Filmmakers Resisting Hollywood's 3-D Push

gollum123 passes along a piece from the NY Times on the building resistance to Hollywood's 3-D plans — from filmmakers. "A joke making the rounds online involves a pair of red and green glasses and some blurry letters that say, 'If you can’t make it good, make it 3-D.' While Hollywood rushes dozens of 3-D movies to the screen — nearly 60 are planned in the next two years, including 'Saw VII' and 'Mars Needs Moms!' — a rebellion among some filmmakers and viewers has been complicating the industry’s jump into the third dimension. Several influential directors took surprisingly public potshots at the 3-D boom during the recent Comic-Con... Behind the scenes..., filmmakers have begun to resist production executives eager for 3-D sales. For reasons both aesthetic and practical, some directors often do not want to convert a film to 3-D or go to the trouble and expense of shooting with 3-D cameras, which are still relatively untested on big movies with complex stunts and locations. Tickets for 3-D films carry a $3 to $5 premium, and industry executives roughly estimate that 3-D pictures average an extra 20 percent at the box office. Filmmakers like Mr. Whedon and Mr. Abrams argue that 3-D technology does little to enhance a cinematic story, while adding a lot of bother."

Comments

Finally

[radicalpi]

Well, at least someone is making a stand. I really don't understand the push to 3-D. Yes, it's "new" and "exciting" for 7-year olds, but, in my opinion it doesn't add any real value for the rest of us movie-goers. It's just a way to increase ticket prices.

Re:Finally

[srodden]

I voiced two concerns.

1. That you say you don't have to wear special glasses for 3D and yet you seem to be referencing technologies that are not ready for the big screen.

2. That I have a minor vision impairment which I fear *may* interfere with such technologies. I never said the tech would not work nor should not be developed. I simply expressed concern that the technology if widely adopted might disadvantage a non-trivial group of potential customers. I believe that the number of cinema-goers globally with imperfect vision are not such a small number as to be totally disregarded.

Your question ignores the first and seems hostile to the second. It seems that you're saying "you minority folk don't count". That's an attitude we've been trying to get rid of for the last 60 years.

Re:Finally

[1 a bee]

Similar thoughts here. And we're clearly not alone. Here's how a friend puts it in his blog:

.. do we give up anything when we switch to this 3D medium? I wonder. Quite a lot, I imagine. For the traditional motion picture is less of a technology than it is of a language, an art form, cultivated over generations. Much of that language is a play on the medium's limitations. The composition of the picture, think of golden ratios, for example, is only realized against the bounds defined by the edges of the screen. Moreover, as our minds have become more introspective, more self-reflective, we have developed a more self-aware narrative, the camera behind the camera, the eye that sees the eye that's seeing. A meta language that describes itself and sees its reflection. A way of thought that cherishes its ability to step back and see itself--in a sense, an ability to step out of an immersing experience, the opposite of immersion. (It's this cultivated mental ability that makes the sports bar possible.).. [more here]

Re:Finally

[JaredOfEuropa]

It does add value... Sometimes. 3D isn't going to improve movies like "the Shawshank redemption" or "Snatched", but it may add a lot to other movies that rely more on special effects, or are more demanding in suspension of disbelief. I say "may" because it's very hard to do well. And 3D doesn't work equally well on everyone's eyes.

Take "Avatar". Disregard for a moment the literary qualities of this "Pocahontas in space"... 3D did work exceptionally well in this movie, greatly increasing immersion into the make-believe world of Pandora. Not all movies need that, and many movies would be made worse by distracting 3D, but to movies like this, it certainly adds value. I'd pay extra to go see a movie like this in 3D again. Would I pay extra for 3D versions of Terminator 2, Dune, Blade Runner, Aliens, or Lord of the Rings? Yes I would. But I would not for 3D Titanic, the Big Lebowski, Shrek, and so on. And I would probably give a 3d-ified version of any 2d movie a miss. 3d is hard to get right, and I do kind of fear a push of just that: old movies with some poor 3d effects added on

Re:Finally

[ToasterMonkey]

Well, at least someone is making a stand. I really don't understand the push to 3-D. Yes, it's "new" and "exciting" for 7-year olds, but, in my opinion it doesn't add any real value for the rest of us movie-goers. It's just a way to increase ticket prices.

I'm sure at one time the same was said about CGI, color, animation, sound, 2D projection, and uhh.. the stage, if you want to go back a ways.

In case you weren't aware and/or your opinion is not even based on personal experience - filming for 3D encourages creative use of depth of field. You will benefit from this trend even if you watch a 3D movie in 2D, or even if the film was not shot with 3D cameras. Unless you prefer scenes to be as flat as possible, then I'm out of ideas.

