea in the audience. Could you imagine the last two Bourne films in 3D? it would never work when in action scenes they cut the angle so much you cannot tell who is who. Think of the fight with Jason Bourne and Jarda in The Bourne Supremacy.

What i am trying to say is that 3D does not work when you cut to different angles quickly. Therefore it is making hollywood show restraint and making movies better. Movies like Domino, Transformers 2, and The Bourne Supremacy or Ultimatum would never work in 3D because of all the quick cuts or shaky cam or both. Even if you do not watch a movie in 3D you will benefit.

So we prevent one problem by adopting another? You're an idiot.

 

[SMOGZINN]

3D film is a fad, because the average number of eyes per person is less then 2.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bourne Ultimatum was a damn good movie, and your example is to disparage that... you're not winning points with me. Though I would be happy to throw out shaky cam.

 

[SlitheryDee]

3D film is a fad, because the average number of eyes per person is less then 2.

lol?

 

[vshah]

3D film is a fad, because the average number of eyes per person is less then 2.

enjoy your moving pictures, i'll be on the holodeck :awe:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Movies like Transformers 2 would never work in 3D because of all the quick cuts or shaky cam or both.

Yes, that's what killed Transformers 2. Not the plot or acting. It was the shaky cam.

 

[rcpratt]

lol?

It sounds funny, but it does affect some people (like me) who only have decent vision out of one eye.

Pretty sure that's not what is holding 3D back though, lol.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

lol?

It's true. How many people have more than two eyes? Basically no one, right? How many people have one working eye or are blind? Quite a few. Not the majority of the population by a long shot, but still a statistically significant amount. So if you have most people with two eyes, a few people with one eye, a few people with no eyes, and no one with more than two eyes, the average number of eyes per person will be near, but less than, two.

 

[rcpratt]

It's true. How many people have more than two eyes? Basically no one, right? How many people have one working eye or are blind? Quite a few. Not the majority of the population by a long shot, but still a statistically significant amount. So if you have most people with two eyes, a few people with one eye, a few people with no eyes, and no one with more than two eyes, the average number of eyes per person will be near, but less than, two.

I think people with 0 eyes can be discounted from this discussion, since 2D TV isn't useful to them either :hmm:

 

[KeithTalent]

What a load of hooey and applesauce. It just changes their focus from story and plot development into trying to make cool 3D shots and environments, which is impossible. 3D is declining as you can see in the recent Spider Man and Ice Age numbers, along with others. Besides, your whole point is seemingly moot because wasn't Transformers in 3D?

The OP is just the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind.

KT

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think people with 0 eyes can be discounted from this discussion, since 2D TV isn't useful to them either :hmm:

Now you're just being prejudiced.

 

[JimKiler]

So we prevent one problem by adopting another? You're an idiot.

Hey butthead, i can support my argument, but i see your "adopting another" to be well thought out point backed by reason and impenetrable to any argument i make. You win!

Bourne Ultimatum was a damn good movie, and your example is to disparage that... you're not winning points with me. Though I would be happy to throw out shaky cam.

Both the 2nd and 3rd are great stories but i know several people myself included that cannot stand the shaky cam by the 3rd and we would not see the new one if Paul Greengrass was directing.

Would you watch the 2nd and 3rd if they put them in 3D?

Yes, that's what killed Transformers 2. Not the plot or acting. It was the shaky cam.

Transformers 2 was horrible but if you compare the camera work from the first you could see the action in the climax of the first yet in the sequel you barely get a full view of Devestator. BTW, i never said my examples were good or bad simply that they are examples of what will not work for 3D. I would never watch Domino again nor would i subject anyone to watching that dribble but it also could not work for 3D.

 

[Platypus]

no, you wont.

 

[HAL9000]

Your premise is flawed, as it hinges on the idea of quick cuts being a bad thing.

Fail thread.

3D sucks.

The argument you're making is that 3D restricts what film makers can do when filming by making people feel sick?

-_-

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's true. How many people have more than two eyes? Basically no one, right? How many people have one working eye or are blind? Quite a few. Not the majority of the population by a long shot, but still a statistically significant amount. So if you have most people with two eyes, a few people with one eye, a few people with no eyes, and no one with more than two eyes, the average number of eyes per person will be near, but less than, two.

This is what I was talking about. It is mostly a math joke, I doubt that the number of one eyed movie goers are significant enough to effect box office sales.

But, people with glasses are a significant audience. I despise 3D because I wear somewhat thick glasses for distance vision. Putting the cheap 3D glasses over my normal glasses is uncomfortable and prevents the 3D glasses from working properly. So, I get blurry simi-3D effects at best. Overall, I chose to go to the 2D version of a film, and if that is not possible I simply skip that movie.

 

[lokiju]

Like all film "techniques" some are done well and others are done poorly.

Shaky cam in Dominio made me HATE that movie more than I otherwise would have.

Shaky cam in Cloverfield was appropriate for the context and events in the movie (IMO of course) and for me added to the movie.

Same is true for 3D, Avatar is the gold standard of how 3D can and should be done. Prometheus was also did the 3D well. In both examples it helped with immersion and did not take me out of the movie.

Post production 3D movies and 3D movies that jump out at you on purpose are gimmicky and take you out of being immersed in a movie IMO.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This is what I was talking about. It is mostly a math joke, I doubt that the number of one eyed movie goers are significant enough to effect box office sales.

But, people with glasses are a significant audience. I despise 3D because I wear somewhat thick glasses for distance vision. Putting the cheap 3D glasses over my normal glasses is uncomfortable and prevents the 3D glasses from working properly. So, I get blurry simi-3D effects at best. Overall, I chose to go to the 2D version of a film, and if that is not possible I simply skip that movie.

I'm in the same boat. I wear glasses, and while my right eye has decent vision regardless, my left eye is very near-sighted and requires a very thick corrective lens, which makes 3D glasses hugely fuck off uncomfortable. I've seen a handful of 3D movies, and the only ones where I thought the 3D actually helped in any way were Avatar, Brave and Hugo. Hugo is the only one where I felt like the 3D was crucial, given that the 3D technology was paralleling the narrative about the magic of early film technology. For everything else, it's at best a minor diversion, and far more frequently, a major annoyance.

 

[KeithTalent]

Like all film "techniques" some are done well and others are done poorly.

Shaky cam in Dominio made me HATE that movie more than I otherwise would have.

Shaky cam in Cloverfield was appropriate for the context and events in the movie (IMO of course) and for me added to the movie.

Same is true for 3D, Avatar is the gold standard of how 3D can and should be done. Prometheus was also did the 3D well. In both examples it helped with immersion and did not take me out of the movie.

Post production 3D movies and 3D movies that jump out at you on purpose are gimmicky and take you out of being immersed in a movie IMO.

The shaky cam in Domino went perfectly with the film and I honestly don't even think it was really shaky cam, so much as it was quick edits. The blown-out contrast, the hectic pace of the film, it all went well together.

Whether you liked the movie or not is one thing, but to say the style of the camera work did not fit does not make sense to me.

KT

 

[SlitheryDee]

It's true. How many people have more than two eyes? Basically no one, right? How many people have one working eye or are blind? Quite a few. Not the majority of the population by a long shot, but still a statistically significant amount. So if you have most people with two eyes, a few people with one eye, a few people with no eyes, and no one with more than two eyes, the average number of eyes per person will be near, but less than, two.

Yeah, but it's not going to be the reason that 3-D fails. If the average number of eyes is 1.95 that means there are lots of people with two eyes obviously. A statistically significant minority is not going to sway things very much in this case. At most, movies will be offered in 3-d and non-3-d versions at any given theater, which I've already seen quite a bit of.

I was loling because such an obvious fact didn't seem to bear mentioning, much less being attributed to the eventual downfall of 3-d.

 

[surfsatwerk]

All you have done is make me even more angry.

 

[zinfamous]

So we prevent one problem by adopting another? You're an idiot.

this

and this:

All you have done is make me even more angry.

 

[Crono]

Shaky cam may bother some people, but I think it helps for certain movies where there is a frenetic pace to the movie (like Bourne) or where it is a first person/cameraman/
documentary perspective.

It shouldn't be used for every movie, but that's the nature of most filmmaking techniques. It's the same for deliberate use of black and white - it may work It's for a movie like The Artist, but I wouldn't want to see The Dark Knight Rises in black and white.

 

[darkxshade]

3D has its place... Personally, I think it would be awesome if I could watch the Planet Earth series in true 3D.

 

[Aikouka]

I think the OP is trying to suggest that you get a benefit of less shaky cam, etc. when you see a 3D movie in 2D. I mean hell... who has the option to see a movie in 2D and 3D (both having good showtimes) and still chooses the 3D showing? I sure as hell don't.

I'm in the same boat. I wear glasses, and while my right eye has decent vision regardless, my left eye is very near-sighted and requires a very thick corrective lens, which makes 3D glasses hugely fuck off uncomfortable.

Have you tried IMAX 3D glasses? I don't care much for the RealD ones as they don't fit well over my glasses. They work, but just aren't that comfortable. The IMAX 3D ones were pretty good though as they're larger to cover more peripheral vision since the screen is larger.

My 3D glasses at home are also far better than the crummy RealD ones. I use a pair of Optima active shutter DLP Link glasses for my TV and the nVision 3D 2 glasses with my PC. Both are larger and more accommodating to corrective lens wearers.