3D Movies: Disappointing so Far

[PaulBot]

I'm no expert since I've only seen three 3D movies, but so far I'm underwhelmed. The first one was Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, but that was so long ago I don't remember details, but recently I've seen Toy Story 3 & The Last Airbender.

Toy Story 3 was a complete waste in 3D. I'm glad I had two free tickets to it, so it only cost me $17 for four of us to see it. It was a good movie, but the 3D effects seemed like an afterthought.

I just saw The Last Airbender today. Another good flick, and the 3D was better than Toy Story 3, but I was still left unfulfilled.

At Toy Story 3 & The Last Airbender, they both had some previews that used the 3D effects better than the movies. I'm talking about the stuff that comes out at you and makes you gasp or duck. That's what I want to see in a 3D movie.

So far I give the whole 3D movie thing a big "meh". Am I just not going to the right movies? Who's seen a movie that really puts the 3D effects to good use?

[coopasonic]

At Toy Story 3 & The Last Airbender, they both had some previews that used the 3D effects better than the movies. I'm talking about the stuff that comes out at you and makes you gasp or duck. That's what I want to see in a 3D movie.

...and that's exactly what I don't want to see. I don't want gimmicks, I want immersion. I'd say you need to see Avatar in 3d when it is rereleased in the theaters next month, but it doesn't have the gimmicks you are looking for either. Just beautiful 3d.

[EngineNo9]

Avatar thankfully didn't have as much of the distinct plane 3D thing that a lot of others have had, but it did have plenty of gimmick shots and that was pretty disappointing to me.  Everybody has described it as the best 3D ever in a movie, and after seeing it I realized I just don't need 3D in my movies until they can dramatically improve the experience.

[YellowKing]

Pixar movies intentionally avoid gimmicky 3D. They use it only to enhance the immersion.

I think it's great that we're finally reaching the point where filmmakers can use 3D as a way to increase realism, instead of using it as a gimmick. I'm with coopasonic. Keep the stuff popping out at you relegated to theme parks and horror films. For 3D to truly become mainstream, it's got to rise above the level of cheap gimmicks.

[wonderpug]

At Toy Story 3 & The Last Airbender, they both had some previews that used the 3D effects better than the movies. I'm talking about the stuff that comes out at you and makes you gasp or duck. That's what I want to see in a 3D movie.

So far I give the whole 3D movie thing a big "meh". Am I just not going to the right movies? Who's seen a movie that really puts the 3D effects to good use?

Disneyland and Disney World have 3d movie attractions filled with those kinds of gimmicks. The Muppets 3d one is really funny.

[kathode]

Airbender is notorious for being a hack-job as far as the 3d work is concerned (and everything else as well).  Avatar I thought was pretty good in 3d, particularly in an IMAX theater.

[PeteRock]

At Toy Story 3 & The Last Airbender, they both had some previews that used the 3D effects better than the movies. I'm talking about the stuff that comes out at you and makes you gasp or duck. That's what I want to see in a 3D movie.

So far I give the whole 3D movie thing a big "meh". Am I just not going to the right movies? Who's seen a movie that really puts the 3D effects to good use?

Disneyland and Disney World have 3d movie attractions filled with those kinds of gimmicks. The Muppets 3d one is really funny.

Exactly.  3D in feature films is being utilized to add another "dimension" of immersion.  If you want gimmicks then visit a theme park.  The point is an even stronger feeling of immersion, not gimmicks.  Although the next Resident Evil film looks to exploit gimmicks to the highest degree (check out the trailer on Xbox Live).  Toy Story 3 in 3D had amazing immersion, just as Avatar had, utilizing 3D to add visual depth to scenes.  Gimmicks have already been done, such as Jaws 3 in 3D.  <<shudder>> 

[godhugh]

At Toy Story 3 & The Last Airbender, they both had some previews that used the 3D effects better than the movies. I'm talking about the stuff that comes out at you and makes you gasp or duck. That's what I want to see in a 3D movie.

...and that's exactly what I don't want to see. I don't want gimmicks, I want immersion. I'd say you need to see Avatar in 3d when it is rereleased in the theaters next month, but it doesn't have the gimmicks you are looking for either. Just beautiful 3d.

I feel the same way about Toy Story 3. It may have the most subtle use of 3D I've seen yet, but it was also my favorite. After a few minutes you forgot it was a "3D" movie really. The effects served to give everything more life and eventually you not only forgot you were watching a 3D movie, you forgot you were watching an animated movie. It was a wonderful, subtle use of the technology.

