Either way, Native 3D is just as extraneous, Just more expensive to produce.

 

At least it looks better than converted, and that's what matters. If you're going to waste the money on 3D, at least waste it on what passes as good 3D. Converted 3D just messes up movies, like the spirit world scenes in the last airbender, in 3D they look like crap and horrendous, in 2D it actually looks right.

 

It may look "better", but it still serves no purpose save padding box office numbers. If people like it, that's cool, but it actively takes the audience out of the movie, making it a less immersing experience.

 

Overated is actually a rather polite way to put it - 'chuckle'

 

According to Gondry, he originally wanted to shoot Green Hornet in 3D, but they wouldn't let him. Later they changed their minds. I believe they've gone back to reshoot some key scenes in 3D, and the rest will be converted.

I really don't see why it would be. Once you have the cameras, you just film. It's just one extra thing to adjust for, just like you adjust the focus and the apperature, filmspeed, and each additional light source.

Converting it is a messy process where every scene has to be separated into multiple layers, a lot of it tweaked by hand. I believe it costs something like $100,000 a minute, so if you can avoid all that trouble by shooting 3D, you would.

It makes more sense to just shoot in 3D. If you somehow misscalculate the convergence on a few individual scenes , you could always take the footage from one of the cameras and send it to be converted.

 

I'm guessing the 3D cameras themselves cost more to procure than a standard camera. I just don't like it from a creative standpoint since it's an added distraction vying for the audience's attention, one that's purposely built into the movie. You might as well allow people at a 3D movie to keep their cellphones on and invite other patrons to bring their crying babies into that theater.

 

People ask, "Why 3D?". Well, if used correctly, 3D can be a great tool in film making. It adds a big layer to the immersion factor that every entertainment medium aspires for today. Games for example, now have some deep stories, scripted events, vibrating controllers, and "real-world" peripherals like guitars and Gran Turismo steering wheels. Plus they are now incorporating physical interaction (i.e. Wii).

So 3D's purpose should be to make a better movie creating a more immersive experience, but with the record success of Avatar in 3D, Hollywood wants to abuse 3D to reach that record number again or just to stay competitive with other studios also using the technology.

With TF3, it was the studio's decision to use 3D not Bay's. He is not against 3D, he just did not want to be forced to use it, had never worked with it before, and didn't think it was necessary to make a good movie. Now that he is comfortable with it and how it works, he will have fun making the movie and hopefully create a good movie that makes you feel like you are right there in the middle of the action.

 

How is a gimmick that exists only to exalt spectacle over substance a great tool for film making? How is constantly reminding an audience that they are watching a movie allowing that audience to be immersed in the story? And for the record what movies have used 3D correctly?

 

There is no correct way to use 3D, Buddy. Sarcastic much? You are sacrificing the the ability to understand the point I was making about a potentially beneficial cinematic tool for film makers to use to draw their audiences into the experience that they are trying to create for a cynical attitude that serves no purpose but to be debative.

Big action/sci-fi movies like Transformers are meant to be a spectacle in and of themselves, not Shakespeare and 3D, CGI, Dolby Surround Sound, etc... are all tools to draw you into that spectacle. All of these things are used collectively to make a movie more immersive. It is matter of personal opinion as to whether each of them compliment the substance of the story being told or not. Yours appears to be that they do not. Mine is that they do in most cases. without them, you might as well just read a book instead of watch an action movie. 3D is just another tool.

I did not say that there are any great 3D movies out there (that is a matter of opinion), but I did say that it is a great tool if used effectively. 3D is no different than any other visual or audio process that is used to help tell a story on film. People are always skeptical and bias at the beginning with things new to them. Before movies had sound, people didn't think they needed it. Before we had color TV people didn't think they needed it. Same with 3D. Next will be smell like some others have already mentioned in this thread, and real effects like water spurts that coincide with the actions on screen. 3D will just becomes a part of the regular experience to make you feel more like you are in the movie whether you like it or not.

I do question Hollywood's quick abuse of 3D churning out crap movies with crap 3D, but I do not dismiss 3D in and of itself because I am bias.

 

Clash of the Titans was incredibly bad in 3D to add on a horrible horrible movie

 

Native 3D-
Avatar- great
Spy Kids 3D- crappy

Converted 3D-
Clash of the Titans (from what I understand, crappy)
Alice in Wonderland (from what I understand, good)
Nightmare before Christmas (good)

Green Hornet- we have no idea because we haven't even seen it yet- not until January 14, 2011.

So don't declare how bad the 3D for Green ornet is until you actually watch it.


On a side note, I saw The Last Airbender in 3D and the 3D didn't suck. It was actually pretty good.

 

Run & Gun 3D Shooting on Final Destination 4 | Studio Daily

Here's something I found regarding the cinematography of Final Destination 3D. The 3D in that movie was good, but unfortunately that was the only good part of this film.

 

I'm not a big 3d fan... I thought it was overrated in Avatar. Might be interesting , but I fail to see why all the fussing... just go see the 2d version. All saying its as distracting as crying babies and cellphones is the height of overreacting and is quite ridiculous.

 

Because the technology they are using is new, the cameras are expensive, but the same cameras will be used for many other films after TF3, and in a 200+ million dollar movie, it's an expense that gets spread around.

