Support NeoGAF

[tedtropy]

I hate to derail the thread, but Kevin Smith is EXTREMELY crititcal of a lot of things considering his career works (which I think are almost uniformly terrible).

He's incredibly overrated as a director, but he sort of makes up for it by just being an incredibly cool and frank guy. He'd honestly be better off as a movie critic or commenter. Still, he made Clerks and Chasing Amy, although those will likely prove to be his peak.

 

[robertsan21]

He's incredibly overrated as a director, but he sort of makes up for it by just being an incredibly cool and frank guy. He'd honestly be better off as a movie critic or commenter. Still, he made Clerks and Chasing Amy, although those will likely prove to be his peak.

hell yeah!
i saw clerks and i i hated it!
okej fine Jay and silent bob where the only ones who had something going on there, but the rest was bad.

 

[shuri]

Jersey girl was a cute family movie.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Don't derail the thread! Either say 3D sucks, or Harry Knowles sucks.

Next thing you know, Knowles will talk about feelies and odorama. Cinema is here to stay, like paintings, sculptures and writing. There will always be traditional cinema, and 3D cinema will always be marginal, as mainstream gaming will always be mostly linear. It's just a way to tell a story. 3D is just a gimmick. Does anyone serious about moviegoing really want to see a 3D movie more than a 2D one?

 

[Willco]

Yeah, back on track.

The 3D technology being discussed is not the kind you understand as the ugly two-color system you probably know and they're working on even furthering 3D technology. I think that probably 3D is indeed the direction the industry will head in as Cameron, Lucas, Spielberg and more push it that way.

I don't think it's going to be nearly as big or important until the audience doesn't have to wear glasses or some kind of device to watch movies, because I don't know how much of an inconvenience someone is going to put up with for the sake of entertainment.

 

[Afro Thunder]

SNK 2D FOREVER

SORRY, I CAN'T RESIST...

 

[human5892]

3D FILMS WILL ELIMINATE PIRACY ON COMPUTERS.

3D FILMS WILL BE IN THE HOME, EVENTUALLY.

To me, these two points run counter to each other. If you can watch 3D movies in your home, you can count on someone involved with the film leaking a print to the Internet for download (I'm sure figuring out a way to encode a 3D film won't take the pirates very long).

I'm all for the film industry experimenting if they want, but they shouldn't try and shoehorn a new technology into place in the belief that it will stop piracy, because it just won't, period. If 3D does become the standard one day, it should be because it allows films to naturally evolve and because filmmakers -- and audiences -- want it to be that way.

 

[Lord Error]

I've seen some neat 3D demos on my friend's PC monitor, through that type of glasses Harry describes. The glasses came with drivers that could 'convert' many DirectX demos or games into a 3D mode. He didn't have any games, so we watched some of those 64K scene demos, like "The Product" and such.

It was pretty damn awesome, I can tell that much. It's like looking at the fishtank with 3D objects, and everything looked perfectly clear and smooth. Comparing that with Blue/Red 3D garbage is simply wrong and misguided. I can only imagine what a movie like LOTR would look like in that type of presentation on a huge screen. That type of thing should be embraced IMO, not dismissed or laughed at. Comparision with people dismissing the talking or color in movies is perfectly valid. Or people laughing at 3D computer animation, saying how only 2D animation can be good, and then we got Pixar.

Just ask yourself, why would you NOT want to see a movie like LOTR in 3D? In some cases, I can see that for special artistic reasons 2D would suit better, much like a B/W photography is often used, although noone is limited to it, but that would depend on film maker's decision.

 

[Willco]

I completely agree with your points, and I'd like to see the technology utilized, but it won't be embraced by mainstream audiences until they don't have to wear some kind of item (bet it glasses or visors or whatever) to watch the film.

 

[shantyman]

EVERYONE should read the Film Threat articles. You will only be left thinking Harry Knowles is a turd.

 

[Lord Error]

I completely agree with your points, and I'd like to see the technology utilized, but it won't be embraced by mainstream audiences until they don't have to wear some kind of item (bet it glasses or visors or whatever) to watch the film.

That may or may not be true, I'm really not sure. Look at headphones. It's something that you keep on your head, kinda the same type of inconvenience as glasses/visors, yet people have no problem using them.