Here, a picture says a thousand words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Go watch Despicable Me in 2D. There is the obligatory roller coaster scene, I know.. but there are also plenty of scenes with an incredible sense of vastness that you don't need to literally see in 3D to appreciate. I doubt filmmakers would spend much time on those if it were not even possible to fully visualize them.

Think of the beautiful pictures we can compose with color that wouldn't be very special without. Scenes from a garden maybe? If you reject 3D, what else might you be missing?

This says it better
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19247-innovation-mastering-the-art-of-3d-filmmaking.html

Some conventions are unlikely to survive a transition from 2D to 3D filming. One is a tendency for cinematographers to use a shallow depth of field to ensure that only characters and objects at a certain depth in the scene are in focus, so guiding the audience's attention.

Objects at all depths, within reason, should be in focus in 3D films, as is the case in the real world - so movie-makers need to use different techniques to guide the audience's attention in three dimensions.

Stage plays already provide a solution through the careful use of lighting - an effect likely to be adopted in 3D film-making. So just as the talkies gave way to a period of film noir, perhaps this latest cinematographic innovation will give rise to a whole new wave of moodily lit movies.

Re:Finally

[Lord Lode]

Uh I've seen a 3D movie not needing glasses in a cinema room in a museum once, in Berlin I think. I think it worked with lasers and rotating mirrors.

The brain doesn't always want/use the 3D info

[Gavin Scott]

I loved Avatar in IMAX 3D, and the 3D definitely looked cool, at least in the exterior CG shots.

But I don't know that I believe 3D is really capable of adding emotion to a film presentation, and if you can't heighten the emotion somehow, then how are you going to say the experience is $3 better?

I think maybe it's something like this: If you don't provide explicit 3D information to the brain, it seems to be quite happy to generate that information itself based on the visual cues it gets from analyzing the scene. The end result is that a short time later you'll have the same memory of the scene whether it was presented in 3D or not.

Anyhow, I'm almost certain there are some basic biological limits like this on how much you can get out of 3D in the theater, since we just haven't evolved to care about stereo-derived depth as important information. We care a lot about spatial positioning and relationships, but we have lots of ways of computing that information and stereo isn't that important for the sorts of scenes presented in a movie.

I saw Toy Story 3 the other day in RealD 3D and honestly for most of the movie I really didn't notice the 3D effect unless I actually looked for it. My mind seemed to prefer its own analysis of the images over that provided by the 3D.

So unless Jim Cameron can keep cranking out 3D epics fast enough, I think the rest of the industry is going to have a hard time keeping 3D afloat.

I think 3D capability (with glasses) will be with us forever on TV and computer displays (since it costs virtually nothing to add to a modern TV) and you'll see it used for sports and some special programming, and definitely it adds a lot to video games potentially (or any kind of interactive environment).

But for your average movie, not so much.

G.

Re:The brain doesn't always want/use the 3D info

[JaredOfEuropa]

3D can add immersion, which a great many viewers of Avatar will attest to. And increased immersion can make viewers more connected emotionally.

I don't know about biological limits, but there are technical ones. Normally, when your eyes lock on to something two things happen: your eyes turn inwards or outwards so that they are both centered on the subject, and the lenses are adjusted to bring the subject into focus. Your eyes are doing this all the time and it happens without thinking.
When you watch a regular movie, your eyes turn and focus on the screen, nothing special. But in a 3D movie, your eyes will have to be turned differently in order to see something in the foreground than they will to see into the background. That's the 3d effect. But the focal length of your eyes has to remain adjusted to the distance to the screen; a very unusual exercise for your eyes, and one that will give some people headaches. Conversely, if the movie is shot with the foreground in focus and our eyes adjust to look at something in the background, our brains expect the background to come into focus, which of course it won't since the filmmaker didn't shoot it that way. In Avatar this was highly annoying sometimes.

Perhaps it is possible to just shoot everything in focus, and have active glasses that apply a blurring effect to anything outside the range of distance out eyes are trained upon.

Re:Good

[Ephemeriis]

I really haven't seen anything compelling with 3D.

Basically the only reason to see Avatar was the 3D. Completely forgettable storyline. Hell of a show on the screen though. Saw it again on DVD... Couldn't even sit through the thing.

Up and Coraline were both very good movies, thoroughly enjoyable in 2D, but the 3D genuinely added some depth to the film.

Most tend to only have certain parts that really "show off" the effect but mostly it just distracts from the film.

My Bloody Valentine was absolutely awful, 3D or no. The 3D sure as hell didn't help... But I don't think anything could have saved that thing.

The push to 3D is an attempt to rekindle interest in cinema but people are still going to the theaters.

