The Five Deadly Sins of 3D

[Necator15]

The one deadly sin of 3D. Making a film in 3D.

Seriously, stop it.

That about sums up my opinion on the matter. 3D just seems so gimmicky. Even Avatar, which apparently did 3D well came up with a resounding 'meh' for me. 3D is just something I hardly notice that forces me to put on uncomfortable glasses that dozens of people before me have worn.

 

[ecoho]

ok i saw avatar in 3d and ive seen it in 2d its not that much different but i think thats what made it a good 3d movie. Im not saying that you cant have you know the who object come at you thing but come on people make it something thats happening for a reason.A prime example of how to do 3D right is How To Train Your Dragon in my opinoin it was better then toy story 3 because of the diffence in 3D between the two.

 

[Souplex]

By my count only two movies have ever been enhanced by 3d: Coraline, and Dances with Smurfs. All other movies have suffered from it.

 

[Thaius]

And thus shall commence the hate from people who don't see the potential of 3D! Stop focusing on the mistakes of its past and look to its current triumphs and future development, people. Seriously.

 

[pfc_river]

Here's something that will really blow audience's minds. There are tons of places where EVERYTHING is in 3D. They're called "stage plays" or something. And you don't even need glasses! It feels like they're actually there! And then you'll go outside, and be like "whoa! everything around me is in 3D! Amazing!"

 

[baseracer]

But number 5 makes the film a lot more interesting. My Bloody Valentine was horrible movie. But with 3D, it made the action scenes pretty cool.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

And thus shall commence the hate from people who don't see the potential of 3D! Stop focusing on the mistakes of its past and look to its current triumphs and future development, people. Seriously.

True, but we can only improve if we know the mistakes of the past, or we are doomed to endlessly repeat them.

 

[Axolotl]

And thus shall commence the hate from people who don't see the potential of 3D! Stop focusing on the mistakes of its past and look to its current triumphs and future development, people. Seriously.

Look, they've been experimenting with 3D since the 50's (and before) but they still haven't made anything that goes beyond "gimmicky" at best and is detrimental to the film the majority of the time. It took less time to perfect space travel than 3D movies. It doesn't have any poptential it's simply a waste of time and resources that could be better spent making them actual movie better.

 

[Thaius]

And thus shall commence the hate from people who don't see the potential of 3D! Stop focusing on the mistakes of its past and look to its current triumphs and future development, people. Seriously.

True, but we can only improve if we know the mistakes of the past, or we are doomed to endlessly repeat them.

True. Sorry, I should have clarified, I was not taking issue with your article, I was taking issue with all the people posting about how 3D shouldn't exist. Your article was great: you brought up some very valid points. I'm just tired of people griping about how much 3D sucks because of mistakes that are in the process of being fixed. I almost get more annoyed with people that say that no movies should be made in 3D until it's perfected: obvious logical flaw being that we can't perfect 3D if we're not using it. Fail.

 

[Fenring]

If games with 3D had a slider for brightness, but very few do. It does make a game much more interesting (Minecraft), but when I'm digging a hole, I want to see what I'm digging.

 

[Thaius]

And thus shall commence the hate from people who don't see the potential of 3D! Stop focusing on the mistakes of its past and look to its current triumphs and future development, people. Seriously.

Look, they've been experimenting with 3D since the 50's (and before) but they still haven't made anything that goes beyond "gimmicky" at best and is detrimental to the film the majority of the time. It took less time to perfect space travel than 3D movies. It doesn't have any poptential it's simply a waste of time and resources that could be better spent making them actual movie better.

Not true at all. 3D increases depth of field (a legitimate and important filmmaking concept), making for a better and more immersive picture overall. Pixar has used 3D in their latest films, and you're not going to say movies like Up or Toy Story 3 were made worse from 3D (well you may, I suppose, but you would be going against the overwhelming majority).

3D detracted from movies like Spy Kids 3D and Jaws 3D, movies made for absolutely no reason other than to show off 3D. When made with that intent, the movie inevitably sucks. But even Dreamworks' recent movies, like Kung Fu Panda and How To Train Your Dragon, have been good regardless of their incorporation of 3D, because they didn't focus on pushing things at the audience, they focused on making a good movie that would be presented in 3D. Have you seen a 3D movie in the last few years?

 

[Axolotl]

Not true at all. 3D increases depth of field (a legitimate and important filmmaking concept), making for a better and more immersive picture overall. Pixar has used 3D in their latest films, and you're not going to say movies like Up or Toy Story 3 were made worse from 3D (well you may, I suppose, but you would be going against the overwhelming majority).

OK, I haven't seen either of those films in 3D since I don't like 3D in films. But Pixar make animated films. Very obviously animated films as well that are on the left side of the uncanny valley.One of the keyproblems with 3D is that it adds another layer of "fakeness" over the movie negating any visual benefit gained from 3D. Now Pixar movies are already obvously fake due to their animated nature so this isn't a problem for them but with live action movies with human actors? More often than not simply distracting at best.