Real 3D without glasses is possible today, but not in cinemas - it requires very specialized LCD displays, and you pretty much have to sit right in front of it to get the effect.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

3D's only good for action movies. I could see a Spiderman flick benefitting from it, but who cares about Raging Bull, The Godfather or Apocalypse Now being in 3D, really? It's just another gimmick to generate more cash from existing films, like the Star Wars franchise. I'm not paying to see another fucking rehash of the same movies. When 3D really becomes an interesting STORY-TELLING DEVICE, count me in. As of now, it really doesn't bring a lot to the table. It's good for immersing documentaries and as a distraction, but I don't see myself going to 3D movies all the time, ESPECIALLY, like Willco said, if you have to wear any kind of glasses. The newer glasses used in IMAX theaters are okay, but even with those, I see 3D more as a distraction than as anything useful.

 

[Dan]

3D just creates dozens of problems for film editing. Use 3D in anything more than a minor and insignificant manner and you're going to really disorient audiences, if not outright produce physical sickness. It also destroys or at least undermines some of the most basic tenants of the medium, one being the reduction of depth cues. These are things that define film. You can't just remove them and expect to have the same medium. I have no doubt that three dimensional entertainment has a place, but it's going to have to be completely rethought. It cannot just be film with another dimension without being a gimmick.

I really believe 3D offers little use until it reaches levels of Holodeck or virtual reality. Otherwise, it just interferes with the medium and acts as a gimmick, providing shock value or shallow spectacle.

Just the phrase 3D film is one of the most paradoxical concepts you could come up with.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

3D just creates dozens of problems for film editing. Use 3D in anything more than a minor and insignificant manner and you're going to really disorient audiences, if not outright produce physical sickness. It also destroys or at least undermines some of the most basic tenants of the medium, one being the reduction of depth cues. These are things that define film. You can't just remove them and expect to have the same medium. I have no doubt that three dimensional entertainment has a place, but it's going to have to be completely rethought. It cannot just be film with another dimension without being a gimmick.

I really believe 3D offers little use until it reaches levels of Holodeck or virtual reality. Otherwise, it just interferes with the medium and acts as a gimmick, providing shock value or shallow spectacle.

Just the phrase 3D film is one of the most paradoxical concepts you could come up with.

Truth.

 

[Lord Error]

We'll see. Even I wouldn't go too much into phantasizing how 3D in theatrical film would be amazing before I see some examples, like the mentioned LOTR clips. If people there were amazed by it, rather than disoriented or confused, there's probably something to it, I'd think.

Those simple 3D demos I've seen were certainly quite something to look at, that's for sure. I wish game console makers would make all their next gen console capable of this technology - making games in this kind of 3D is trivial and basically automated - but I'm not sure how feasable that is due to TV's 60Hz refresh rate. I'm pretty sure my friend's monitor had to be set up at 100 or 120Hz for those 3D glasses to work properly.

 

[Meier]

Drew McWeeny/Moriarity went to Florida State. Neat.

 

[borghe]

it occurs to me that the majority of the people against 3D in this thread have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

The kind of 3D being talked about here most definitely does not suck. As harry said, see any IMAX 3D movie, or any 3D at various theme parks (Terminator in 3D, Philharmagic or Muppets in 3D at Disney World, etc) and you will see how truly great 3D can be. Not the analglyphic green and red 3D but true polarized two projector setups or running the image through a prism/splitter and then recombining it on the screen... this stuff has been around forever (I just saw House of Wax in stereovision about half a year ago). Unfortunately it was generally so expensive (in two projector setups) or some painstaking to setup that it was very difficult to maintain.

Anyway, I read this article and didn't at all come away from it as Harry acting like a suit. While his dates and motivations listed for previous cinema advances weren't necessarily correct, he was correct in stating that most advances in theatrical movie presentations came from the movie industry neeeding to create reasons to get people into the theaters. First it was sound, then color, then cinemascope, then polyphonic sound, then digital sound, etc. This is no different.

Though to those saying this won't make it to TV, it already has, and again no I'm not talking about analglyphic. You can (or at least used to) be able to get a DVD set that instead of working with a polarized image worked with a shutter system and the scan lines of the TV. The concept is the same.. show your eyes two different images by alternating the image on the scan rates and then control which eye sees which image through a timed shutter control on the glasses. It actually work very well, unfortunately it is only compatible on analog sets with composite video....

