4 ms·

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 l

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.

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.