6 ms·

Yes, that! 3D is and has always been a gimmic. It doesn't improve the story telling. It doesn't contribute to the plot in any way. But then, some movie make

• burkaman 10y ago
  I know you've heard this argument before, but isn't that the same thing people said about color movies? This sort of reminds me of arguments about Snapchat. A lot of people really enjoy 3D, trying to logically convince them that they actually shouldn't like it is not going to work.
  • coldtea 10y ago
    >I know you've heard this argument before, but isn't that the same thing people said about color movies? No in any large numbers. Besides, 3D cinema has been coming and going as a fad for 6 decades now. But even if it was true that people said that about color movies, people can say the same thing about different inventions and be wrong in one case and right in another. >A lot of people really enjoy 3D, trying to logically convince them that they actually shouldn't like it is not going to work. Well, they are not that many to sustain 3D TVs (as TFA tells us), and they have never been that many to make it not be a fad in the cinema either. In which case, whether some enjoy it is a moot point.
    • baddox 10y ago
      > No in any large numbers. This implies that "large numbers" of people complain about 3D. I suspect this isn't true, and that it's really a very loud very small minority. > But even if it was true that people said that about color movies, people can say the same thing about different inventions and be wrong in one case and right in another. Yes, but the point is that some evidence needs to be provided. Since some statements are wrong and some are right, the argument needs to be more than "it's true because I said it." > and they have never been that many to make it not be a fad in the cinema either. What does this mean? At what point do you concede that it's not a fad in the cinema?
      • coldtea 10y ago
        >This implies that "large numbers" of people complain about 3D. No, it just implies that they don't care about it enough to e.g. sustain a 3D TV lineup. >Yes, but the point is that some evidence needs to be provided. Since some statements are wrong and some are right, the argument needs to be more than "it's true because I said it." The article is one piece of evidence, isn't it? >At what point do you concede that it's not a fad in the cinema? At the point it surpasses regular viewing and studios don't stop making such movies 5-10 years down the road?
    • burkaman 10y ago
      Well, I love 3D movies but I've never been interested in a 3D TV, I think because watching movies in a theater and at home are very different experiences. If I always watched TV sitting up straight without leaving my seat, I'd probably buy a 3D TV. I don't really understand how enjoyment is a moot point. Enjoyment is pretty much all that matters for a consumer entertainment product.
  • emodendroket 10y ago
    But do they really enjoy it as more than a novelty?
    • baddox 10y ago
      Like with "fad," it's important to define "novelty." Is it a novelty if cinemas profitably offer 3D for 20 years before moving to some other technology? What about 50 years?
      • emodendroket 10y ago
        Yes, it can still be a novelty even if it exists for a long time. The question is whether people continue to value it after it's no longer novel and surprising; if a steady stream of people try it once or twice for years on end it could last a long time while still being a novelty.
        • baddox 10y ago
          I don't really understand that argument. It seems like everything would be a novelty under that definition. Will we be watching 2D movies in 100 years? What about 1,000 years? Even ignoring the halting problem, how can we possibly guess what is and isn't a novelty under your definition?
          • emodendroket 10y ago
            > how can we possibly guess what is and isn't a novelty under your definition? By observing the typical behavior of one person using it? Think of a Chinese finger trap. It's been around forever. And yet one person is not going to play with a Chinese finger trap every day. Once you experience it and figure it out there's not much to do with it. That's a novelty.
    • burkaman 10y ago
      I guess I can only speak for myself and people I know, but yes.
    • 10y ago
  • bnolsen 10y ago
    pretty much the whole population who can see perceive color. about 15-20% don't see in stereoscopic 3d. I'm one of those and i like seeing this 3d trend die...
    • burkaman 10y ago
      Why? Maybe it's just my area, but I've never seen a 3D release that isn't also available in 2D. I guess it's slightly annoying when once in a while you can tell a scene was designed for 3D, but I don't think it's that big a deal.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • vidarh 10y ago
    Chaplin fought against sound in movies on a similar basis. Not an absolute rejection, but a concern that it took focus away from other parts of the story-telling and wasn't necessary. He supposedly sabotaged attempts to add speech to Gold Rush (1925) after the actors pushed for it. City Lights (1931) was basically his ode to silent movies, famous for its endless retakes of the initial meeting with the blind flower girl [1], while he tried to figure out how she could mistake the Tramp for a rich man without words. In the end the solution was simple, and both funny and provided motivation for the Tramps desire to help her: The Tramp walks through the car of a rich man to avoid passing a police office, and so when he stands before her she has just heard him slam the car door. He accidentally knocks the flower he's purchased out of her hand and realises she can't see that he has picked it up. As he hands her his money, the owner of the car comes and drives off and the girl thought he had left without his change, and he didn't want to break the illusion and so walks off without money he badly needed for himself. It's one of my favourite movies because it masterfully made his point that you can tell a complex story without it feeling like you're missing something because you can't hear dialogue. He added speech in his next movie - Modern Times - but his character still didn't speak dialogue (but did sing). It was first with The Dictator (1940) that Chaplin himself spoke on screen: Finally he had something where the speech added clear value by conveying more than he knew how to convey with just pictures. In the same way I think we will see more and more movies eventually come out in 3D as the industry gets enough experience with it to see where it adds clear value and leave it low key other places, rather than add it to make a spectacle of it. I think one of the first to do it well was Prometheus. A friend saw the 2D version and afterwards told me elated that it felt like it was made as a 2D movie - no weird camera work solely to make 3D effects stand out etc.. Meanwhile I'd seen it in 3D and been blown away at how good it looked in 3D. The effects were clear and beautiful but not in your face. Crucially they didn't alter the visual language noticeably. [1] http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/378808/City-Lights-Movie-Clip-Wait-For-Your-Change-.html http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/378808/City-Lights-Movie-...