[Blackadar]

I think a lot of it has to do with whether it was shot in 3D or added in post-production.  Avatar was shot in 3D from the outset and the effect was fantastic.  It added a ton to the movie setting without ever getting in the way of the picture.  It's actually hard to go back and watch it in 2D because the effects were so fantastic in 3D.  On the other hand, in movies like Clash of the Titans or The Last Airbender, the 3D was added in post-production and it looked crappy as hell.  Titans actually was better in 2D because the 3D was so bad.

[JayDee]

To me 3D is a gimmick, no matter how well it's done. Avatar looked great in 3D in the theatre, but I have also watched in Blu-Ray at home and found it just as enjoyable. I don't need 3D in my movies.

A movie being in 3D does not influence my decision to see it in theatres either way. Inception is not in 3D and I can't wait to see it where I'm going to wait for Toy Story 3 on Blu-Ray.

[Ironrod]

I thought Avatar used it to good effect. But that was the first 3D movie I'd seen in probably 25 years so I was blown away by how far the technology has come. My only complaints stemmed from having to sit too close to the screen, which got quite uncomfortable (even headache-y) during such a long movie.

My only other 3D experience was Toy Story 3, and I'd agree that it didn't add much. We had  better seats and it was a lot shorter, so it didn't have the drawbacks of Avatar.

After those two I'm not enthused about 3D movies, but neither am I against them. I think it has a niche in animation and possibly action movies. I don't think it's going to take the industry by storm and it would be downright distracting in meatier movies.

I should mention that I have poor eyesight and putting 3D glasses over my eyeglasses just plain isn't comfortable.

[Jumangi]

To me 3D is a gimmick, no matter how well it's done. Avatar looked great in 3D in the theatre, but I have also watched in Blu-Ray at home and found it just as enjoyable. I don't need 3D in my movies.

A movie being in 3D does not influence my decision to see it in theatres either way. Inception is not in 3D and I can't wait to see it where I'm going to wait for Toy Story 3 on Blu-Ray.

Yea While I think Avatar is by far the best example of 3D since it was filmed with it in mind, I also still enjoyed the movie visually at home in 2D still. Also the 3D bandwagon has led to all the crap were seeing now with movies having 3D added later so they can charge the $5 more per ticket. Even a really good movie like Toy Story gained nothing IMO from the 3D.

[Chaz]

It's too bad not too many people got to see Coraline in 3d.  In that one, the 3d was actually used as a part of the scene design.  One of the two worlds was very flat, while the other one had a ton of depth.  It was an awesome effect.

Surprisingly, one of the other really good uses of 3d was Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder way back when.  It was made at the tail end of the first 3d craze, so didn't get played much in 3d.  It used polarized glasses, so was much better than the anaglyph red/blue stuff that was common, and again, he used the 3d effect to add physical space and depth to a film that otherwise took place in a single room, and it was very effective.

[KC]

All of this talk makes me think that the 3D home TV craze will flame out quickly.  Although, maybe it is just an industry-pushed gimmick rather than being spurred by any real consumer demand.

[Blackjack]

I saw a very lathered up trailer for the next Resident Evil (For the love of God, Why???!) movie, which they hinted in subtle terms (*sarcasm*) was in:
3-D
My observations are:
-A lousy movie in 2-D is STILL a lousy movie in 3-D, it justs cost you even more to sit through it.
-If you're gonna bother with 3-D at all, why not design the movie from that perspective and integrate it from the ground up? (looking at you, Marvel) Otherwise, it's just a cynical take to grab some more dough (not that Hollywood isn't mostly about that) at a time when a lot of folks are still out of work, pinching pennies etc.
-The 3-D novelty is wearing off quickly and I don't think you'll keep seeing lousy movies do well at the box office because they happen to be in 3-D. Filmgoers will eventually get a clue about that. Just looking at boxofficemojo, the Last Airbender's b.o. quickly disintegrated. If M. Night thought 3-D elemental effects would save his disintegrating career, guess again buddy!  

Just an aside, during a trailer yesterday before Inception, for the upcoming "5 bad actors in an elevator, one's the Devil!" movie M. Night produced, I heard snickering and groans when M. Night's name was blared, "An M. Night Shamalodoeon film!" That's usually a sign a director's career is headed in the wrong direction.  

