Comments on: The Trouble with 3D http://www.filmcrusade.com/the-trouble-with-3d/ The Battle to Save Film Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:43:21 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Joe Marklin http://www.filmcrusade.com/the-trouble-with-3d/comment-page-1/#comment-1205 Joe Marklin Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:26:47 +0000 http://www.filmcrusade.com/?p=1728#comment-1205 I wouldn't panic, it's not going to ruin anything. Movies are still made in black and white that do well (The White Ribbon 2009). Once people adjust to the 3D medium they will realize that the medium doesn't make the movie. It's like using distortion on a guitar; you have to have a good song to begin with. Also, all the major camera companies are now making affordable 3D cameras that are coming out in the fall, so if indies want to use those they can. I wouldn’t panic, it’s not going to ruin anything. Movies are still made in black and white that do well (The White Ribbon 2009). Once people adjust to the 3D medium they will realize that the medium doesn’t make the movie. It’s like using distortion on a guitar; you have to have a good song to begin with. Also, all the major camera companies are now making affordable 3D cameras that are coming out in the fall, so if indies want to use those they can.

]]> By: HeyBishop http://www.filmcrusade.com/the-trouble-with-3d/comment-page-1/#comment-1204 HeyBishop Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:19:50 +0000 http://www.filmcrusade.com/?p=1728#comment-1204 Screenwriters should stop worrying. The fundimental most important factor in making a good movie is the script. That is what James Cameron is saying. He's not fighting against 3D, he's just cautioning us that there will be people (studios) who are going to mistakenly think it was "the 3D" that made the movie good/successful. Which is wrong. 3D will enhance an already good movie. All the same elements that make a 2D movie great will make a 3D movie great. 3D simply takes it a step forward. Screenwriters should stop worrying. The fundimental most important factor in making a good movie is the script. That is what James Cameron is saying. He’s not fighting against 3D, he’s just cautioning us that there will be people (studios) who are going to mistakenly think it was “the 3D” that made the movie good/successful. Which is wrong. 3D will enhance an already good movie. All the same elements that make a 2D movie great will make a 3D movie great. 3D simply takes it a step forward.

]]> By: Not Charlie http://www.filmcrusade.com/the-trouble-with-3d/comment-page-1/#comment-1202 Not Charlie Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:20:53 +0000 http://www.filmcrusade.com/?p=1728#comment-1202 I can name one benefit, Antrhony- it augments depth of field. Foreground elements can be made to be closer to you, and background elements can be made to seem further away from you. This is indispensable in a scenes that are set in a cramped space. The director can make the character more "boxed in" by making this depth shallower, and s/he can make an open space feel more expansive if the depth is deeper. Personally, I don't go to many 3D movies (I've only seen Up and Avatar in 3D), but if you think that all 3D has to offer is things floating off of the screen, you should try seeing a newly-released 3D picture sometime. Directors are learning to avoid exploiting the gimmick by having crap on the screen fly towards you, and 3D is being used as more of a tool than an effect. It's certainly evolved past the red-and-blue glasses fare that you get at theme parks. I can name one benefit, Antrhony- it augments depth of field. Foreground elements can be made to be closer to you, and background elements can be made to seem further away from you. This is indispensable in a scenes that are set in a cramped space. The director can make the character more “boxed in” by making this depth shallower, and s/he can make an open space feel more expansive if the depth is deeper.

Personally, I don’t go to many 3D movies (I’ve only seen Up and Avatar in 3D), but if you think that all 3D has to offer is things floating off of the screen, you should try seeing a newly-released 3D picture sometime. Directors are learning to avoid exploiting the gimmick by having crap on the screen fly towards you, and 3D is being used as more of a tool than an effect. It’s certainly evolved past the red-and-blue glasses fare that you get at theme parks.

]]> By: Joe Green http://www.filmcrusade.com/the-trouble-with-3d/comment-page-1/#comment-1200 Joe Green Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:02:12 +0000 http://www.filmcrusade.com/?p=1728#comment-1200 I agree with most of the sentiments here, regarding 3D, but your characterization of the climactic ballet sequence in Singin' in the Rain is utterly baffling. This is the least awkward 14 minutes in movie history...and as for it interrupting the plot, this seems to be a confusion as well. Who ever went to see a Gene Kelly dance picture for the plot? Did you love the story in Royal Wedding or do you just remember Fred Astaire dancing with a hat rack? Crazy. I agree with most of the sentiments here, regarding 3D, but your characterization of the climactic ballet sequence in Singin’ in the Rain is utterly baffling. This is the least awkward 14 minutes in movie history…and as for it interrupting the plot, this seems to be a confusion as well. Who ever went to see a Gene Kelly dance picture for the plot? Did you love the story in Royal Wedding or do you just remember Fred Astaire dancing with a hat rack? Crazy.

]]> By: Katrina http://www.filmcrusade.com/the-trouble-with-3d/comment-page-1/#comment-1199 Katrina Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:18:35 +0000 http://www.filmcrusade.com/?p=1728#comment-1199 Not to mention it limits some people on what movies they can see. 3D Movies make me dizzy and sick so I try to avoid them as much as possible. I agree with the poster above as well. It's not really anything special. It was neat once or twice in an oooooh that looks kinda cool way but I am so over it! OH! and wearing the stupid 3D glasses over top of my real glasses. . .SUCKS!!! Not to mention it limits some people on what movies they can see. 3D Movies make me dizzy and sick so I try to avoid them as much as possible. I agree with the poster above as well. It’s not really anything special. It was neat once or twice in an oooooh that looks kinda cool way but I am so over it! OH! and wearing the stupid 3D glasses over top of my real glasses. . .SUCKS!!!

]]> By: Antrhony Costine http://www.filmcrusade.com/the-trouble-with-3d/comment-page-1/#comment-1193 Antrhony Costine Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:23:38 +0000 http://www.filmcrusade.com/?p=1728#comment-1193 "There are tremendous possibilities to be found through 3D." Dear Charlie, name them, please! From what I've seen so far the "3D effect" is just....you know....a 3D effect. If you are between the age of five and fifteen you might be excited/distracted by seeing certain elements of the screen image floating in front of others. But for an adult to be excited by this "effect" is simply embarrassing. Someday someone might come up with a technology that replicates on screen how we see the world in real life with our stereoscopic vision. But "3D" is not that effect. “There are tremendous possibilities to be found through 3D.”

Dear Charlie, name them, please! From what I’ve seen so far the “3D effect” is just….you know….a 3D effect. If you are between the age of five and fifteen you might be excited/distracted by seeing certain elements of the screen image floating in front of others. But for an adult to be excited by this “effect” is simply embarrassing.
Someday someone might come up with a technology that replicates on screen how we see the world in real life with our stereoscopic vision. But “3D” is not that effect.

]]>