Anway, if harry is saying people are looking at this for future movies, I believe it. With high definition pre-recorded video becoming more available by the end of this year (or beginning of next) and the newest dolby formats looking for simultaneous inclusion in theater tracks and home systems, theaters and studios will need a way to keep tickets selling at the box office. box office tickets have been down for a few years in a row now.. not a good trend and the only way the industry has been able to fight it is with price increases.. obviously that strategy will only work for so long before joe consumer decides otherwise...

maybe 3D will save it.. well, until they move a similar 3D process over to the mainstream home...

 

[DECK'ARD]

I'm more in the gimmick camp myself, and the best 3D film I've seen at an Imax didn't even use polarised glasses. The London Imax used shuttered headsets that synced with the projector, and produced perfect 3D. The Imax we have locally just uses polarised glasses and isn't as good as the London one. It's slightly blurry in comparison and doesn't seem 'perfect' 3D like the one in London did.

Of course people are going to be amazed by some short sequences from Lord Of The Rings, or the beginning of Star Wars. That's the whole gimmick Imax cinemas rely on, the 'wow' factor. But it wears off pretty quick and changes the whole film-watching experience. That's why most Imax things are pretty short. By essentially 'involving' you in the film, it means you can't really relax and enjoy it in the same way. It takes effort. I've never come out of seeing an Imax film thinking 'wow I wish every film I saw was like that'. It is more like a theme-park ride, in the sense of 'that's cool, but I wouldn't want to do it all the time'.

 

[ManaByte]

That's why most Imax things are pretty short. .

Gah at least know what you're talking about. The reason most IMAX things were pretty short was because the old IMAX platter could only hold 90 minutes of film. Ghosts of the Abyss was 90 minutes and 3D. In late 2002 they developed an IMAX platter that could hold 120 minutes and in 2003 they developed one that could hold much more; which is why you now see unedted feature-length films in IMAX format and Cameron's 3D stuff can now be longer than 90 minutes.

For example, Ghosts of the Abyss was originally about two hours long but Cameron had to edit it down to 90 minutes to fit on the platter. The full version is included on the DVD. When Lucas released Attack of the Clones on IMAX he had to edit nearly a half our of footage and compress the credits into sliding title cards to fit it on the IMAX platter. Those issues no longer exists thanks to the new sizes of the platters to hold the film.

 

[borghe]

I disagree. I think it is only viewed as a gimmick BECAUSE we only see it at ammusement parks, in showcase style showings, or in situations where they go out of their way to show us it's 3D.

I think a NATURAL use of it (ala ViewMaster or many scenes in movies from the 50's after they stopped making a spectacle of it) would definitely increase the atmosphere of the movie. I don't think it would detract from the movie at all..

Now mind you I am not talking about the old speargun coming at you or even the paddle ball going in and out. I am just talking about a subtle 3D'ification of a scene.. giving depth to just normal framing.

As I said, when I saw House of Wax, this is what many of the scenes were. Depth added to the scene by placing planes in the scene at logical distances. It greatly added to the atmposphere of the movie.. I can't really exmplain it other than everything just seemed to be placed where it should be.

Of course the movie also had gimmick stuff in it (paddle ball) but it was the scenes where 3D was marginally and naturally used that wowed me the most, just because of how much it truly enhanced the atmosphere with out coming off as cheesy and overdone.

You really need to see an old movie from the 50's in sterevision done in such a way. Of course finding feature length movies alone these days is pretty much impossible, let alone specific ones.

 

[FortNinety]

3D a gimmick? Yeah, so? That's what they said about color and sound in movies as well. Hell, even movies themselves.

 

[Duck of Death]

3D a gimmick? Yeah, so? That's what they said about color and sound in movies as well. Hell, even movies themselves.

No they didn't.

 

[borghe]

Color early on was most definitely a gimmick.. one only has to look as far as Wizard of Oz to see that.. not saying it is/was bad... a gimmick is only bad if it is there for the sake of being there. same thing with sound. both were gimmicks initially and then only grew out of that status from logically and natural inclusion into the filmmaking process.

The same can be said about 3D. Sure it is a gimmick now, but it is because in most cases (yeah, I'm looking at you Spy Kids3D) it is used and treated as such. There were tons of scenes in SK3D that served no purpose other than to be 3D.

