Do you like the trend towards 3D Movies?

[PulpDogs92]

With Avatar and Alice in Wonderland (just to name a few) being box-office successes it has now become a phenomenon to create movies in 3-D. I was just wondering if anyone had thoughts on this new phenomenon? Do you like 3-D movies? Is there really that "better of an experience"? Your thoughts....

[jaykays hat]

I replied to this earlier and now my post has dissapeared? Can't be bothered to type it all out again.

[morris]

And Ancient One's post disappeared too.

I think the Forum has been playing up today.

[Ancient One]

Do you think he cut and pasted for his thesis ?

[ScreenNinja]

Not living under a rock, I have seen Avatar (twice, actually – once in IMAX) and have read innumerable articles discussing the possible future implication of Cameron’s technology. The majority of the industry seem enamoured with the very idea (of course they are - £3 extra a ticket? They aren’t stupid) and the electronics manufactures are planning a slew of TV sets to bring the ‘revolution’ into our homes. In theory, this all points towards a single conclusion, so why do some people still remain unconvinced?

The overwhelming reception for Avatar has been more wildly popular than anyone envisaged and has caused all the other major studios to commence chucking their films onto the 3D bandwagon. However, the question still remains – and won’t go away for several years at least – as to whether Avatar really does mark the third coming (Talkie, Colour) or whether the frenzy will fizzle out after a year or so.

Riding the coattails of post-Avatar goodwill we have ‘Alice In Wonderland’ from Disney and Tim Burton. As with many of the upcoming releases, ‘Alice’ was not shot in native three-dimensions, but converted using a post-production process similar to that which caused the delay for ‘Clash of the Titans’. In between these two we have ‘How To Train Your Dragon’ and later on in the year ‘Shrek Forever After’ and ‘Toy Story 3’: all animated fare.

In the pipeline we have one, (but probably three) Tintin movies from Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson along with the final two Harry Potters, a Green Lantern adaptation and the reboot of Spiderman. The rumour mill says this will be followed by Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’ prequel, The Hobbit, Twilight: Breaking Dawn, a Jaws remake, Dune, Underworld 4, Michael Bay’s third Transformers and Ghostbusters. 3D-revamps are also in the works for any number of big-budget films from over the years, including Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Titanic and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. That the last two on that list are James Cameron films is no coincidence.

It is obvious but overlooked that 3D will only succeed if the paying customer is willing to cough up extra for the experience. They were willing to do so for ‘Avatar’ because besides being first it was also, quite frankly, rather amazing. Whether this will stretch to movies like ‘Titans’ is less clear because once the dust settles moviegoers will once again demand strong films to go with the flashy visuals.

If 3D is to stay, ‘Alice’ word-of-mouth also seems to indicate that people can tell when the effect has been thrown on as an afterthought and is still, essentially, being used to throw things at the audience. If this persists with ‘Titans’, ‘Harry Potter’ etc, there is surely an underlying risk of cheapening the overall product and harming the hard work of Jake Sully et al.

We need someone other than Cameron capable of delivering the wow factor, and we need more movies actually filmed in 3D. ‘Avatar’ was fantastic, yes, but 3D will not hang around for long if no ones even comes close to knocking it off its perch. Visually, at least.

[Kiba.]

Hi ScreenNinja. When posting please check for a similar thread already available on the Forum, and don't spam your blog in your first post. If in doubt check the Forum Rules. Thank you.

[Lizhawkins]

Originally Posted by ScreenNinja

In the pipeline we have one, (but probably three) Tintin movies from Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson along with the final two Harry Potters, a Green Lantern adaptation and the reboot of Spiderman. The rumour mill says this will be followed by Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’ prequel, The Hobbit, Twilight: Breaking Dawn, a Jaws remake, Dune, Underworld 4, Michael Bay’s third Transformers and Ghostbusters.

Did you see this on the TF website? What d'you reckon...?

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/the-hobbit-to-be-in-3d

[Cop223]

My opinion is that 3D is great for cinemas particularly blockbusters by the fact that it does bring more people in and entices people to pay to watch it (even if it is ridiculously over priced) rather than downloading it for free plus it does look fantastic in the big action/SFX scenes.

For me however I find that it’s still looking a bit artificial and you can’t beat a good old 2D scene with perfect lighting; be it a perfect sunset or shadows across an actors face. Also I watch a film for the story and the emotions it takes me through, will 3D improve on that…perhaps in an action/fantasy scene but definitely not in a well acted drama.

[Kiba.]

Maybe I'm just getting old but to me 3D feels like nothing more than a gimmick, about as useful as flames painted down the side of a sports car, or fancy hubcaps. I'm not saying it doesn't have its purpose and place and I realise it can make certain film experiences at the cinema more fun and lifelike.
But the cynic in me is saying, Great; Hollywood has latched onto something that is flamboyant and bombastic enough to pull in the masses and distract them from the general lack of originality on offer. What better way to make tired reboots or remakes seem fresh than to present them "Now in 3D!!". Before anyone suggests it, I'm not saying Avatar isn't original. But the problem with a flagship film is that it often ushers in a host of inferior wanna be's (example: The Matrix) and I think we'll be seeing the fallout for some time.

I wish Ancient One's post hadn't vanished yesterday as he raised some good points. Essentially one of them was 3D: great at the cinema, not so hot at home - at least until the technology is improved. I would agree with that. I found Coraline hard going with those stupid glasses included in the blu-ray pack and would be reluctant to put my eyes through that again.

In short, I don't think 3D is the savior or reinvention of cinema, I think it's a gimmick. Whether a positive one or not remains to be seen.

[thedude]

I was gonna put my two pence worth in, but Kiba has said it all as far as I'm concerned. I enjoy 3-D, but am in no way influenced by what film I see due to any 3-D inhancements it may have. In fact I was dissapointed to read that the next Harry Potter was gonna jump on the wagon.