Wait, what? How does 3d remind you that you're watching a movie? You quickly forget you're wearing the glasses, and then you're not just watching a flat screen, you're right there. When it's well done, you feel like you can reach out and touch it.

Anyway, in a Michael Bay movie you can expect spectacle over substance whether you're watching the 3D version or not. If 3D is a distraction, so is every ass-shot and special effect.

Some movies have used 3D better than others. Coraline is the best mainstream release I've seen. They changed the level of convergence so it felt very different in the other world vs the normal world. It's similar to how colour was used in the Wizard of Oz.

Imax 3D is even better, because there's so much more detail and it fills your whole field of vision. It's just an incredible experience. I don't understand why people are such curmudgeons about it. When I was a kid we got a tv for my grandmother and she complained that the colour hurt her eyes and why didn't we get her a black and white set. Well if you don't like colour, you can turn it off, and if you don't like sound you can mute it. And if you don't like 3D, you can watch the flat version.

 

Because Avatar was so successful now ever studio wants to do it to charge a few extra dollars per ticket. This isn't Bay's decision this is the studio's decision.

 

Watching a movie reminds me I'm watching a movie.

If 3D is nothing but a gimmick, then ad it to the list of gimmicks:

Sound
Color
Visual Effects
Cel Animation
3D Animation

Oh, and Film itself.

I for one dig stereo 3D.

 

So... which is it? I was asking if you could provide an example of a movie in which you felt the 3D was used "correctly". Cut To: Hissyfit.

When it's classic super-gimmicky 3D, it's all the ridiculous "Whoa! It's coming right at me!" crap. When the 3D is more subtle, I find the artificial depth of field conflicts my my brain's natural ability to perceive depth in a 2D image. Also I wear glasses... all the time. The slightly additional weight of another pair of glasses is noticeable to me. Let's not even get into the germaphobe stuff. It's like wearing bowling shoes on your face!   Also, I've never felt like I'm right there. It's just a visual annoyance to me.

Comparing 3D to sound is ludicrous. The sound equivalent of 3D would be like if when "talkies" were introduced, every audience member got his own headphones, and a voice saying, "Psst. Hey, you!" was randomly inserted into soundtrack at various points during the movie.

The same goes for color. Cinematographers use color like paint to set tone and influence mood. Color serves the same purpose in a 3D movie completely separate from the 3D effect. In fact 3D usually just dims color.

Animation, whether it's own its own or integrated with live-action, is used to create things that can not be created practically. You couldn't reasonably tell the Transformers story without animation of some kind. You can tell it, and it has been told for a quarter-century, without 3D.

3D is more akin to its fellow 1950s theater gimmicks like seat-buzzers and rubber-suited monsters wandering the aisles.

That is actually a very interesting point. I wonder if TF3 is going to have different editors to make the movie look calmer than Bay's typical "cut every 3 seconds" style.

 

My answer would be:
ay film where the 3D was'n ghosted thru the whole film.

And what exacly is wrong with that? It's fun. It's cool.
If you don't like it, then don't watch it. What- you think you are better than everyone else or something? It's a medium, nothing more.

Heck, there are 2D movies with crap coming right at you. I can think of a couple trains in Zemekis movies that park their front right into the camera.

How about slo-mo bullets flying right into the camera?

And these are non-3D films.

Well, that's you.

Then save yourself a few bucks and watch the 2D version.

You say that because you are accustomed to it. All 3D adds is an illusion of depth.

A movie gimmick is an unusual idea intended to enhance the viewing experience of a film, and thus increase box office sales. Sound fell in that catagory at one time. So too color. Editing. Animation. PIXAR.

And now, depth.

 

ROTTEN TOMATOES: The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1

 

The glasses are designed to fit comfortably over prescription glasses, which they do. I can't speak for your experience, but the theatres I've gone to allow you to either buy a fresh pair of 3D glasses or bring your own, so no germaphobia.

I don't understand your point about conflicted ability to perceive depth in a 2D image during a 3D film.

Regarding subtle vs gimmicky 3D, see the Final Destination interview bellpeppers posted. It's like any other cinematic technique, close ups, steadicam, slo-mo, 'bullet-time' etc. Nothing wrong with using it, but you don't want to overuse it. The best approach is to strike a balance. You can't keep poking the audience in the eye and tell a story, but at the same time if the whole thing is kept too subtle, what's the point of paying extra for it. I found this with Pixar's UP, the 3D was very shallow throughout the whole film. They barely used it. It did nothing that couldn't have been done in 2D. With The Final Destination, the 3D actively enhanced the story they were telling(mediocre though it was).

In a visual-oriented film, 3D can add a lot. One of the reasons people go to these movies is to see extraordinary things like transforming robots, dinosaurs, giant monsters, things we will never see in real life. You want to see them as real as if they were actually there. With 3D, they can look so real you could reach out and touch them, so this really enhances the experience, gives extra reason to see it in theatre.

that was an interesting point. This may also be part of the reason behind Bay's initial reluctance to use the technique. It might actually enforce a sort of discipline on how the film is edited. Personally I wasn't bothered by his rapid-fire style of editing, but I can see how some might find it excessive.