Slashdot Mirror
Hobbit Film Finally Gets Green Light, To Be Shot in 3-D
An anonymous reader writes with word that "after much kerfuffle and uncertainty, the Hobbit film has finally been greenlit," with Peter Jackson as director. Says the linked story: "The announcement did not state whether the two-part prequel to The Lord of the Rings would be shot in New Zealand. Matt Dravitzki, Jackson's assistant at Wingnut Films, said an annoucement on the place of filming would be 'probably a week or two away.'"
Many of us nerds have vision problems, so 3d dont work for us.
(Hey the typical nerd always wears glasses, right?)
The typical nerd also likes gadgets, like 3D and funny glasses, for its own sake. Using more useless (gadgets) is highly approved in nerddom.
So when the whole fad dies we'll expect your apology, where?
How we know is more important than what we know.
I've got amblyopia (lazy eye) and had no problems watching Avatar with contact lenses in.
There'll be a flattened, 2D version of the film to watch anyway.
This coming from Anonymous Coward, the one responsible for all of the Frosty Piss and racist trolls?
You, sir, are the most prominent Noise component of Slashdot's signal to noise ratio. Grow a pair and get a nick.
(This post brought to you by the Reverend Jack Daniels.)
Your brain is not a computer.
Using the term 3D for stereoscopic video is probably already so entrenched in the media that it's useless to try and correct them, but it irritates the hell out of me...
There's a huge difference though. A 3D image (the closest we have is a hologram) is one where you can change your viewpoint by moving your head. The perspective changes when you move away or closer. This means that no matter where you are relative to the image, the stereoscopic image that your eyes register is always correct. The fixed images of stereoscopic video don't change, and the perspective is only correct for one position relative to the image. This is what gives people headaches.
I'm holding out for holographic (worthy of the term 3D) displays!
Maybe if 3D actually worked for more people, was used in ways that improved the overall storytelling process and was less expensive, you wouldn't hear so many criticisms of it. It works for me, marginally, but I usually end up with a headache and after a few minutes I lose interest. It ruins immersion for me, whether it's a game, or a movie so it's safe to say I'm not a big fan.
Peter Jackson was able to get very good visual effects on the LotR trilogy because he used camera tricks rather than digital editing to achieve the illusion of a world populated by big and little people.
The technique called "foreshortening" was used quite a bit, like when Gandalf first sits with Bilbo and has tea in his kitchen. The actors were there, but the set was arranged and props and actors placed so that Bilbo was farther away from the camera than Gandalf, and therefore appeared little while Gandalf was 'human sized'. Its a simple gimmick and worked great. Using a 3D camera setup may not work with this unless you deliberately went frame by frame and edited the 3D in afterward since shooting it with multiple cameras would cancel out the single-perspective trick of foreshortening.
I'm in the same boat. Both my eyes are lazy (well I have Amblyopia in both eyes). It especially shows up if I'm tired or have had a drink or too. One eye will lose focus and wonder off, which destroys any 3D effects. So, as long as they release everyday high-def versions, I'm fine with it also being available in 3D.
... but Peter Jackson is nearly 2-D. The photo in TFA is the first time I've seen him not looking like a rotund hobbit -- ironically, a spherical shape that would lend itself nicely to a 3-D movie, should he choose to cast himself.
Just like with every other technology, starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Picasso
I guess that's what you get when people have no foresight. But I agree that 3D is overused right now, just like stereo was when it was young. Have you listened to Voodoo Child lately? That song flys left and right like a dunk sailor.
Pity it's Jackson. I would love to have seen what del Toro could have done with it. He's more suited to the fact that the Hobbit is in itself a dark fantasy kids story, which is what del Toro is the best alive at.
At least it will be *shot* in 3D, not postprocessed into 3D. It has a chance not to look like crap.
Not everyone can wear contacts, and it sucks when I have to deal with a scratch on my lenses because the 3D glasses never seem to fit over my glasses correctly. I personally wont see it in the theaters if they only have the 3D option. Since I don't expect everyone else to do without just because I can't use it without issues.
Well, I'm pretty blind and I love the new 3D (as seen in Avatar at least; there's some lesser quality 3D going around in other flicks). The plastic 3D glasses conveniently fit over my large and very nerdy glasses. I understand some people have other issues, but I'll bet its a very small minority.
Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.
Wrong.
Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.
It's not amazing that nerds are against it – nerds are often against tech that makes things worse, not better.
the story! That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!!
lets count how often Gandalf, for no reason at all, holds his staff to the camera. AND ITS ALL DUDES! what benefit does 3D have if i dont get any 3D boobies?
"Lit" is a perfectly acceptable past tense of "light". In fact, I prefer it.
Gimmicks do not make the movie better
Simulating an extra dimension does not make the film more fun, it just adds an extra level of hassle to something you should just be able to sit down and enjoy.
If you are the guy that goes to 3d movies, stop it. You are just making it worse for everyone.
I I dont wear regular glasses....So I am not bitching about headaches. I just want to see an nice big screen with a nice bright picture. Not a bunch of bullshit gimmicks "flying" out of the screen because I am too lazy to go to another theatre with cheaper tickets or too stupid to care.
God damn this 3d shit really grinds my fucking gears.
they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
Okay Tom, you can take a break now.
Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.
Wrong.
Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.