[Chaz]

Just saw Toy Story in 3d.  I'm still very much of the mindset that once cinematographers stop shooting movies with the express purpose of pointing out that it's in 3d (Resident Evil, I'm looking at you), 3d becomes a fantastic tool to add to the visuals of a film.  It obviously won't make a bad movie good, and a good movie in 3d will be just as good in 2d, but the depth of scene that well done 3d adds is substantial. 

[Destructor]

Go see Despicable Me in 3D - they seem to make fun of Fako3D during the end credit sequence.

I'm tired of seeing all the Fako3D shit all over the place. If you're not going to do it right (in 3D from the start), don't do it at all. Period.

[PaulBot]

All of this talk makes me think that the 3D home TV craze will flame out quickly.  Although, maybe it is just an industry-pushed gimmick rather than being spurred by any real consumer demand.

It seems like people have just been moving up to large flat screen TV's in the past few years. I don't think many are ready to fork out the bucks for a 3D TV yet.

[pr0ner]

Stuff

You know that the latest Resident Evil movie was actually shot in 3D, and is not a 2D to 3D conversion, don't you?

[Chaz]

Yeah, but have you seen the trailer? Every other shot was of something coming directly at the camera, obviously to exploit the 3d effect.  It looks like the worst of the campy crap they used to do back in the '50s.  Being shot in 3d is the first step in making a non-shitty 3d movie.  Not going out of your way to remind the audience that "THIS MOVIE IS IN OMG 3D!!!!" is the next step.

[farley2k]

Stuff

You know that the latest Resident Evil movie was actually shot in 3D, and is not a 2D to 3D conversion, don't you?

Well it will no longer be a shitty movie...it will be a shitty movie in 3D.   

[Scraper]

You guys are all missing the potential of RE in 3D. As we all know Mila has a tendency to show hers tits in the RE movies. Now imagine a director taking that knowledge and applying the full potential of 3D Mila Tits. Bam! You have a winner and a must see. Plus they used the James Cameron cameras to make the movie so the 3D should at least be pretty good.

[hepcat]

Cameron's inspiration and the father of modern 3D filmmaking.

[PR_GMR]

You guys are all missing the potential of RE in 3D. As we all know Mila has a tendency to show hers tits in the RE movies.

Im sorry.... but, what tits? Mila Jovovich ain't busty.

[Scraper]

She doesn't have huge breasts, but the actual tits are really nice and pointy. Which in my book is just as important as actual breast size.  

[hepcat]

You guys are all missing the potential of RE in 3D. As we all know Mila has a tendency to show hers tits in the RE movies.

Im sorry.... but, what tits? Mila Jovovich ain't busty.

yeah...i'm not sure where that came from.  If i remember correctly, she's built like macaulay culkin and not katy perry.  can you have 3d without the ability to "thrust" at the audience?

[Knightshade Dragon]

You guys are all missing the potential of RE in 3D. As we all know Mila has a tendency to show hers tits in the RE movies.

Im sorry.... but, what tits? Mila Jovovich ain't busty.

yeah...i'm not sure where that came from.  If i remember correctly, she's built like macaulay culkin and not katy perry.  can you have 3d without the ability to "thrust" at the audience?

Sorry hepcat, I can't think of sexy Katy Perry thrusting her boobs at me with Carrot Top looking at me....   

[hepcat]

You guys are all missing the potential of RE in 3D. As we all know Mila has a tendency to show hers tits in the RE movies.

Im sorry.... but, what tits? Mila Jovovich ain't busty.

yeah...i'm not sure where that came from.  If i remember correctly, she's built like macaulay culkin and not katy perry.  can you have 3d without the ability to "thrust" at the audience?

Sorry hepcat, I can't think of sexy Katy Perry thrusting her boobs at me with Carrot Top looking at me....   

there ya go, i turned him around...

[Knightshade Dragon]

You guys are all missing the potential of RE in 3D. As we all know Mila has a tendency to show hers tits in the RE movies.

Im sorry.... but, what tits? Mila Jovovich ain't busty.

yeah...i'm not sure where that came from.  If i remember correctly, she's built like macaulay culkin and not katy perry.  can you have 3d without the ability to "thrust" at the audience?

Sorry hepcat, I can't think of sexy Katy Perry thrusting her boobs at me with Carrot Top looking at me....   

there ya go, i turned him around...

CARROT TOPS ARE GREEN!!

Seriously though, Katy Perry is very om nom nom.

[Blackjack]

I saw some more on Christopher Nolan's take in a UK Telegraph interview about Inception:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmmakersonfilm/7866677/Inception-Christopher-Nolan-interview.html

Warner Bros, who coughed up the £120 million budget, are banking on Inception catching on as a brainy Mission Impossible or Matrix and were hoping to take it a step further by converting it to 3D. Unenthusiastic, Nolan toyed with the idea, but, after a few tests, decided there was not enough time to do so to the standards he required.