These days I really need a good reason to go to the theater.

I don't like people. I don't like dealing with the crowds, the cell phones, the kids, etc. I'd much rather watch something in the privacy of my own home. And these days I can watch something on pay-per-view almost before it leaves theaters. Plus, with a large HD television and a blu-ray player there isn't a whole lot of difference in visual quality between home and theater viewing.

The one thing I can't really get at home is a decent 3D movie.

That may change as 3D televisions become more common... But, for now, if I want to see 3D I have to go in to the theater. And these days that's about the only thing that will get me to pay for a ticket.

By and large, it doesn't seem like anyone really wants 3D.

I do.

I wouldn't say it belongs in every single film made... But it's a handy tool, just like pyrotechnics or green screens or digital effects. Sure, right now it's going to get abused... Just like every new gadget and gizmo before it. But once folks figure out how to make it work, and figure out where it is appropriate, it'll make a nice addition to the toolbox.

Re:entrenched people don't like new.

[gstoddart]

There is no reason why 3-D can't be a good thing

If the eye strain I got from Avatar is any indication, I'll pass on the whole 3D thing. It was cool, but the lingering effects weren't what I'd call pleasant.

My eyes just aren't happy with the 3D experience.

Re:Why directors shouldn't resist...

[Radical Moderate]

The automotive features you mention all produce tangible benefits. The only benefit to 3d is it looks cooler...and a lot of us don't think it's cool enough to be worth the bother or expense. To me, it's a gimmicky distraction that costs more and requires me to wear glasses. No benefit at all. But if it sells, they'll shoot it. Oh, and get off my lawn!

I had heard....

[mark-t]

... from somebody that works in a theatre that 3d films apparently make it harder for people to record them in the theatre, so maybe the push is partly driven to fight piracy. I don't know how accurate that assessment actually is, but it's an interesting take on the situation.

3D isn't worth it

[GreatDrok]

I saw Avatar at the cinema in RealD 3D and I found it distracting at best and it gave me a dreadful headache after an hour or so. Watching it again recently just off DVD on my 100" projection screen and enjoyed it a lot more. It wasn't as high res as the cinema and it wasn't 3D but despite that the experience was better.

The other issue I have with 3D is on TVs. Films shot fro 3D are shown on a really large screen and it works fine but if you shrink the screen down to domestic sizes, everything on the screen similarly gets scaled and the effect is really odd. I watched a demo on a 50" 3D set recently and it looked pretty good if you stood 1m away from the screen but any further away and the people on screen seemed to shrink down to the size of puppets. Very odd experience.

The problem, I think, with 3d....

[mark-t]

... is the distance that the film is usually viewed at... it's often from 80 feet away or more. To focus cleanly on objects at that distance, the left and right eye views are going to be virtually identical. If you move the images for the left and right eyes for near objects further away from eachother, you may create a greater sense of depth in the resulting image, but as the eyes are almost parallel already (unless you are sitting in almost the front row), this forces your eyes to go outwards from the natural position for focussing on objects at that distance, creating a sort of anti-cross-eyed effect. This is the key problem with 3d, and to the best of my knowledge there is no current-technology solution that can get around it in the public theatre setting.

Re:Good

[L0rdJedi]

I don't like people. I don't like dealing with the crowds, the cell phones, the kids, etc.

I know the feeling ;)

There are theaters around now that have policies prohibiting cell phones and children in the theater. You can also pick your seat. I know in So Cal, there's one in Hollywood, the Arclight, and one in Orange County (can't remember the name of it right now, but it's at the Garden Walk in Anaheim). If you like to go to movies and don't like all those things, check out one of those theaters. You get the movie experience without the bullshit.

Re:it's more expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks don't go to see a movie for the story. If all you wanted was a story you'd read a book or listen to a radio play.

I see movies for the story, and I bet I'm not alone. I don't read books for stories (fiction), for a couple of reasons;

1. Consuming anything for a story is a luxury, and I'm not going to spend my free time reading fiction when I could spend less time seeing a movie. It's not that I'm bibliophobic; if I have enough free time to have a good read, it'll be (interesting) non-fiction because that potentially has tangible benefits to my life. Besides, truth is stranger than fiction.
2. (IMHO) fictional writing is a stuck halfway between two worlds. With a movie, the director is in complete control of his or her story, which enables them to communicate exactly what they wanted. A talented director uses this to their advantage, and utilises every aspect of the film to tell the story. In the hands of a talented director, 3D is another aspect of film which can help tell the story - though, like a large vocabulary, it's instead used as a substitute in the hands of a hack.
   Whereas with fictional writing, the author relies on your imagination to make the story come alive. There's a gap between what the author was imagining, and what the reader imagines. Why would I read someone elses' work to go on a journey of imagination, when I'm perfectly capable to go on one of my own choosing? It's like taking a leisurely drive - it's nice to be a passenger (sit back and enjoy the ride), and it's a different kind of "nice" to be the driver (explore as you see fit), but driving while the passenger directs you is no fun.

