3D question

[mummifiedstalin]

Caveat: I never liked 3D stuff.

So, my question: can you watch a 3D movie without being pulled out of the experience of the MOVIE? The few times I've seen a 3D film, whenever there's a cool 3D moment, I think to myself, "Wow, that was a cool 3D moment," and I completely lose the "suspension of disbelief" of watching the movie.

Catch 22: the better the 3D effects, the more I pay attention to the effects as something tacked on to rather than part of the movie.

Good special effects should enhance your experience of the movie itself, not pull you out of it. But 3D just makes me remember that I'm watching a simulation of something rather than believing in the simulation.

[Mighty Jack]

Weird, I was just talking about this.

Answer: That doesn't happen to me. But I tend to just let a movie wash over me. What I mean is, for example - I don't play the Ellery Queen game (try to guess who dun it) - I just watch the Sixth Sense w/out thinking about the "secret", the same for the Crying Game etc, etc.

I also tend to not analyze while I watch. That comes after I've left the theater or when I watch a movie the 2nd time. I tend to not get hung up on logic, and watch viscerally - if I "feel" it, if I get drawn into the emotion or whatever, that's the most important thing for me.

Likewise when I watch a 3D it's part of an experience, part of the emotional resonance as a whole. In Avatar, which had astonishing 3D effects, I was simply drawn into the world in a more immersive way. I don't tend to step back and go "by golly that was a 3D effect".

It's one element, one part of a the production. Like the musical score is one part of the production. I might notice that a piece of the score is exceptional. But that doesn't take me out of the picture. So why should 3D?

Also I think that when one creates, they should hold onto certain child-like aspects (anything is possible and not restricted by adult cynicism.) I believe that viewpoint has leaked into the way I get into entertainment - and I think I probably watch a 3D movie the way a child would. With all the wide eyed awe and acceptance that what I'm seeing is real.

[Mr. Atari]

I can't stand 3D for a variety of reasons. I agree that 3D "moments" are a huge distraction from the film itself. I also agree with Ebert that the technology and projection completely ruin the brightness of the image, making the non-3D tricks look washed out.

But the main reason is because I like to watch movies for their cinematography. Good directors & their cinematographers frame shots with a purpose. They subtly draw the viewer's eye to specific parts of the frame using creativity and skill. 3D movies have no subtlety and the directors can cheat instead of frame. They don't respect the viewer's ability to decide what to look at.

Also, the false visual dimension gives me a headache. Mrs. Atari is a vision therapist and works with people who have depth perception problems. They can't recognize where the fixed point is, so all of the peripheral cues are disorienting, often leading to headaches and nausea. She said the best way to identify with these poor people is to go see a 3D movie.

[Mighty Jack]

Aug 12, 2011 0:12:51 GMT -5 Mr. Atari said:

But the main reason is because I like to watch movies for their cinematography. Good directors & their cinematographers frame shots with a purpose. They subtly draw the viewer's eye to specific parts of the frame using creativity and skill. 3D movies have no subtlety and the directors can cheat instead of frame. They don't respect the viewer's ability to decide what to look at.

With due respect, I have to despute this. I agree with you that 3D tech has it's challenges and it's limitations. But as this field has branched out beyond it's B-movie orgins, we are seeing some of the better cinematographers in the buisiness tackle the format. And doing so with respect for their craft. These guys are professionals and would likely be insulted over the idea that they are "cheating".

We are also starting to see more "arty" types giving it a go. Werner Herzog (who used to speak out against 3D) and Wim Wenders. I can assure you these guys are concerned with how their pictures look in regards to framing, etc - they too respect their art and their audiences. To quote from a recent article I read (in order to get a peak into there reasoning for making a 3D film)

Next week sees the release of Cave of Forgotten Dreams, his (Werner Herzog's) documentary about the extraordinary paleolithic paintings at Chauvet in the south of France. 3D, Herzog felt, was the only technology able to convey the dramatic play between the images and the fluctuating surfaces on which they were painted. (It's also great for capturing claustrophobic spaces.) He followed this instinct to deploy an unfamiliar, work-intensive technology despite having very limited access to caves with little light or room to manoeuvre. The results are spectacular.