3D detracted from movies like Spy Kids 3D and Jaws 3D, movies made for absolutely no reason other than to show off 3D. When made with that intent, the movie inevitably sucks. But even Dreamworks' recent movies, like Kung Fu Panda and How To Train Your Dragon, have been good regardless of their incorporation of 3D, because they didn't focus on pushing things at the audience, they focused on making a good movie that would be presented in 3D. Have you seen a 3D movie in the last few years?

The only recent films I've seen with 3D are Avatar and Alice in Wonderland. Avatar got away with it due to the quality of it's visuals but even then it got distracting. For wonderland it ruined the visuals which possibly the only salvageable part of that film. And read up on many comments and reviews for other recent 3D films like Clash of the Titans, many people found 3D ruined those films becuase of its poor implementation.

Add to this the fact that as others in this thread have said if one alreeady wears glasses then 3D forces you to be uncomfortable throughout the entire film I just don't feel that there's any improvement over standard 2D films.

Do you honestly believe that films like say Apocalypse Now or Once Upon a Time in the West would have been better movies with 3D added on?

 

[TheIr0nMike]

Then what's the point of 3D?

 

[Les Awesome]

1. Don't Make A 3D Film Dark: Here are some facts, 3D makes films darker, dark things are harder to see, people go watch thus SEE movies. Logical deduction states that 3D films that are naturally dark will only get people?s ire and scorn. The Last Airbender showed how much a problem this could be. The entire CLIMAX of that film took place in a pitch black moonless night. Even with all the fire, it was impossible to see a THING. A black screen an exciting climax doesn?t make. This is one area Avatar avoided since most of it took place in the bright jungle, and when it was night Cameron filled the screen with tons of glowing plants.

2. Don?t Add The 3D In Post-Production: This has been somewhat common with films made and shot in 2D before Avatar came out (like Clash of the Titan) and added later in hopes of making the studio more money. However, it is nearly impossible to do this without making the film look blurry beyond reason. Either have the 3D done from the start, or don?t do it at all.

3. Don?t Use 3D As A Crutch To Sell More Tickets: This one has yet to really hit home yet in the modern age, but looking ahead, it is about to hit us like a truck. Between Pirahana 3D, Cat and Dogs 2, and all sorts of mid budget films advertising the 3D pretty much more then the actual movies, the immediate future is scary. Lets hope it comes and goes.

4. Don?t Change The Movie To Show Off The 3D: This is a combination of the above rules and the below, but changing the film to show off the tech is never the way to go. While 3D argueably helps draw the watcher into the movie, changing the film in ways that makes a huge arrow point towards the film and say, ?HAY! LOOK! WE HAVE 3D! ISN?T IT NEAT!? and it doesn?t make any sense in the context of the film is a death sentence. For example, in Shrek 4 Ever After, the main bad guy, Rumpelstiltskin has an army of witches in the ?It?s a Wonderful Life? esc alternate universe without explanation, nor does it make much sense in context since witches were shown as pretty neutral background characters in the first film, and the ?guy whose name is to hard to spell? never has had any contact with witches in any story he has ever been in (nor time bending universe controlling powers, but that is besides the point). However, as Moviebob said, the broom flights let them show off the 3D!

And finally?

5. Draw Us In, Don?t Push Us Out: This is the oldest mistake of 3D, and what made it a gimmick for so long. Reaching out to the audience, throwing things at them, or pointing out about the missing forth wall will break immersion more often then it will reinforce it. Up to this point, that is pretty much all directors did with the tech, giving us the terrors that was the crappiness of Jaws 3D with its almost hilariously bad ?shark crashes into glass? effect. 3D should be used to create a depth of field, make the objects INSIDE the film have depth, make it look like the people are people you could actually touch and interact with. This is what helped Coraline be such a disturbing film since you could truly believe the other Mother is real, and out to stitch your eyes shut.

wow every sin here as been committed by clash of the titans

 

[the Dept of Science]

Hopefully point 3 will die out over time. I'm guessing when colour films were introduced there was probably a bunch of posters that made a big deal out of it. On the other hand, it does mean that cinemas can give a 50% mark up on the 2D version, which more than weighs out the money they spend making it 3D.