As for radio plays, they seem to be a dying or dead medium - and they also have the same "imagination component" as fictional writing (though not to the same extent).

Re:Why directors shouldn't resist...

[Yvan256]

In my opinion, surround sound in movies not only does not add anything to the experience, but actually detracts from it.

Here I am, sitting and watching the movie happen in front of me and all of a sudden the action I'm watching is making sound behind me? I'm not in the holodeck surrounded by the characters and in the middle of the place!

We're reading books and watching movies in the "3rd person" view, external to the story (there's a term for that but can't remember it right now). Why is the sound from the story all around me?

However, surround sound does make sense when playing a game in the 1st person view. You're actually playing the part of the main character of the story so it makes sense that the audio is relative to yourself.

Re:Simple explanation

[mattack2]

Moviegoers don't want 3D?

"Avatar", "Up", and "Toy Story 3" have all made tons of money.

(BTW, I've only seen 2 movies in the current 3D technologies, one at a preview screening.)

Re:You know who else doesn't like 3D movies?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

You jest, but I have one bad eye so 3D is right out for me. If they force this gimmick on everyone I'll have to give up movies. Then there's the people will decent eyesight that get headaches from the 3D effect. It's a hack and a poor one at that.

The real problem - crap 3D

[Animats]

Cameron made a good 3D film, in which he used depth effects with restraint. This was then followed by a slew of films in crap post-processed from 2D to stereoscopic 3D. Not a good thing.

Cameron has been quoted as saying that what he really wants is a higher frame rate, at least 48FPS. It's obvious why. Cameron orders up good high=-detail backgrounds, and panning shots across high-detail backgrounds produce seriously annoying edge effects at 24FPS. So you don't do medium speed pans over a high-detail background today. He'd like to get past that.

Remember, depth in 3D movies is horribly fake, because it's scaled. In the real world, there are no visible stereoscopic effects beyond 3 meters or so. This really bothers some small kids. Kids also have to face the headache-inducing effect of films scaled for adult inter-ocular distance. Seen with kid-sized eye spacing, it forces the eyes into a cross-eyed situation, which usually induces a headache.

Also, watching 3D TV while lying sideways on the couch is not going to be fun.

Re:FX always trump story.

[Evtim]

What was the story of the old ones....let me quote Lucas himself - He was looking for the most common story in all cultures and was consulting scientist dealing with world mythology daily. So he showed us the oldest story in the world - a hero, coming of age; evil father; damsel in distress; old wise hermit; mythic force. How original!!

Lucas never wrote good dialog. It is a mercy that he gave 5 and 6 to other directors. If you can exercise supreme discipline and watch the old ones like you have never seen them before you will not find them interesting at all. I mean, the special effects of the original trilogy are laughable, but for the time they were the best there is. What made the old ones such a phenomenon? The story? The actors? The dialog? No. The vision - that was it, and the special effects.

As for the midichlorians - I though this is a stroke or genius!! Do you know anything about the mitochondria and its role in the cell? Do you know that there are some indications that the mitochondria was in the beginning a symbiont organism with the proto cells? Man, if there is a "Force" out there in the Universe it must stem from living organisms...

Re:Finally?

[fandog]

Ok, maybe I'm alone on this one, but when I watch a black & white movie, say, Dr. Strangelove, after about the first 10 minutes I don't consciously notice the "black & white" - I'm absorbed in the story. If I get distracted from the tv for a minute, I'll come back aware that the movie is in black & white, but I don't notice it much during the experience. The characters aren't "less real" because of the presentation.

Now before you call me a geezer I'm under 35, so I promise I'm not doing the "back in my day" thing.

It's just that I've seen many movies in different formats over the years, and like most people this includes everything from grainy cable channels to VHS tapes whose tracking won't settle down. And in every case where the movie is interesting at all, when I get engrossed in the story I don't generally notice the imperfections of the delivery.

This being the case, I feel like 3d is pointless in movies. Since you can't actually change your viewing angle relative to the characters, (which would be cool and actually 3d), it's instead only a depth-perception trick.(!) And worse, as above, if it's not there you don't miss it, and when it is there, if you're involved in the story you stop noticing it until it's rammed down your throat.

I'm not against movies being done in 3d, but I'm certainly not that impressed. The signal to noise, or "hype to reward" ratio is really really low IMHO.