Next month brings another terrific documentary by an august German auteur who felt artistically compelled to use 3D (and, incidentally, in another film feted at Berlin). Pina is Wim Wenders's tribute to the late choreographer Pina Bausch. Like Herzog, he had to grapple with unfamiliar, often unwieldy equipment under highly constricted shooting circumstances as he tried to capture Bausch's company in action, close up. His aim, he has said, is not conspicuous spectacle but the sense that the audience is sharing the performance space: "The plasticity should not call attention to itself but should make itself almost invisible, so that Pina's art becomes even more evident."

Here's a link if your curious about the 3D work done on Pina - www.pina-film.de/en/about-3D.html

I'm not saying you have to like 3D, but I disagree with the notion that theirs little/no "creatively" or "skill" in it's usage as compared to 2D.

[mummifiedstalin]

I like those links, MJ. I'd heard about the Herzog thing but forgotten about it.

Maybe for me it just needs to be more seamlessly integrated. Having to wear glasses immediately bugs me, and I personally have problems because I feel like I can never figure out exactly where to focus. That may just be something particular to me and those glasses.

[Torgo]

I pretty much take issue with 3D when the movie is trying to shove crap in my face. I don't think the effect works and I find it very tiresome. Also, post production 3D is the pits. I've seen Thor and Harry Potter in 3D and both liiked like popped up pictures against a blurry background. I don't think I'll be wasting my money on that crap again, Which sucks since Imax is always 3D only on all movies that have the option.

But if 3D is used to add depth to the picture and enhance the visuals, like in Avatar, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, or even Saw VII, then I'll gladly pay the 3D price.

[mylungswereaching]

3D is good in movies that need depth. Avatar was a 3 dimensional movie. (1 dimensional plot but what do you want for eye candy.) Much of the action happened in trees and flying. It worked well. I saw a 3D movie about the Matterhorn in IMEX and the mountain climbing scenes were enhanced by 3D. Most movies are not helped by 3D.

[Mighty Jack]

Martin Scorsese on his 3D venture, Hugo...

At the end of a tough day's filming at Shepperton studios, Scorsese seems genuinely fired up about the possibilities of the 3D format. "Every shot is rethinking cinema," he enthuses, "rethinking narrative – how to tell a story with a picture. Now, I'm not saying we have to keep throwing javelins at the camera, I'm not saying we use it as a gimmick, but it's liberating. It's literally a Rubik's Cube every time you go out to design a shot, and work out a camera move, or a crane move. But it has a beauty to it also. People look like… like moving statues. They move like sculpture, as if sculpture is moving in a way. Like dancers…"

www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/nov/21/martin-scorsese-3d-interview-kermode

Aug 12, 2011 8:17:45 GMT -5 mummifiedstalin said:

Maybe for me it just needs to be more seamlessly integrated. Having to wear glasses immediately bugs me, and I personally have problems because I feel like I can never figure out exactly where to focus. That may just be something particular to me and those glasses.

They are actually working on a kind of filter that would go over the screen which would create the 3D sans glasses. Maybe one day the glasses will be a thing of the past?

You’re not wrong or alone on that – there’s a reason people get headaches or are pulled out of the picture. In 2D you’re in effect, a passenger and the director is your driver. Using pans and scans, zooms and other tools, he tells you where to look. He decides where you’re going to go in this story. But 3D is attempting to put you into the world. Your no longer a voyeur but in the center of the action. Pans, scans and zooms could therefore become distracting and discombobulating.

Steven Spielberg has had a couple projects go by the way side. One he was really keen on was Cleopatra. But he wasn’t interested in throwing things at you with wild FX, he instead felt 3D would be more effective if it could take you into a certain age. To walk those streets with the people of a time long gone, and sit side by side with those historical figures.

I think he has the right idea. The best part of Avatar’s 3D for me wasn’t the fights or action or things flying at me. It was the quieter moments where you’re taking a stroll and investigating this strange planet. It’s the depth and dimension that makes it a unique experience.

[Ratso]

My eyesight kinda sucks so 3D movies are something I don't participate in.