This. Also, the director will always avoid partial objects in the foreground (no one wants a fuzzy half of a face jumping out at them). In my opinion, what is lost (artistic ability/license) is far greater than what is gained (axes/bullets/spears appearing to fly directly at me). I thought Avatar was visually breathtaking, but the likelihood of the shooting of 'Riddles in the Dark' being hamstrung by 3D "aesthetic requirements" is pretty fucking disappointing.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
The reason I dislike movies being made in 3-D is because once the decision has been made to do so, 95% of the time the 3-D technology drives the movie a la Doctor Tongue. It's like the director/studio just can't help themselves; they have to be constantly drawing attention to it. This drives me crazy.
Hopefully, they will go the "Avatar" route and just make the thing in 3-D, and any "into the camera" stuff will be minimal and come across as natural. If 2-D morphing was exploited when it first came out in the same way as 3-D has historically been exploited, "Willow" would have been a much different movie, and not for the better.
thats not 3ds fault. thats the fault of the director being a idiot.
wtf?
I don't know many people who are opposed to the idea of 3D itself, since most such films can also be seen in 2D. The problem with 3D and other new technology is that there is a tendency to use it as a gimmick to sell an otherwise pointless film, or to use it at a point in the film where older technology would be better. This isn't always the case, such as Citizen Kane. It is credited with using many innovations, but tastefully. However, in today's market it seems that every movie tends to be a gimmick of some kind. That makes it tempting to be at least a little skeptical initially.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
Smaug!
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
I agree with the grandparent, and from my part, there won't be an apology if it dies again. For two reasons:
1. I happen to like 3D, and will watch 3D content. If it dies it won't be because I didn't support it, so I won't have to apologize for that.
2. 3D content trivially translates to the old 2D, by simply watching either the left or right image. So it's not like anybody loses the ability to watch the movie just because the 3D hardware can't be found anymore. Since the movie will be just as available to people to watch as any normal one, my support for 3D won't deny anything to anybody, so I won't have to apologize for that either.
So what could there possibly have to be an apology for, if the 3D tech goes away?
[...] a la Doctor Tongue.
/.
Haha, thanks for mentioning him. I always think about that sketch whenever 3D gets mentioned on
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
get the feeling that Hollywood is trying to shove 3D down our throats lately?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I can't see a studio putting money into it unless there's some bullshit female character retconned in. I mean, Peter, Petey, Petey baby, does Thorin really have to be a dude? We've already spoken to Salma Hayek's agent, man, she'd be perfect for Thorina, Warrior Princess.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I don't wear glasses, my eyes are just unaligned so I don't have depth perception.
(you insensitive clod)
First off, nerds already wear glasses, so wearing glasses over glasses is awkward. Second, 3D television sales have been a disaster, so it's a pointless technology that only works well on a gigantic screen and not a standard sized television. Third, people mock 3D because they see it exactly for what it is--a desperate gimmick for theaters trying to compete with technology in the home as well as an excuse to charge extra for ticket prices, which was the primary reason Avatar became the highest grossing film.
People aren't "against emerging technologies." It's not even a new technology. People are against cheesy gimmicks. You cite a videogame as an example for 3D, which already shows you how gimmicky it is and how it places emphasis on visuals, not storytelling. It may be great for Left 4 Dead, but for a two hour movie trying to tell a story?
3D fads in film have come and gone several times before. It's not some new trend. They had this shit in the 1950s with the old red and blue glasses.
Actually it does affect the quality of the movie. Directors are always going for the "3d money shot" where something flies out of the screen. AND the movie is out of focus half of the time. And how do you call a 60 year technology an emerging technology?
Most slashdot readers are able to make up their own fucking minds, anonymous dickhead.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I have no more mod points, so I'll post. I've often tried to state the same thing, but you articulated it better than I have been able.
I think directors will mostly outgrow the "random stuff flying at audience" gimmick as the novelty wears off. After that, I think they will realize that unlike previous technology jumps, 3D doesn't give directors and cinematographers more freedom to be creative, it restricts them to filming in a way that "works in 3D".
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
See, the problem is that 3D is purely a money making gimmick. Do you think Lucas and Cameron spent all those years pushing it and developing for it just for artistic integrity? F no! They both knew that it was a good money making machine that will puts peoples butts back into the empty theater seats. So I can give two shits whether you actually like it. You are in a very small minority. Most of the people who actually go see 3D movies are the mindless idiots who go see Michael Bay movies. You want technological innovation? Well then make digital film cameras capable of the richness that analog film gives you at half the price. Or figure out how to make non-creepy digital characters. All I see is the big tech companies trying to cash in and making all TV's 3D and charging more for them. Next thing you know you won't be able to buy a non-3D TV. Just like how it's getting harder and harder to buy a 1920x1200 resolution monitor because display makers are trying to cash in on the 1080p craze.
Movie ruined before the first frame was filmed. wtg guys.
I don't think I'd bother with the 3D version of the Hobbit; on a 2D screen - it is 3D enough for me. Plus I'd rather focus on the great (but complex) storyline than less-than-remarkable 3D effects or re-adjusting my glasses...
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
That statement is as insightful as ever.
Just think about what it implies. Of course, I do not know if it truely was an ignorant comment, but to me it reads as very terse, subtle and clever commentary about human nature
Bot Assisted Blogging
How do you expect 3D to "improve the overall storytelling process"? Or even high quality video and sound for that matter? This isn't about the story, it's about immersion.
What do you mean you "lose interest"? Are you trying especially hard to notice the 3D effect? Since it's fixed position 3D it won't react to your vision like a normal real life scene, so I think trying to study it too hard might be what gives any headaches.. I wouldn't know as I've never had motion sickness or any other problems from playing games or watching movies.
