If you don't like 3D, why not just watch the 2D version? A director should be free to film 2D or 3D, based on his artistic ideas.
Never say never. Is Martin Scorsese on your list of favorite directors? Is Peter Jackson on it? Tim Burton? Guillermo Del Toro? Michael Bay (OK, probably a bad example....)?
Truth is that most directors, even the most artistic, are ultimately responsive to whatever the business deems necessary. They might fight it at first, and they may not enjoy the experience and resist doing it again, but all tools are there to be used by whomever wants to use them. I may not be fond of stereo 3D personally, but I've learned over the years that "never" is a term that shouldn't be thrown around lightly.
even Hitler on 3D :)
This thread and all of the complaints strain my eyes. Any person that accepts 3D as a usable tool to help drive CERTAIN stories, are probably the same professionals that gave in to that whole stupid "digital" craze. I don't want to flood this thread with any more ignorant statements, but I love 3D, I love digital, I love film and I love making movies. It's always easier to sit here and criticize than it is to plan, light, and shoot beautiful pictures :-)
With the 3D movies I've seen I was very aware of my own perspective in relation to the images, whereas when watching a normal movie I'm simply involved in the movie. You could say that in a 3D movie it feels like every shot is a POV shot. That could work to a filmmaker's benefit with certain films.
I saw Cave of Forgotten Dreams today. That's the first 3D film I've seen where I felt 3D was not only enhancing but crucial to the experience. It records the contours and spaces of a cave that very few people will visit. But I'm tempted to say that 3D enhances spaces and architecture on-screen more than it does people...
I still don't get why most of the hardcore 3D haters won't acknowledge that most of the 3D that's been done to this point has been flawed in some key way ... either the 3D was "added" in post ... or it was shot without enough depth ... projected improperly ... mishandled in post ... the list goes on. 3D is still very much in it's infancy. And whatever you want to say about Jim Cameron, PJ, and others (including Ridley Scott) -- I don't think they would be shooting 3D if it was purely about making the studios and themselves more $$$$.
These guys are ARTISTS (yes, even Cameron!), let's give them a little more credit ....
While 3D has been flawed so far, I've seen enough promise from it (as one of many cinematic tools) to respect it and want more.
Should everything be shot on 3D? - of course not! But those who "hate" it, let's give it a bit more time before dismissing it all together.
Here's a little fresh business perspective on the matter:
Everyone saying that there hasn't been any properly made or good 3D, this doesn't exactly ring true. Most animated films these days like Toy Story 3D, How To Train Your Dragon etc. have spectacular 3D. Avatar had great 3D, Pirates used the Pace/Cameron rigs as have other 3D films recently so obviously the technical execution and quality of the 3D isn't really the problem. Ticket prices and the way people are engaged (or not) by 3D. I for one will always "notice" 3D so if I'm trying to watch a good character story or thriller and trying to get into it I'll always be distracted by the 3D and thus pulled out of the story.
The cost and technical challenges of photographing complex moving images in stereo, like a hand held chase scene involving fast pans and the necessary mobility for an operator to get the shots and repeat the shots for multiple takes for example, will in my opinion, never make 3D production practical for most productions.
Sound was adopted very quickly because people loved it and it enhanced the viewing experience, same deal with colour. Say what you want about equipment and technical challenges, 3D photography has been around for a few decades and in the year 2011, long after James Cameron showed us the true potential of 3D films, it's still not catching on.
Talking business? Go ask anyone who still owns RealD stock, they'll tell you where to stick 3D. I'd bet studio heads at Disney and Marvel would too and they have been the two biggest driving forces behind 3D. The wind in their sales (bam!) is gone.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|