Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

James Cameron: All entertainment ‘inevitably 3D'


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-08-2013, 16:21
Jon Ross
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 2,661

Hollywood director James Cameron says all forms of entertainment will eventually be 3D - because "that's how we see the world."

The director made the claims despite 3D movie revenues faltering and consumer indifference to 3D television content.

Mr Cameron, who has directed and produced some of the biggest grossing movies in Hollywood - including 3D hit Avatar - argues 3D has been one of the milestones of cinema, along with sound and colour.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23790877
Jon Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-08-2013, 16:52
Finny Skeleta
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,041
No, it will fade away just like it has every other time it has been tried since the Lumière Brothers. Then it will come back again amidst great hype only to disappear again. Repeat ad nauseum.

All the visual clues are already present in traditional cinema to let our brains perceive depth in an image. If we see a man taking up a large part of the screen and then we see little Eiffel Tower alongside him then we don't need a pair of 3D glasses to tell us that it isn't a very large man stood next to a little tiny Eiffel Tower.

I almost want to strap James Cameron to a chair Clockwork Orange style and play him the "These cows are small..." scene from Father Ted over and over again.
Finny Skeleta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2013, 17:51
oblivian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Orpington
Posts: 3,571
I don't doubt that one day in the future a type of 3d, holographic projection type thing will be the future but that's many, many years off.
This round of 3d is headache inducing, dark and intrusive for me and I can't wait for it to end so the screens aren't so clogged up with it and its easier to see the films I want in 2d.
oblivian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2013, 17:59
Gavin_Wadsworth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 26
Not going to happen, in an interview a couple years back he said that there will be 100% take up of 3D films at the cinema in the next 5 years, nearly halfway there and there is roughly the same amount of 3D films as there was back then, if not a little fewer.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/n...3d-future.html
Gavin_Wadsworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2013, 19:08
lordo350
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,171
In all honesty I think its prestige has just worn off. And you know, the idea behind it is brilliant. If they'd have kept it to the right movies and really gone all out with the 3d aspect of the film like Cameron did with Avatar, it might be viewed with some level of respect. Instead, "in 3d" is added onto every single blockbuster movie these days, and the vast majority just don't need it. I cite Pirates 4 here; there was just no point, no point at all, in making this 3d.

Since 2009 it has been shoved onto pretty much every film they think people will actually go to see. Greed, always Hollywood's biggest weakness, has destroyed modern 3d. Most people I know now will go and see even the biggest movies, such as Man of Steel (a producer's wet dream when it comes to 3d) in good old fashioned 2d. The tickets are expensive enough as it is. I just find it a little insulting how they are moaning so much about piracy, yet blatantly con people out of an extra 3 quid a ticket for, what is most of the time, hastily post converted and rubbish 3d.

Cameron clearly wants this to be his greatest achievement. What he will be remembered for. Because being known as one of the greatest directors of this generation isn't, apparently, good enough.
lordo350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2013, 23:03
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 14,867
There could in fact be a good reason for deliberately giving films an unreality. If you have ever seen those Robert Zemeckis films using CGI people... Did getting closer to "reality" help or hinder with the emotional connection?

Unless an invention that connects directly to peoples brains comes into being any external display technology will always be unreal because we know it's unreal, close to reality but not quite.

And maybe getting close but never getting there would be increasingly off-putting?
Tassium is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2013, 00:08
jenzie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: BUDDIETOWN
Posts: 15,433
not with the screen technology AS IT IS ..... we still watch stuff on a flat screen remember .....

when there is height, width and DEPTH to screens, 3D this time will be just like every other time!
jenzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2013, 09:39
Trsvis_Bickle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,212
No, it will fade away just like it has every other time it has been tried since the Lumière Brothers. Then it will come back again amidst great hype only to disappear again. Repeat ad nauseum.

All the visual clues are already present in traditional cinema to let our brains perceive depth in an image. If we see a man taking up a large part of the screen and then we see little Eiffel Tower alongside him then we don't need a pair of 3D glasses to tell us that it isn't a very large man stood next to a little tiny Eiffel Tower.

I almost want to strap James Cameron to a chair Clockwork Orange style and play him the "These cows are small..." scene from Father Ted over and over again.
Exactly. 3D is a solution looking for a problem and it always has been. With the current technology, the disadvantages of intrusive glasses, smaller, darker images and the distancing of the viewer from the film far outweigh the minimal advantages.

Cameron's comment that 'that's how we see the world' is irrelevant. Just like painting, cinema works perfectly well as a 2D art form and always has.
Trsvis_Bickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2013, 11:31
Finny Skeleta
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,041
Exactly. 3D is a solution looking for a problem and it always has been. With the current technology, the disadvantages of intrusive glasses, smaller, darker images and the distancing of the viewer from the film far outweigh the minimal advantages.