Still haven't worked out the best tactic for watching 3D movies myself, such as should I try to refocus for objects in the background etc? But I think the best way is probably just relax and not think about it too much.
I certainly don't want them "improving the overall storytelling process" by pushing objects pointedly towards the camera every few scenes though.
which is totally what she said
Considering for several years I used to get massive headaches from first person games, I've never had issues with 3D movies. I'd say, it depends on what they DO with the 3D. If they use it to make shots pop a little more (such as My Bloody Valentine 3D, where you could actually see inside the ribcage and such) instead of just cheesy "the bullet is coming right at you!", then I think 3D can actually make a movie better (god knows it made the mediocre My Bloody Valentine better). 3D is a tool, and like any tool, it's usefulness is determined by what you do with it.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
That is because most of us greybeards have been around long enough to know Stereovision is a fad that comes around every 25 years or so, and that with the exception of a damned few films made each time it has come around by and large what you get is "Dr Tongue's 3D house of Pancakes". This isn't a natural evolution, like say B&W to color, or sound to stereo to surround, this is just another blatant attempt to try to milk more money from the public from an effect that 1.-many with glasses or even slight vision problems can't enjoy, 2.-many of us who do not have vision problems still get a headache after watching the crap more than an hour, and 3.- Ruins the traditional "family and friends come over to watch a show" experience by making expensive glasses mandatory.
I'm sorry, but after being drug to several 3D movies I see nothing that impresses me anymore than the last time it came around in the 70s. It was lame and overused then, it'll be lame and overused now. Want to impress us greybeards? Give us REAL 3D video, where we can walk around the viewing area and the view changes. Now THAT would be impressive. Using the latest tech to make a "new" version of tech we've had since the 50s? Not impressive at all.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel
I always start with Animal Husbandry.
Try naming ONE film in 3D which has either a good plot or good acting.
This is done by something wonderful called perspective. Whether done by design or by evolution is another matter.
As far as this being a new technology: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy
It was first invented by Sir Charles Wheatstone in 1838
For me 3D won't be 3D until I can walk around it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
3D is best used to simply add depth to a normal film so that everything appears more lifelike and vivid. You know, characters are in a field and far things seem far and close things seem close with focus to infinity. The moment they start using 3D for effects that are about 3D, things start to go downhill.
Avatar was an excellent example. 3D effects for their own sake were pretty scarce. For the most part you forgot you were watching 3D and simply immersed into the film.
I'm glad that the Lord of the Rings was filmed when this shit didn't exist yet.
Or actually, when it existed but was not considered the holy grail of film-making.
Cue in the usual "I don't need 3D", "Why don't they make better movies instead of playing with technology?" and "In the old times they at least made good movies" that fills every slashdot story that has something to do with 3-D movies.
Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.
I personally like the 3-D effect in movies. In fact I even like it in games - Left4Dead is a lot scarier when the infected run towards you in 3-D.
Also, the technology gets better in intervals. Recently there have popped up Nintendo's new handheld console and 3-D tv's that work without glasses. The effect will only improve over time, but you need to take the intermediate steps to get there. Just like with every other technology, starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel.
As the first poster, you are rebutting anti-3D posts that don't exist yet!
What gives? Are you a lawyer?
Shooting a movie in 3d adds significant cost to the production of the movie and hence yes 3D can really make a movie worse as cuts are taken elsewhere to provide funds to shoot in 3d, look at the complete and utter garbage that has come out in 3D so far. I am not against 3D (though I prefer 2D as the semi 3D in movies gives me headaches and the glasses are uncomfortable), just that so far hollywood is shooting blanks when it comes to 3d and you would have to be a pretty brave person to bet that any movie targetted for 3D at this stage is going to be good.
until someone can actually point to a movie that is both good and in 3D then it is you that is wearing the rose coloured glasses, the rest of us are just putting up with the reality of the utter shit that has been produced with 3d thus far.
Thats a flaw in the film itself, not the technology. The technology adds depth. That is a undeniable improvement.
It isn't 3D's fault that idiot directors can't resist the urge to make 3D show off effects any more than it is the fault of dynamic range technology that idiot sound effects people can't resist the urge to a wide dynamic range on the dialogue and claim it offers a better experience.
P.S. Idiot sound guys. Make explosions boom, make whispers audible to the average 60yr old at the middle volume setting on the typical 600w surround system from walmart. Use lower levels only for things like leaves falling and the like that won't ruin the film if you don't hear them.
It may restrict the director but so did HD. Millions of special effects techniques have become obsolete as video and display technology have improved and the effects no longer hold up under a clear picture.
That's well worth it in my opinion. 3D used to make it look like you are watching real events unfold through a window is how it should be. Things should never fly at me just for the sake of doing so. There is a time and place for that sort of thing. For instance, in First Knight Lancelot runs the gauntlet and there is a scene where he looks down and there are axes flying from side to side and at him and so forth. Showing that in 3D from his perspective with objects coming at you would be appropriate only because it immerses you in the challenge the character is facing.
The gimmick shots will go away on their own. What worries me is that the technology is mature enough to be enjoyable rather than a distraction but there isn't much content.
