Options
Is 3D quietly dying on its arse?
Just been looking through the list of 3d productions that have been released since the revival of the format and I noticed the number for 2015 is about 37 films of all types including nature docs etc and that's about half of last years tally, so far less than 20 have been announced for 2016 so is the 3D thing slipping away?
0
Comments
Regards
Mark
And as an add on I see that Sky has announced it's doing away with the Sky 3D channel in June and moving all 3D films over to its On Demand service.
Let's hope the current 3D releases are archived more successfully than in previous eras. Several 50s 3D movies no longer exist in their original 3D formats and many of the owners of those which have survived have no interest in re-releasing them. Those who do, want fantasy amounts of money for licencing and someone else to finance any necessary restoration.
This accounts for the lack of a 3D Blu-ray of "It Came from Outer Space", "Hondo" and several others.
Some (slightly) more recent movies are suppressed by tightfisted of indifferent owners: "Flesh for Frankenstein", "Spacehunter" etc.
If it weren't for 3D Film Archive's tireless efforts in finding and licencing such material there's be even less of it available. Even they can only do so much.
As for quietening down in terms of the mass mainstream, it would appear so.
I don't think the average person can be arsed with the faff. In the home they don't want to mess about putting on a pair of glasses, the picture being dark, and it not being comfortable for the eyes to some.
It will rise up again in the future no doubt in a different form. Probably without glasses.
I imagine it'll take Avatar 2 to restore some sort of confidence in it , but I wish they'd pack it in , even in IMAX it's still dodgy .
Like when you looked at Red and Blue 3D in comics.
The feeling of distance is good but the fact the people or objects still seem flat makes you realise it is not a real 3d scene.
yes , especially in FX scenes , all that work to make composites look good then it's ruined by 3D making them look seperate again .
Or Star Wars.
I think it's great myself, even on TV. I watched Finding Nemo last week and it was like watching it for the first time.
I think that the producers are probably being a bit more choosy over which films they make in 3D as it doesn't suit all films however, imo, watching 'Gravity' in 3D is twice as good as watching it in 2D.
I hear a lot of people saying 3D, bluray and surround sound is not impressive on their TV and I think that they simply haven't got it setup right.
For instance, anybody who bought the same TV as I did, will probably have spent all of the time (like me) trying to keep their head perfectly straight as it would go out of focus if the head was slightly tilted. I solved this problem and I can now enjoy the movies to the fullest but I would imagine that a lot simply gave up on the format.
Ticket sales of 3d movies have plummeted, probably because they're:
1. Crap
b. Incredibly expensive.
iii. There is no 4.
I saw Gravity in IMAX 3d and like every other 3d movie, I came out thinking: well that was a total waste of time.
Just leave the movies as they are, no messing about with stupid glasses that don't fit and just make great movies.
Most of the time its just because they tend to upgrade the technology, making it a little easier to make and exhibit the movies.
But it always comes back to the quality of the movie, acting, story, direction. You ain't going to be watching current 3D movies 20 years from now because of how many times they threw things at the screen.
My contention with current 3D is actually a bit of a conundrum. We have now reached a stage where we have perfected (for now, anyway) HD, digital pin-sharp, IMAX quality pictures...why on earth would you go to all that trouble, then completely ruin the whole effect by making people put on dark glasses that not only obscure the clarity of the picture, but just make everything dark and fuzzy, for the sake of lobbing things at the screen?
Yes I think HD is the way to go for now rather than 3D.
4K HD almost looks more real than 3D does most of the time. It is like looking out of a window rather than into a box.
However if I have any problems with 3D it's when it isn't used well, such as in action scenes where everything is moving fast. There are some things which don't work well with 3D and need to be approached very differently to conventional film. A different approach is often needed because conventional film making techniques don't have 3D in mind.
The main problem though, is that I find it very difficult to truly immerse myself in a film that's made in 3D because I'm always distracted by the thought that I'm watching a 3D film. I just can't get that awareness out of my thought process, so can't truly engage with a good film like I would if it was made in 2D.
So I can thoroughly enjoy the aesthetics of set-piece scenes, but I find it difficult to get into the story of a film because of my constant awareness that I'm watching a 3D film.
I think 3D is probably going to make more of an impact with the games industry before it's truly accepted by cinema.
I'll be watching Star Wars VI in 2D but best quality possible.
Apart from the Quicksilver scene in the last X-Men film, the only time 3D that has looked good recently is in cartoons; Despicable Me 2 as an example.
For me, that's actually an indicator of how well the 3D has been done, If it's done well, I quickly forget it's in 3D and just enjoy the movie for what it is, but if it's contantly in my mind that it's 3D then I don't think it's been done well. Within minutes of watching Gravity I was just totally immersed in it and forget the 3D aspect altogether and enjoyed the movie.
I'm glad I opted for 2D now. I didn't think 3D would have really added anything to the movie really.
I was thinking about upgrading my TV last year to a 3D TV mostly for gaming but there are very very few games been made in 3D now on current gen consoles. All I could find was Trine 2 (which is supposed to be stunning in 3D) and Pinball.
So I think 3D is "dying on its arse" quicker in gaming than it is in film. Of course, VR could change that.
Then maybe Hollywood will go back to making the content of the film the selliing point rather than the format and stop skewing their production slates in favour of mindless action movies.
I was thinking of 3D in games more in terms of a virtual reality context than on a flat screen.
Disagree, it can add something to a film. Avatar without the 3D is not the same experience at all. Rubbish story but some of the scenes are stunning to look at. Same goes for Prometheus. Flawed film but the 3D really adds to visual beauty of that movie.
Maybe you just don't get on with it?
Playing BattleField will definitely be good with VR 3D.
I was playing it with a 2D headset and I was still trying to look around me while playing.
The ability to look behind you while still being able to shoot forward will be a great improvement in game play.
but 3D done properly doesn't do that. It's all about adding depth of field. Not all 3D movies are gimmicky if in the hands of the right director. Ridley Scott for example has made great use of 3D to enhance cinematography .
Money will be the deciding factor in its longevity I imagine. It may become more exclusive - splashy Hollywood blockbusters seem to suit it best, so it'll probably remain an option for them for quite a while still.