Cameron's comment that 'that's how we see the world' is irrelevant. Just like painting, cinema works perfectly well as a 2D art form and always has.
The painting comparison is a good one. I've seen holographic reproductions of the Mona Lisa that are interesting for a couple of seconds but then the novelty wears off and you walk away. The original flat version on the other hand has fascinated people for hundreds of years and will continue to do so for hundreds more.
Finny Skeleta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2013, 12:32
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,595
All this from a man with three Avatar sequels lined up, all in 3D presumably. Funny how he cited 3D films now winning cinematography Oscars given how badly the glasses can dim the colours. Life of Pi did look dandy in 2D, I'll give you that.

I suppose 3D will be foisted upon us for quite some time yet as it still makes a pile abroad. Never mind the growing problem of twin 2D/3D releases being too quickly yanked from screens to make way for more of the same - an industry concern that may have impacted on some film's revenue this summer.

It may fade, or remain an option. But I think for many the gimmick is wearing off. The perspective trick of cinema 3D is still way off the perspective we see ordinarily, which is probably what they're aiming for. Until then, who knows.

I almost want to strap James Cameron to a chair Clockwork Orange style and play him the "These cows are small..." scene from Father Ted over and over again.
That scene > Avatar.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2013, 13:37
SXTony
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 812
What we have now isn't 3D though. It's more like the cinematic equivalent of decoupage.
SXTony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2013, 16:23
Voynich
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,596
I'll certainly be buying the Oculus Rift when it finally appears. It will be interesting to see what a movie will be like even though it will be primary for immersive gaming.
Voynich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2013, 21:22
Trsvis_Bickle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,212
What we have now isn't 3D though. It's more like the cinematic equivalent of decoupage.
I don't know what big tits have got to do with it but you may be on to something. Have the pornographers embraced 3D yet? The potential would appear to be there...
Trsvis_Bickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2013, 00:05
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,595
What we have now isn't 3D though. It's more like the cinematic equivalent of decoupage.
More akin to toy theatres perhaps:

http://www.toytheatre.net/JKG-Histor...s/image010.jpg
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2013, 00:18
jenzie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: BUDDIETOWN
Posts: 15,433
the problem is that WE process the information, in our brains, and that makes some of you very tired

if a depth resolution, your poor brains would not have to work so hard let the TV do all the work!

imagine 4K .....

3840 x 2160 x 600
jenzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 03:07
DRAGON LANCE
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 682
The problem with so called 3D is that it isn't 3D at all, and it isn't how human brains see the world naturally (hence why it gives some people headaches). The nearest comparison to what so called 3D makes things look like is a pop-up book.

Like a pop-up book, all it does it cut out certain images and via optical illusion put them closer to you to give an illusion of depth. However, as it doesn't do that with everything within the picture it looks artificial and forced.

It’s a nice novelty when done well, and I've enjoyed watching some films presented like this. Directors that know the limitations of the tech realise its best employed for just having things occasionally coming out of the screen at you, all the little snowflakes of a snow storm spring to mind as 3D that has really impressed me.

However it really cannot ever replace watching normal so called "2D" film because that's how humans actually see the world, not this forced, unrealistic 3D. James Cameron doubtlessly wants 3D to take off as he's invested a lot of time and money in it. I'll give him some credit, the current method of "sunglasses" is better than the old one of coloured lenses, but having to wear glasses alone puts many off and that coupled with all the other problems means you would not therefore want to watch 3D 24/7.
DRAGON LANCE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 10:56
Finny Skeleta
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,041
The problem with so called 3D is that it isn't 3D at all, and it isn't how human brains see the world naturally (hence why it gives some people headaches). The nearest comparison to what so called 3D makes things look like is a pop-up book.

Like a pop-up book, all it does it cut out certain images and via optical illusion put them closer to you to give an illusion of depth. However, as it doesn't do that with everything within the picture it looks artificial and forced.

It’s a nice novelty when done well, and I've enjoyed watching some films presented like this. Directors that know the limitations of the tech realise its best employed for just having things occasionally coming out of the screen at you, all the little snowflakes of a snow storm spring to mind as 3D that has really impressed me.

However it really cannot ever replace watching normal so called "2D" film because that's how humans actually see the world, not this forced, unrealistic 3D. James Cameron doubtlessly wants 3D to take off as he's invested a lot of time and money in it. I'll give him some credit, the current method of "sunglasses" is better than the old one of coloured lenses, but having to wear glasses alone puts many off and that coupled with all the other problems means you would not therefore want to watch 3D 24/7.
Not to mention the fact that even in the eyes of 3D enthusiasts (Mr Cameron excepted) most entertainment wouldn't benefit from 3D at all. There is an argument for its use in big fantasy epics or maybe the big budget Attenborough nature documentaries but can you really imagine broadcasters and viewers spending a fortune on new equipment to have Countdown or Homes Under the Hammer in 3D?
Finny Skeleta is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21.