It is not about what it adds to the movie, or not. It is about what it adds to the marketing process. Avatar was a mediocre movie if you take away the 3D and hype surrounding the movie. It was a very well played marketing event, where the masses just felt they had to see this movie. The 3D movies after that did not play this game as well. Jackson, of course, has proved he knows exactly how to play it. So this movie will be a big event, that everybody has to watch, and they will discuss the 3D, whether it is good or bad, and it won't matter, like Avatar, because those people discussing it already payed for the movie. Personally, I'm gutted Guillermo isn't going to make it, but "just" Jackson. The LOTR was excellent, but had its failings, mostly with the characters and story telling. It was a series of rollercoaster events with no depth. Jackson's weak points are Guillermo's strong points. Since the Hobbit is a smaller movie (in the sense of less rollercoasting) it would have been perfect for Guillermo, and at least very interesting considering the movies he had made in the past. I hope the Hobbit turns out well, but frankly I expect a 3D King Kong/Avatar type of movie with little depth, which, of course, will make huge amounts of money nevertheless. The 3D of course suggests Jackson will still not be concentrating on depth. I'll be happy if he manages to avoid jumping the shark. He came close sometimes in LOTR, with Legolas surfing the enormous CGI elephants, and an CGI army of the undead flooding a battle field.
So when the whole fad dies we'll expect your apology, where?
The 3D fad or the Hobbit one. Whichever one dies...why an apology.....it dies,it dies.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
"Second, 3D television sales have been a disaster, so it's a pointless technology that only works well on a gigantic screen and not a standard sized television."
So bad sales == technology doesn't work?
FAIL.
I'm not really worried about the 3D part. I just don't know why they're splitting the Hobbit into two parts!
All movies nowadays seem to be over 3 hours long, and I don't really have the patience for most of these. It's mostly just self-indulgence from the director.
It's hard to confess this on a nerd forum, but I actually fell asleep in one of the LOTR movies. It would be a pity if the Hobbit was two 3-hour long separate films where nothing interesting happens. Keep it concise and entertaining Peter Jackson, and most importantly, get over yourself.
And I suppose we should get rid of stairs, because some people can't use them, too.
Look we get it, some people are disabled and won't see a benefit. That doesn't mean we should decide that no one will see a benefit like some kind of Vonnegut story.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Dear "idiot" sound guys, please don't do what this guy suggests and put dynamic range compression all throughout our films, it's already ruined our music, don't add to it.
I agree with you but remember that the first movies were in black and white and had no sound. This new generation of 3D technology is still very much a new technology like film itself was at one point. It will improve!
How about just on the 2-channel version of the soundtrack? Give the home theater people a 5.1 soundtrack with quiet and loud bits. That way, we can both be happy - in your nice basement home theater, you get quiet and loud, while in the living room (with kids, pets, household appliances, etc. contributing to the noise) you get something that you can hear all of without getting blown out of your seat from time to time. My living room and kitchen are open to one another, and I usually have the door to the laundry room open so the cats can get to their litter box. If the refrigerator cuts on, and the washer starts filling, my living room gets noisy. Same thing in the car - dynamic range compression makes things sound better there because you don't have to worry about adjusting the volume constantly.
No matter what, it cannot be avoided in that the difference in views between the left and right eyes of a 3d film are optimized only for viewing at a particular distance from the screen. The exact distance depends on a combination of the exact size of the screen and the manufacturing of the film. This is not to say that at that exact distance, the 3d effect is always extremely noticeable at that position, but that if you sit in closer to the screen than that distance, your left and right eyes must turn further outwards than what is natural for normal vision simply so that your brain can fuse the two images on the screen into a single 3d image, and it is that which causes a headache. Designing the film such that this would not happen even near front however is still problematic, as the 3D effect becomes increasingly less pronounced as one moves further behind this point, just as the difference between the left and right eye views of something becomes less noticeable as you get further away from it, and most of the people in a full theater would not notice the any significant difference between it and watching it in 2d.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Not all 3D content translates to 2D by just removing one image, just as a stereo signal does not become mono by removing one side. I don't know for live action, but in the CG world rendering in 3d means render one image for left, one for right, and one for 2d if that is different.
Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
Because stories can't be told with video games, oh no. Video games are nothing but gimmicks and visuals.
I am trolling
Lamenting a lack of mod points in a reply is a too long-standing and very overused way to show appreciation to the parent.
Just like "who pissed in your cheerios this morning" is overused. Congratulations, you're fucking boring.
he's tired of dumb posts that everybody has read before.
You know, I'll probably go see this in 3D. But it'll probably also be the last 3D film(s) I'll see. I can't wait for this.
The holdup in making this film had something to do with the Australian actors union (MEAA) bosses wanting more money and Peter Jackson telling them to go F*** themselves. My suggestion is that would be actors (and perhaps Peter) go to Bollywood where hopefully greedy union bosses have no say. I also prefer no 3D and would preferentially attend a non-3D show.
Terrific! I'd pay to see a hobbit being shot, whether it was in 3-D or not. Furry little bastards!
No left turn unstoned.
I've always wondered... But how does 3D make the movie better? Why do people want 3D? I watched Avatar in 3D, and it added nothing. In fact, it was more distracting than watching it in 2D.
Clever signature text goes here.
Same place as the last half dozen times 3D was the next big thing in movies and entertainment: you can pick up a whole bunch of semi-worthless 3D gear for next to nothing.
Avatar hit so hard because it felt so real. It was like 2+hour dream. I was floored by it.
aside: they need to
a). move to 60fps, or
b). work on their motion blur technology
because when you see it on Imax the differences between frames is like 5 feet on the screen, and it's only 24fps, which is OK for normal film because your mind can patch in the lost frames using the blur data, but for digital shots it doesn't have the information to do that.