But as I have said, when you see 3D used naturally and not 3D for the sake of 3D, it is hard to argue its merits.

I don't want to see thousands of shards of the Death Star flying into my face.. But I would sure love to see the extending bridge/grappling hook scene with multiple planes giving the frame even more depth.

 

[Lord Error]

No they didn't.

Oh yes they did. Many directors and actors of that time were laughing at the idea of having actors actually talking: "Who would want to hear them talking" is a pretty famous quote of the time, and I wish I could remember who said it. The Color was the same way. As for the movies themselves, many were laughing at the early movie endeavours, as they were indeed very gimmicky, depicting such mundane events as "Train entering the station" and such.

 

[Duck of Death]

Were some filmmakers resistant to sound? Absolutely. Others, such as Hitchcock, Lang, and Lubitsch embraced sound. How is dispute in the industry any support for the argument that sound was a gimmick?

Depending on one's definition of a "gimmick," color may be considered one. There is no denying that color offered a special attraction to bring people to the theaters. However, the choice to use color also drastically altered the productions and storytelling devices of those films. As far as I'm concerned, that makes color more than a simple gimmick. If 3D is capable of the same enhancements to narrative, then I will support it as more than a gimmick.

Who were these people laughing at the early actualities? I find it a bit unfair to label the first films gimmicky.

 

[Lord Error]

Were some filmmakers resistant to sound? Absolutely. Others, such as Hitchcock, Lang, and Lubitsch embraced sound. How is dispute in the industry any support for the argument that sound was a gimmick?

How is what you are describing any different than in this case when you have Spielberg, Lucas, etc. willing to put out movies in 3D? Again, influental film makers are behind something that some others oppose to.

Who were these people laughing at the early actualities? I find it a bit unfair to label the first films gimmicky.

The more educated people frowned upon early film of that age, as they saw it as shallow entertainment.
I guess you can argue that Lumiere Brothers' films were documentaries, but to me they seem really gimmicky, something that's just there and it's moving, and people are in awe over it because they never seen anything like it before. "Train entering the Station", and "Workers leaving a plant" were just that - no creative storytelling or narrative.

 

[Duck of Death]

The early films were made during a time when Vaudeville theater and amusement attractions were the dominant forms of entertainment. The early films were designed to fit into this mode of leisure exhibition. People expected films to be an attraction, not a narrative. Also, just because the actualities and other first films seem like a gimmick to us does not mean they were gimmicks at the time. As far as the upper-class demeaning films, that wasn't so apparent until the Nickelodeon boom, nearly 10 years after the period being discussed.

Anyway, enough history. The main issues with 3D have been said time and time again in both this thread and the Star Wars in 3D thread. Dan said it quite succinctly:

3D just creates dozens of problems for film editing. Use 3D in anything more than a minor and insignificant manner and you're going to really disorient audiences, if not outright produce physical sickness. It also destroys or at least undermines some of the most basic tenants of the medium, one being the reduction of depth cues. These are things that define film. You can't just remove them and expect to have the same medium. I have no doubt that three dimensional entertainment has a place, but it's going to have to be completely rethought. It cannot just be film with another dimension without being a gimmick.

I really believe 3D offers little use until it reaches levels of Holodeck or virtual reality. Otherwise, it just interferes with the medium and acts as a gimmick, providing shock value or shallow spectacle.

Just the phrase 3D film is one of the most paradoxical concepts you could come up with.

Oh, and Harry Knowles still sucks.

 

[Dan]

Here's some less eloquent and succinct ramblings.

How is what you are describing any different than in this case when you have Spielberg, Lucas, etc. willing to put out movies in 3D? Again, influental film makers are behind something that some others oppose to.

First of all, I don't see any evidence that Spielberg is interested in this technology. He's been adamantly against switching to digital, I don't think 3D is something he's considering.

Secondly, only James Cameron has plans on doing an original narrative piece using this technology. Lucas is only talking about adding it to the Star Wars films and making more cash off them. Outside of that pair, there's Robert Rodriguez who has tinkered with 3D but that's most assuredly more along the lines of a theme park attraction type thing. "Ooh, the lasers came at me!" Personally, I remain skeptical that Battle Angel will even use this as I'd say Cameron's hope of having theaters equipped by 2007 is insanely generous, and unless he fronts the cash himself, I don't forsee Fox fronting $200 million for something that might hit a couple hundred screens.