Toy Story 3 was an interesting case, because over the course of watching the movie, I essentially forgot that it was a 3D movie. Unlike a lot of 3D movies which have things flying in your face every five minutes to show off, TS3 just felt like a normal movie which just happened to be in 3D. It does beg the question though, if I totally forgot it was in 3D, was it really worth having? My entertainment for that movie was based almost entirely on the characters, situations, humor etc. not the 3D.
I think its like everytime a new gimmick gets introduced. First you have it gaining interest, then you have overexposure, then parody/experimentation, then an equilibrium. At the moment we are in the overexposure phase, where everyone is just using the new toy and the audiences are still amused by it (there was a Cracked article not too long ago which used an example of when motion pictures were first invented, people would pay through the nose to watch a man sneezing or a train pulling into a station because they had never seen it before). Hopefully then either people will start reacting to it (like in this article) or start experimenting with it, exploring the possibilities of it beyond "having shit fly at your face constantly" (maybe fix the darkness problem as well). Finally (hopefully), we will get to a stage where the gimmick has worn off, we know when and how to use it well and so directors will only use it when its appropriate.
Think of autotune. First we have introduction (Cher), then we have overexposure (T-Pain), then we have parody (I'm on a Boat, I am T-Pain) and experimentation (A Glorious Dawn showed it can be used by DJs to make spoken vocal samples "sing", Bon Iver's Lost in the Woods showing it can be used tastefully to create an otherworldly vocal effect), hopefully now we will be in a stage where it is used sparingly to create a very specific effect or as a tool for DJs.

 

[PureChaos]

there is only 1 3D sin: being in 3D in the first place

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

And thus shall commence the hate from people who don't see the potential of 3D! Stop focusing on the mistakes of its past and look to its current triumphs and future development, people. Seriously.

True, but we can only improve if we know the mistakes of the past, or we are doomed to endlessly repeat them.

True. Sorry, I should have clarified, I was not taking issue with your article, I was taking issue with all the people posting about how 3D shouldn't exist. Your article was great: you brought up some very valid points. I'm just tired of people griping about how much 3D sucks because of mistakes that are in the process of being fixed. I almost get more annoyed with people that say that no movies should be made in 3D until it's perfected: obvious logical flaw being that we can't perfect 3D if we're not using it. Fail.

I see. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

This being the internet, it often is easier to just assume somebody is just illogically flaming you

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

1. Don't Make A 3D Film Dark: Here are some facts, 3D makes films darker, dark things are harder to see, people go watch thus SEE movies. Logical deduction states that 3D films that are naturally dark will only get people?s ire and scorn. The Last Airbender showed how much a problem this could be. The entire CLIMAX of that film took place in a pitch black moonless night. Even with all the fire, it was impossible to see a THING. A black screen an exciting climax doesn?t make. This is one area Avatar avoided since most of it took place in the bright jungle, and when it was night Cameron filled the screen with tons of glowing plants.

2. Don?t Add The 3D In Post-Production: This has been somewhat common with films made and shot in 2D before Avatar came out (like Clash of the Titan) and added later in hopes of making the studio more money. However, it is nearly impossible to do this without making the film look blurry beyond reason. Either have the 3D done from the start, or don?t do it at all.

3. Don?t Use 3D As A Crutch To Sell More Tickets: This one has yet to really hit home yet in the modern age, but looking ahead, it is about to hit us like a truck. Between Pirahana 3D, Cat and Dogs 2, and all sorts of mid budget films advertising the 3D pretty much more then the actual movies, the immediate future is scary. Lets hope it comes and goes.

4. Don?t Change The Movie To Show Off The 3D: This is a combination of the above rules and the below, but changing the film to show off the tech is never the way to go. While 3D argueably helps draw the watcher into the movie, changing the film in ways that makes a huge arrow point towards the film and say, ?HAY! LOOK! WE HAVE 3D! ISN?T IT NEAT!? and it doesn?t make any sense in the context of the film is a death sentence. For example, in Shrek 4 Ever After, the main bad guy, Rumpelstiltskin has an army of witches in the ?It?s a Wonderful Life? esc alternate universe without explanation, nor does it make much sense in context since witches were shown as pretty neutral background characters in the first film, and the ?guy whose name is to hard to spell? never has had any contact with witches in any story he has ever been in (nor time bending universe controlling powers, but that is besides the point). However, as Moviebob said, the broom flights let them show off the 3D!

And finally?

5. Draw Us In, Don?t Push Us Out: This is the oldest mistake of 3D, and what made it a gimmick for so long. Reaching out to the audience, throwing things at them, or pointing out about the missing forth wall will break immersion more often then it will reinforce it. Up to this point, that is pretty much all directors did with the tech, giving us the terrors that was the crappiness of Jaws 3D with its almost hilariously bad ?shark crashes into glass? effect. 3D should be used to create a depth of field, make the objects INSIDE the film have depth, make it look like the people are people you could actually touch and interact with. This is what helped Coraline be such a disturbing film since you could truly believe the other Mother is real, and out to stitch your eyes shut.

wow every sin here as been committed by clash of the titans

Yeah, I think Clash of the Titans invented #2.

 

[dalek sec]

To me for the most part 3D is just a bloody gimmick no matter what the movie is. I'll actually start to care about 3D movies when they make them without having to wear a pair of freaking glasses over the pair I have on already.

 

[MDSnowman]

As a person without depth perception, the whole subject just depresses me. Hopefully filmmakers will do it wrong as much as possible so it will die off.

Amen