It certainly helped but everyone that went to see it liked it. Charging $15 was not the "primary reason" it made so much. The "primary reason" was that it was an excellent film.
Not happy with anonymously trolling me, some people feel the need to anonymously stalk me. I feel loved.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Both parts would be made "using the latest camera and stereo technology to create a high quality, comfortable viewing experience", the studios said.
If you read the article, nowhere does it actually say the movie will be in 3D. The closest it comes is saying "There had also been speculation that the two part film would be shot in 3-D." and "Weta Digital in Wellington was heavily involved in 3-D visual effects for James Cameron's Avatar and is also working in 3-D for the first Tintin film, directed by Steven Spielberg."
Judging from the quote above, that sounds like a generic "we don't know yet if it's gonna be in 3D" PR statement. Unless there's an article where the director/producer/someone who knows actually says "Yes, it will be in 3D", then I'll take this with a grain of sand.
Wrong.
Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.
Maybe I just missed these moments, but if I recall correctly both Up and Toy Story 3 were available in 3D, and they were great movies. I never even saw Toy Story 3 in 3D.
Just because most 3D movies are gimmicky doesn't mean all are. It's just that most movies suck regardless.
Some people can't hear. I suggest we get rid of the sound too on TVs. We can all use subtitles!
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Lancelot runs the gauntlet and there is a scene where he looks down and there are axes flying from side to side and at him and so forth.
Or is shows a need for coordination.
Well I do hope it was an issue with the glasses/TV I tried, but there was constant HEAVY flickering over all the screen when I tried it out. The kind of flickering I'd usually see on an about-to-die, 40 Hz refresh rate CRT. If that is normal behavior, 3D is dead for me.
Whatever the case though, I can't shake the feeling it's just one huge fad.
lets say i want to write a classical orchestra piece and use electric guitars and drums in the music. of course it would be classical, but the extra technology would need attention to it.
so basically saying, a new technology does not affect how an artist creates its work is like saying, if michelangelo would have worked on a wacom tablet, it would still be michelangelo. it would and it wouldn't.
everything you use takes up some space in your production. having 3d on the set affects how you take your shots, how you emphasize certain things or which angles you take. so yes, 3d does have its effects on the final movie.
otherwise viewing it in 3d would make not much difference.
creating a 3d blockbuster needs you to use the effects of 3d to scare or make the viewer wonder about certain scenes. imagine jaws being shot in modern 3d. the movie would consist of different scenes alltogether.
however, if the effect is negative or positive, is a different question. some movies may only be "watchable" because of the 3d part. others may be good with or without 3d.
I believe peter jackson can do it right. he knows, that by making a movie, he wants to tell a story. he does want to bring certain emotions to the viewer. I think the fear of using 3d has valid claims about the quality being influenced by that decision in negative ways. however, i think, it can also be positive overall.
There is no improvement without risk. 3D is not just an improvement. It does influence the movie-making. However it can be an improvement. Avatar was fairly watchable without 3d, while alice was just boring without it.
Tom? Tom Bombadil, is that you?
Rumor has it that Shelob is out over bad financial negotiations and ridiculous perks.
Except that I can say without a doubt (as a doctoral compsci student) that computers raise more questions than they answer. Compared to humans, computers are severely limited as to what they can do; investigating their limits is fascinating and strange, and those insights feed back into human knowledge in unexpected ways. Cryptography, for instance, played (some would say) a deciding role in the last world war, and compared to today, that field was in its infancy. The outcome of that early research is what allows modern commerce to happen.
I think extraordinary people can say dumb things, just like the rest of us. I think it's still a dumb comment, unless you mean to say that it's somehow a self-referentially terse, subtle and clever about how stupid people can be. In which case, wow.
Is 3-D really needed for The Hobbit? There aren't that many "action" sequences in the book. It's supposed to be about a journey, not a hollywoodized action flick. It's not frickin' Rambo. Save the 3-D for the action-packed flicks, and not film something in 3-D for marketing purposes. That said, if the goal is to make The Hobbit in 3-D, then the story will probably be butchered in order to bulk-up the action sequences. Similar to the way the Harry Potter books were butchered to make the movies action/drama-packed. PJ did a good job on LOTR. I just hope 3-D doesn't skew his book adaptation.
It "works" in the sense of complying with specs. It doesn't "work" in the sense that it doesn't do something people want done.
Couldn't that be said about any visual improvement? I'm sure colour was similarly gimmicky when it first became commercial.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie.
If the director and DP are overly conscious of the "need" for 3-D effects, then, yes, it will very likely negatively impact the quality of the movie.
I have yet to see a benefit of 3D. If is a distraction to the movie and annoying for lots of people. It should be limited to movies like Jackass 3D where it seems to have found an appropriate home.
At most 3d would take double the bandwidth, having dual frames instead of single frames.
They are simply trying to cash in on the extra box office from the 3D surcharge.
Yeah, just as color is. And 5.1 sound. And stereo.
Following your vision, we should all get back to monophonic sound with b&w movies. Or maybe just to comic books. Those images moving around are a distraction to the movie.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Color enhanced the experience. Stereo enhanced the experience. 5.1 enhanced the experience. 3D on the other hand detracts from the experience. See how that works? When a gimmick is added just to try and make more money off selling 3D glasses that makes the movie worse, it is not an enhancement.
Fortunately, we'll also get a 2D version.