    • woofyman 10y ago
      >I think one of the first to do it well was Prometheus Too bad they didn't put as much thought into the script.
• rm999 10y ago
  It's not a gimmick, it increases immersiveness when done right. The problem is the technology isn't quite there and directors haven't been trained in it (and usually don't make the effort) - so it's basically never done right. 3D as we know it is probably never going to happen. Most movies don't gain much from more immersiveness, and the tech may always be clunky. I've seen some VR movies lately, and I predict they will supercede 3d entirely. Whether they'll end up being the next fad is an open question.
  • throwaway91111 10y ago
    It only increases immersiveness if it doesn't make you throw up. This is only going to get worse with VR.
    • teach 10y ago
      There's a huge difference between immersiveness (you feel surrounded by the image) and presence. Good modern VR gives you a sense of presence, which tricks the body at a level below conscious awareness that you are somewhere else. And presence is characterized by lack of nausea. If your only experience with VR is cell phones or the Playstation 4, then you probably have never experienced presence.
      • NTripleOne 10y ago
        Yeah, if you want to experience presence you basically have to use a Vive - a Rift might just about do it but you'll probably run into a whole lotta tracking issues thanks to their (awful) tracking solution.
        • ehsanu1 10y ago
          Wow, even HN has been infected! JK, but Rift tracking is great too. For "room-scale" with good tracking you basically need 3 sensors (you can buy additional sensors). For some games that cause heavy occlusion due to needing to lie on the floor or whatever, you would have to put the sensors in ceiling mounts to get the full volume tracked accurately. And the tracking volume will be smaller for the Rift compared to the Vive, but very few people have a bigger than 2.5m by 2.5m space, which the Rift can track just fine. I just got my third sensor a couple days ago, and it has made a night and day difference (there is also an option for 360 tracking with two sensors, but I didn't set that up). But even when I had two sensors the tracking was fine except under certain situations where my body would occlude the controllers. Not a problem anymore after the third sensor.
• eric_h 10y ago
  I saw The Martian in 3D, and I thought the 3D added value in the shots of the Martian desert. Then they had indoor shots that used depth of field, while still using some 3D effects and totally ruined it for me. The whole point of 3D is you can choose what to focus on! The moment you ditch that the effect is ruined.
• javiramos 10y ago
  The only movie that I have felt that was better in 3D is Gravity. Wow - what a movie.
  • kijin 10y ago
    It seems that 3D is better suited to slow-moving, large-scale images than typical Hollywood action sequences. I can't stand 3D action movies, they make me dizzy. Especially when it's combined with shaky cameras! But Gravity was awesome, animated 3D movies from Disney/Pixar are generally OK, and I really enjoyed the 3D version of Titanic that James Cameron produced in 2012 for the 100th anniversary of the sinking. (It's the same movie that came out in '97 but converted to 3D. Most of the time, you don't even realize that it's 3D. It's quite subtle.)
  • baddox 10y ago
    Gravity was spectacular in 3D, but I have a much larger list of films (many of which aren't great) that have immersive and not distracting 3D. Off the top of my head: Life of Pi Pretty much every Marvel movie The new Star Trek films Star Wars: Episode VII The Martian The Hobbit films How to Train Your Dragon and sequel Finding Dory The LEGO Movie
    • dijit 10y ago
      You left out "Avatar" which was the movie that single-handedly sold 3D to the world.
      • baddox 10y ago
        I never saw it in the cinema. I did watch it at home on my old and terrible 3D TV, which was a fairly mediocre experience.
• lukeschlather 10y ago
  3D was a big part of Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby. It made me wish Moulin Rouge had been done in 3D. I think using 3D effectively is hard, and most films being made don't have a good reason to use it. It also makes my eyes feel a little uncomfortable, so I'm not crazy about it getting widespread use. Most filmmakers don't have the visual sense (and budget/tech crew) of Baz Luhrman or James Cameron. The Wizard of Oz was a really masterful tech demo for color, because color was a pivotal part of the story. 3D's problem is that it has been totally driven by technologists and financiers rather than storytellers. If the first big 3D film were The Great Gatsby rather than Avatar I think we'd have a very different sense of what 3D is. Although The Wizard of Oz may be unique in the way the tech manages to serve the story just as much as the story serves the tech.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• Shorel 10y ago
  Plot and story are very important. To me the most enjoyable movie of the year is usually the best script winner. Almost never the best movie winner. But there's this thing called cinematography. And when it is done well, it adds another layer of enjoyment to the movie viewing experience. 3D is part of cinematography. So, yes, plot is important. But if you are watching a movie instead of just reading a book, it is usually because the added elements are worth it. And I say that as someone who usually reads the books as well. 3D is fun, and films like Avatar and Tron and Pacific Rim are totally worth in 3D.
• bitJericho 10y ago
  It makes it much more immersive.
• derrickdirge 10y ago
  If the visuals don't contribute to the storytelling, then why watch movies at all? Why not just listen to radio plays?