Are there possibilities for 3D to expand the medium? Yes, to an extent, but it requires actual thought. When sound was introduced, you couldn't just make films the same way and add sound. All of these developments have, or should have, forced filmmakers to rethink how film is made. Adding 3D elements changes one of the most fundamental aspects that film has utilized for its entire existence: the reduction of depth. Simply filming movies the same way with these new cameras is fucking retarded, and face it, that's how it's being sold right now. Who is supposed to get excited about this when it's being marketed as a purely commercial development to take more money from consumers? Lucas isn't standing up there talking about artistic merits.

Read some of Rudolf Arnheim's essays from the early 1930s. He gets really deep into the theory and use of film's inherent reduced depth and you'll understand why what Lucas is talking about is bullshit. Wait a decade or two and you might get some people who really start picking the technology apart and figuring out how make real use of it.

However, anyone that says 3D is automatically better than what we've got now is missing the point. It WILL be different and it WILL be better and worse at certain things, just as black and white films, silent films, etc have strenghts and weaknesses. And for that, Harry Knowles is a fucking retard, for thinking this is some kind of cure-all that will be a boon for the industry and fans and he touts uninspired conversions of Star Wars and LOTR as proof.

Could this technology provide something interesting? Sure, but I don't trust Hollywood or other rich fat cats to put it to any good artistic use. Their interest is in the gimmick and cramming people back into theaters (ticket sales certainly aren't going up, not with home theater prices plummeting).

 

[ManaByte]

Harry's Sin City review:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19700

Ugh. Yes, the movie kicks ass, but Harry is very very good friends with Rodriguez. And then you have stuff like this in the review coming from HARRY KNOWLES:

The Women of SIN CITY

Each of them is there for a single purpose… to sate each and every perverted drooling doodle of a thought you’ve had. Now it seems that most are throttled by Jessica Alba and Rosario Dawson. And yeah – the impression I get is Jessica is too sorority stripper for me, and Rosario would break my dick off. Jaime King is the Mattel of Sin City fucks, but with this vulnerable pissyness that wasn’t quite me. Brittany Murphy is that slutty yummy – oh my god she died on my dick scary freaky chick. Devon Aoki – I’m convinced would have a ginsu cooch of death. Marley Shelton had the whole classy Oscar Night reward dame vibe going. But the two I loved were Carla Gugino and Alexis Bledel.

 

[The Bookerman]

Harry Knowles talkin dirty scares the living shit out of me.

 

[Scrow]

how do people get so ugly? do they train for it?

 

[borghe]

I agree that just addiung 3D will not automatically make a film better, the same as just adding sound would have made all of those pretty boys and girls on the 10's and 20's even more desirable (as I understand it, many of them couldn't pass anything near a believable line). Same thing with cinemascope, and positional audio (which has always had to have been artificially created). I think the only real no brainer was color, but even then you had color timing and stuff from the get go.

No, 3D isn't a no brainer. Dan is right in that it will have to be figured out and transformed over time into something truly useful.

But as to its usefulness, as I have said, try and find a 3D cinema in your area (or at least one that occassionally shows 3D movies) and watch a nice stereovision copy of some of the 50's flicks.. Particularly Dial M for Murder or House of Wax.. These are IMHO 3D at its finest. To say that the 3D detracts from the movie would be a crime.. sure there is the initial wow factor of it, but o9nce you can get past that (which let's face it, isn't the movies fault) it is VERY natural and very engrossing. sure each of those movies has those wow scenes. Shots that are 3D to show it off and serve no real purpose. But when you see Phyllis Kirk running down the victorian cobblestone streets and there is REAL DEPTH to the shot.. wow.. I really think those were the shots that impressed most people in the theater, just because you can't possibly imagine why ALL movies aren't made like that.

I know it sound like I am really hyping up here, and I know most of you have never seen a stereoscopic film outside of an ammusement park attraction or IMAX film, if at all, but trust me..... it really works when done right.

 

[Tamanon]

While it's easy to see why Knowles wouldn't think of this. #1 reason 3-D won't catch on in movie theaters.

How are you supposed to make out with 3-D glasses or headsets on?