"but everyone that went to see it liked it"
Certainly not. I went with 6 people, 2 really liked, 2 were indifferent and two disliked (myself included).
It was the most over-hyped movie of the decade. Successful massive over-hype plus novelty for many who wanted to see great 3D possibly for the first time.
It was a mediocre, extremely cliched story with excellent CGI and annoying 3d, that still included standard 3D tropes of spears/guns jutting out of the screen.
I won't see Avatar 2. Fool me once...
I agree with this, and also point out the pure engineering/logistics/production issue: money spent on 3D is not spent on something else that might have less buzzword value to the movie-going public but actually make the movie better.
That said, it's a tool, and I'm kind of excited to see what artists will use it for. Good cinematographers and directors will get a tasteful grip on it pretty soon. Eventually, someone will do something really worthwhile with it. Maybe Jackson? Probably too soon to hope for that, but I'm curious.
A bunch of crappy movies, easily avoided if I don't want to see them, is a small price to pay to, ultimately, advance the art and science. It's not like that crap isn't being made anyway, with ample budgets. Really, would Transformers have been *worse* in 3D? Having Hollywood do the advance development of 3D camera technology is really not costing us anything of value, and it puts cheap 3D cameras in more directors' hands sooner, which turned out pretty well for HD / all-digital production.
I wore glasses for decades until I got my implant and became a cyborg. Best money I ever spent! My eye implant is my favorite device -- I have better than 20-20 at all distances. I'm 58 and don't even need reading glasses, where I used to have contacts AND reading glasses.
Free Martian Whores!
I was so glad to read that Ebert also hates 3D. It's just so nice to know that I am not alone.
Ebert: "Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)"
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html
Then don't watch it in 3d? A lot of movies give you that choice.
Did you see the Pixar short film Day & Night shown before Toy Story 3D? That's what I call advancing the storytelling process. The film explored the 3D technique in a way that was not possible with cinematographic idioms developed for 2D.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Remember in LOTR 1, when Strider camps the fleeing hobbits without comment (at least in the theater version) under Bilbo's stone trolls? Can't wait to see those big dumb guys arguing in 3D about 'ere now 'oo shoved 'oo? Golly Gomer will that be soooo gooooooood!!!!
You could tick off the Calendar Scenes in LOTR123, right? The Shire, The Trolls, Rivendell, The Balrog Versing Gandalf (as my kid would put it), The Argonath, Aragorn at the Gates of Mordor, The Stone King's Abloom In A Shaft Of Sunlight, Frodo and Gollum Above the Crack of Doom, and that's only July.
3D scenes in the Hobbit, de rigeur, must include Bag End Interior, Gandalf and The Dwarves, Smog Asleep on the Trove, Smaug (heh) Aloft And Ravaging In Great Swoops, Barrels Out Of Bond Rushing Through White Water At The Audience, Shaft of Sunlight on the Keyhole, and on and on. Splitting Excedrin Headaches Pouring Out Of The Theaters.
Hope Jackson gets those twin-lens cameras cheap, or is it all process these days?
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
I think a vast majority of people would disagree with you that that 3D detracts from the experience (if done right). The success of Avatar is a good testament that people actually like 3D movies. However, crappy conversion from 2D to 3D at the last minute (see Clash of the Titans) make for a bad experience. Since the new Hobbit movie is going to be directed for 3D from the get-go, I hope it will be on par with Avatar in quality.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
The technology adds depth. That is a undeniable improvement.
Maybe it's an improvement for you. I wouldn't call it undeniable.
For me, it means having to hang something from my face in order to view it. The obnoxiousness of this vastly outweighs the "3D experience" because I really don't like things hanging off my face. I find it extremely uncomfortable after more than a few minutes and so instead of enjoying the movie, I end up squirming until the point I take them off and leave.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
You probably mean 'dragged', but I love the image of one of your friends whispering "hey, watch this, he'll do ANYTHING after this, I bet we can even get him into some shitty 3D movie!" before spiking your drink while your back is turned.
.evom ton seod gis eht
Color enhanced the experience. Stereo enhanced the experience. 5.1 enhanced the experience. 3D on the other hand detracts from the experience. See how that works?
Yep. Stuff you had as a kid is cool. Stuff that' comes out when you're older, is new-fangled and unnecessary. ;)
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Not happy with anonymously trolling me, some people feel the need to anonymously stalk me. I feel loved.
Well having just read the linked to comment, it's hardly surprising that you bragging about ruining some people's evening who you didn't even know through sustained harassment of a girl is going to follow you around.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
If movie makers ever will get away from trying to display the 3D and show off, I will welcome it. However, in every wave of 3D so far, this has not happened.
That happens with pretty much any technology. It happened with sound, with colour, with the ability to morph actors into other actors or animals (how many sci-fi and horror films from the Eighties wave this in your face?). First people learn how to do something, then they settle down and learn how not to do it. Some slasher-flicks shove 3D in your face gratuitously. Avatar was a much better example because apart from the odd golf-ball and rifle, the 3D was used carefully.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Yep I saw that, don't remember really noticing the stuff in the background being 3D though. I think the concept would work just as well on a 2D screen. I don't really have anything against 3D as such, I think it's cool, but I don't miss it when it's not there. High resolutions and sound quality are more important to me than 3D at the moment, especially as I'm unsure as to any long term effects of watching 3D movies using current tech - ie whether it could slightly affect the way you perceive depth in real life if you're watching/playing 3D content a lot.
which is totally what she said
The whole point in that film was creating a story based on the 'open window' effect in the bodies of the characters. If you didn't pay attention to the perspective then you missed all the novelty the short film had. The story didn't stand by itself beside being a 'cute thing' if you strip it of this innovation.