It has been rumoured that the third Batman film, which is due to start filming in March, will be in 3D, as will the new Superman adventure, which Nolan and his wife are producing, although Nolan himself is non-committal.

“I’m taking a bit of a wait-and-see attitude towards 3D,” he says. “It’s come and gone many times over the years. I don’t particularly enjoy watching films in 3D because I think that a well-shot and well-projected film has a very three-dimensional quality to it, so I’m somewhat sceptical of the technology.

“Until we get rid of the glasses, or until we really massively improve the process, I’m a little wary of it.”

Then, as if suddenly remembering Warner Bros’ urgent desire to keep up with the latest trend and cater to the needs of young moviegoers, he added: “But we’ll be looking at it, and if that’s what audiences are demanding from blockbusters – and we’re making blockbusters – then it’s something we’ll address.”

[hepcat]

I tend to agree with Nolan on the subject of 3D.  His reasoning makes perfect sense when you realize 3D HAS come and gone numerous times over the past 5 decades.  And the need for glasses has always been my reason for being skeptical about its longevity.

[PR_GMR]

I agree with Nolan, also. I don't have much of an issue with movies being 3D at theaters, but I don't think 3D TVs will gain hold until they can figure out how to watch them without the glasses. I'm not gonna wear 3D glasses constantly to watch regular TV on 3D at home.

[Knightshade Dragon]

As far as watching 3D TV at home goes, it's gonna be movies only for a long time, and those will be limited too.  I have enough trouble just getting my channels in HD, much less Stereoscopic 3D!

Has anyone seen Avatar in 2D?  It looks....'off' somehow. 

[coopasonic]

Has anyone seen Avatar in 2D?  It looks....'off' somehow. 

I saw it in 2D first and thought it was beautiful. No idea what would happen if I went back after seeing it in 3D. I expect I'll find out around christmas time.

[Pyperkub]

Avatar was worth the extra money, as was How to Train your Dragon.

The others I've seen haven't been:

Toy Story 3
Alice in Wonderland (post production)
Up

Saw Coraline in 2d, so I can't compare, though the red-green 3d on the (original) BluRay wasn't worth it, though it made the movie look like it might have been worth it.

[Chaz]

Coraline was worth it, and the 3d on the bluray doesn't do it justice.  It's worth taking a look at it in 3d at least up to where she goes through the tunnel the first time.  Toy Story 3 I thought was a good example of what I could see most movies being if 3d were to become standard.  Nothing jaw-dropping, but just a bit of extra depth.  I thought the added depth at the day care really helped sell the idea that the little toys were in a huge space. 

[Isgrimnur]

"3D Movies: Disappointing so Far"

Not for Cinemark:

Cinemark Holdings reported that its earnings were up in the second quarter, thanks to 3D technology and growth in Latin America.  The Plano-based company released its second-quarter earnings on Thursday, with profit up 4.2 percent to $539.4 million from $517.5 million in the same quarter last year.
...
In a conference call with investors, Cinemark executives said the company has benefited from the expansion of 3D and XD movies, along with popular family-oriented flicks such as  Toy Story 3. Movie attendance was up in Latin America, especially in Brazil. 

The company plans to roll out an additional 1,100 to 1,300 3D-capable screens by year-end. Along with expanding 3D-capable screens, the company plans to expand showings of alternative content, like sports games and concerts, as it did during the World Cup.

[Blackadar]

Titans actually was better in 2D because the 3D was so bad.

I have to modify this a bit.  Titans is excretable no matter if it is in 2D, 3D or 8D.

[Razgon]

Coraline was worth it, and the 3d on the bluray doesn't do it justice.  It's worth taking a look at it in 3d at least up to where she goes through the tunnel the first time.  Toy Story 3 I thought was a good example of what I could see most movies being if 3d were to become standard.  Nothing jaw-dropping, but just a bit of extra depth.  I thought the added depth at the day care really helped sell the idea that the little toys were in a huge space. 

I read somewhere that they actually used the 3D in Coraline to make the wolds appear either flat or full so to speak - and THAT is what this kind of thing should be used for - to add to the story

[Chaz]

That's exactly what they did in Coraline, and to great effect.  I feel like a broken record talking about it so much on forums.  It's a great use of the technology, and it's too bad most people won't get to see it as intended.