I agree image quality alone could still provide a to movies. But that's not to say that 3D doesn't get you anything. Everyday scenes feel much more natural when watched in 3D, even if the effect is no longer consciously perceived after a few minutes of watching; this would benefit 'european style' drama much more than it does for Hollywood blockbusters.
IMO this Pixar film proves that new possibilities for this technique in storytelling do exist, but we haven't got the "Citizen Kane" for 3D yet.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
s/provide a to movies/provide an improvement to watching movies/
I did push preview but I didn't read the content.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Had to take Dramamine for 2 days to avoid nausea
Many people thought the same way after watching Titanic though! :-)
Fair enough. I suppose I must have absorbed the 3D effect and perhaps even thought consciously about it. The few times I've really enjoyed the 3D effect are wide open vistas - for example like in Beowulf, the first 3D film I saw there are some stunning night shots looking out over the mountains.
which is totally what she said
Exactly there are times when its coming right for you is appropriate to the movie. If you are seeing Indiana Jones perspective when a trap triggers a bolder rolling at it him... well that fits the moment, it's appropriate at that point to feel his suspense.
But we all know they don't limit that effect to moments where it adds to immersion.
Will it be the left or the right eye's viewpoint?
Both? Or will one be held back for a special edition "with previously unseen edge details!"?
Dynamic range compression is what you have to do to make the movie viewable AFTER the sound guys have screwed it up. I'm not saying they shouldn't use a full dynamic range, I'm saying they shouldn't be using the full range for the dialogue. It is possible to use full dynamic range for effects and mix dialogue so you can hear it.
In the real world we may be capable of using the softest whisper or screaming at the top of our lungs but we don't do that when speaking to each other. There is no reason for dialogue in movies to utilize a greater volume range than actual human dialogue.
I have a quiet home theater with a 5.1 system. I have no problem with loud effects and soft effects. I'm only talking about the dialogue. We don't walk around speaking in the softest possible barely audible whispers during calm moments in the real world. What is wrong with putting the normal conversational dialogue at the same level as normal conversational dialogue would be with someone in the same room?
Dynamic range is great for effects, but we don't use a large range when speaking in the real world and don't need one in our movie dialogue.
Exactly. Sound effects need the full dynamic range but dialogue does not. First, they almost always make dialogue too soft. I shouldn't need to max my volume on my surround sound for regular dialogue in calm moments to be audible this audio should be mixed to be appropriate for someone actually standing on the other side of the room and speaking. Second, the range they are using between speaking to people across the room, vs people next to them, vs real life soft speech (which is never at whisper level) is ridiculous. Actual human beings don't use a great dynamic range in speech. They speak at a volume that is intended to be heard.
You should see a doctor. Nor wearing sunglasses with proper uv protection is very bad for your eyes.
"after much kerfuffle and uncertainty, the Hobbit film has finally been greenlit"
Sure there were some troubles, but it was inevitable it would eventually get made. After all you know what they say, "where there's a whip, there's a way."
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
http://xkcd.com/774/
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Why? I can turn the volume up and press my face against the speakers and feel the vibrations while I make weird OWWWWW OHHHH AHHHH screaching noises!
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Yeah, that too. I remember seeing a movie about T-Rex in a original IMAX 3D dome. It was like being right in an archaeological excavation at the Rocky Mountains. The technology in the dome is much better than what we get in theaters nowadays.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Color enhanced the experience in my opinion. Stereo enhanced the experience in my opinion. 5.1 enhanced the experience in my opinion. 3D on the other hand detracts from the experience in my opinion. See how that works? When something I think is a gimmick is added just to try and make more money off selling 3D glasses that makes the movie worse in my view, it is not an enhancement.
Emphasis mine. I see how that works now. Thanks.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I'm out of mod-points. If i'd had, you'd know what I think of you comments.
Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
Man that would have been nice to have had my GF drug me before seeing Avatar in 3D, as the thing gave me and her both nice skull thumpers. Of course you know what is good for a headache? Lots of sex! Of course I think lots of sex is pretty much a cure all, but hey, maybe that's just me ;-) Good thing my GF is a horny little thing and agrees wholeheartedly on my idea of prescription medicine!
But as for the language thing? I think it is one of those regional things, Yankees say dragged, we say drug, whatever. You want to see a Yankee grammar nazi blow a gasket start talking about how you ain't got none!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I *said* I did that, 10 years ago.. on Slashdot.. in a conversation about ways to be obnoxious. If I was the kind of person who cared what random fucktards do on the Internet this AC would have been talking to the police a few years ago.
How we know is more important than what we know.
So, unlike most husbands, in your house you are king?
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Emphasis mine. You're in the minority, if you say the first three detract from the experience. See how that works? Kthxbye.
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
HD was really only a game changer for television people*, who if anything could just change from lower-rez TV techniques to film ones. Sure, costs go up for more detailed CGI and physical models, but I highly doubt any technique that is practical in 480 became impractical in 1080p. In regards to 3D, I agree that in certain situations it can add to the sense of immersion. The problem is it can also detract from immersion. If you want part of the movie 3D for the benefit, then you either turn it on and off, or film the whole thing 3D. As the GP said, this obliges one to restrict the way scenes are filmed to avoid having the 3D break immersion. Who knows, technology and techniques might evolve in a way I haven't thought about, but outside of action movies, I don't foresee 3D ever adding enough to make up for this. I just don't see how it might benefit a dialog-centric drama or comedy.
*HD resolution is far below what you get with even 35mm film, it is only now that 4k digital cameras are coming out that things are comparable. IMAX is still far beyond anything but digital still cameras.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
"I just don't see how it might benefit a dialog-centric drama or comedy."
That is the same line of thinking that leads to cheesy 3D effects in the first place. 3D allows you to look at a scene and see it with an actual sense of depth. It benefits your dialog centric drama by making it seem as if they are having their dialogue in an alcove of the same room you are sitting in.
I wasn't drunk, merely belligerent. It's a little out of character for me, so I thought I'd explain the reason for the hundreds of people who hang on my every word.
(This post brought to you by Professor Yuengling.)
Your brain is not a computer.
No, I don't really like grape. Tastes way too artificial.
And yes, this is a fictitious name, but anyone who wants to can look at my comment history to get an idea of my personality and beliefs. I generally try to contribute to the discussion, and it is my hope that some people will recognize my nick and read what I have to say even when Ye Mods haven't seen fit to grace me with their +1s. There are a handful of nicks that I recognize and find to be usually worth a read regardless of their status--the mods can be fickle. There is no substitute for familiarity.
Your brain is not a computer.
To be honest, it sounds like you just have a really weak centre speaker – get a good one, then dialog will be clear and audible.
People were saying the exact same thing about color as they are saying about 3D now. Because when color was just out, colors sucked. Have you looked at a movie in so called "technicolor" lately? It looks horrendous, and in many ways worse than a b&w movie.
Stereo faced the same fate. Because music and movie producers played with stereo a bit too much at the beginning, stereo music/soundtrack was often a pain to listen to.
See the pattern? 3D sucks because nobody really knows how to work with it. Yet. One producers are accustomed to it, it won't get in the way anymore.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Looking back at that link, you made that comment nearly three years ago. If the AC is digging it out still, wow - that really is some tragic stalking on their part. We all do stupid things. Weird to have someone bringing it up to badmouth after that length of time.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Maybe if you coddle your eyes throughout life by starting with sunglasses at an early age, you become dependent on them?
I grew up in the desert, never wear sunglasses, and still have perfect vision.
Seriously, you act as if humans didn't evolve for millions of years under direct sunlight.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
But when considering current technology, current techniques and methods... 3-D sucks.
...I'm starting to think we're close to the same opinion.
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Allright. 3-D sucks, long live 3-D !!!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I'll admit it is possible to do 3D well/right even in a dialog-centric movie, but you haven't addressed my main concern: My (non-professional) understanding, and the GGGP's worry, is that there are shots that Just Don't Work in 3D. Thus, making the choice to go 3D places limitations - possibly painful, possibly insignificant - on the cinematography. It is a trade-off. Unlike bacon, 3D does not automagically make things better, and I don't want it to be the default "because we can" choice.
Personally, I find 3D to break my sense of immersion about as often as it increases it, so I'm pretty skeptical towards it. If new technology and techniques solve these problems, great.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
Hell yeah! Subtitles let me continue watching my films when I have someone over that won't shut up, or when I have my daughter crying and I'm trying to soothe her. If there were no sound, the quality of those subtitles might improve! :)
Heh. Actually I often use subtitles too, especially if the characters have weird accents...
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Not everyone can perceive the stereoscopic 2D correctly since everyone has slightly misaligned eyes and some more than others. The worst are for people that have actual diagnosed strabismus (cross-eyed).
Personally I can do without the use of virtual pies flying at my face for the sake of compensating for a poor plot and/or poor acting. This I suspect is the majority complaint here on /.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I didn't draw that conclusion at all. I said that it's a pointless technology and then added that it only works well on big screens. Notice that you didn't dispute this fact at all, because it's verifiably true.
People who use the "fail" meme come off sounding incredibly stupid. Next.
I'm going to have to disagree pretty much entirely. There are thousands of those little shots that don't work in 2D either. Those shots are the reason there are professionals and that there is a wide gap between their work and that of any random joe with an hd camcorder. I can't imagine how these could possibly be worth giving up an entire depth of perception.
I'm going to have to disagree, 3D is better than bacon. Frankly, 2D is a terrible shoddy hack we have suffered through on the way to effective 3D technology. Now that 3D can be done right I can understand having movies be backwards compatible with 2D until the technology is pervasive but I can't see filming 2D only movies or sacrificing 3D shots for the benefit of 2D viewing.
Personally, I see life in 3D and have trouble grasping how someone could find a 2D picture to be more lifelike or immersible than the 3D we see in natively.
Sounds like you've been lucky so far.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/sunglasses/spf.htm
First but hardly the only hit on google.
I know I'm no professional, but some people who are (Christopher Nolan for example) seem to think it isn't worth the cinematic trade-off. I love the way Nolan's films look. If he thinks 3D would limit him more than benefit, I'm inclined to believe he's telling the truth and not just a neo-Luddite.
Sure, 2D is a kludge when it comes to representing the world, but until we develop a Star Trek-style holodeck and suitable recording devices, stereoscopic "3D" is just as much a kludge. It is an imperfect approximation of how we see the world through our own eyes. It works better in some situations than in others, but I think that sometimes it is better to just forgo an effect rather than have it work poorly.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender