"Why Are All Movies Getting A 3D Remake?" or "How Many Times Can We Watch Titanic?"

[Seil]

I'm somewhat upset because I missed my chance to see The Lion King (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOIu472cCq0) in 3-D. I had school and everything... but I did go see Tintin recently. (It's pretty great.) However, there were a few movie posters on the wall that greatly disturbed me at the theater.

Titanic 3-D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaj1M5wDigg) and Beauty And The Beast 3-D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osU_T8HB-9U) and Star Wars I 3-D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6w15OwK08) and oh gods why are all of these being remade, or remastered or whatever?

Titanic and Phantom Menace were alright, I guess, but what merits them being redone?

I'd rather go see the newer 3-D movies like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4U3kbV4dCU) or the new Underworld (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw_-jAeRmwc) or The Hobbit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0k3kHtyoqc) or wait, are they remaking the original Halloween? (http://www.movieinsider.com/m6386/h3-halloween-3d/) 'Cause I could stomach the idea of an old Star Wars 3D and Titanic 3D if we get a 3D Halloween.

[CelesJessa]

Because they like money.

[Seil]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/Poetisch/1241310633_UJqzu-L.jpg

[Amake]

I already wear glasses, so 3D to me is an extremely distracting gimmick. It works for movies that have no story to speak of and just are there to offer a particularly well-thought out visual experience, but otherwise it's the opposite of what I want to pay extra for. It's not like it automatically adds to the visuals like you'd expect maybe works in a special effects feast like Star Wars; at best it creates a whole new visual language that when you plan a movie around it can be very interesting, but when you throw 3D onto a movie that was made without any such considerations before the technology even existed I expect it will just fall flat. So to speak.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Welcome to Gimmickland, 2012!

After seeing a handful of films in 3d, me and my friends who I usually go to the cinema with have finally decided not to bother with any more 3d films ever again. They don't add anything to the experiance, they cost too much, and I honestly find myself not even noticing the 3d about half way through the movie, after finding it jarring and wierd to look at for the first half.

Fuck 3d!

[Osterbaum]

Fuck the 3D fad. It's the dumbest thing ever.

[Aerozord]

3D isn't just a fad, its a recuring one all the way back to the 50s. I bet you, the 3D effect, is probably just layers of 2D images

[Magus]

I am somewhat proud that the only 3D movie I've seen is the only one people say was even a half-way decent use of the technology: Avatar.

I sure has hell am not going to see Titanic 3D, hahaha. Like what is the point, just to further illustrate that people could give a shit about the love story and only went to see it originally to see that dude fall and hit the propeller? Now in glorious 3D?

Wait maybe I will see this again...

[stefan]

The trailers for these 3D remakes all showed before tintin.

they were excruciatingly painful to watch. Not even exaggerating, I nearly walked out of the theater because the trailers made me feel like I was getting stabbed in the eyes. (thankfully the 3D in tintin was far better done.)

post-process 3D doesn't fucking work. It looks fake and induces extreme eye strain.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Where's 3D Last house on the left. I reckon that'll work real well. I got it playing in my head right now.
The whole movie is full of poking and jabbing and swirling around. Why didn't it invent 3D?

[Seil]

Last House On... Please. If they're gonna do anything to regain my respect and admiration, they need to redo Lake House in 3D.

And Citizen Kane.

And Winnie The Pooh.

And Space Jam.

[CelesJessa]

3D isn't just a fad, its a recuring one all the way back to the 50s. I bet you, the 3D effect, is probably just layers of 2D images

Probably, if it's "fake" 3D, which is what they do post-production, like with all of these remakes. Movies like Avatar were shot using actual stereo cameras (or digital representations of them for the CG) which I understand makes a more realistic effect rather than just the whole "cutout on top of cutout" effect.

I wouldn't know personally. I can't see in 3D. Screw 3D.

[Krylo]

Screw 3D.

http://i42.tinypic.com/vowjs7.gif

[CelesJessa]

Augh, that's cool.

Damn you 3D!

[Krylo]

Augh, that's cool.

Damn you 3D!

That's how the rest of us see. . . ALL THE TIME!

[CelesJessa]

Vision with two eyes is such a gimmick.

[Betty Elms]

"Money" or "Once"

Anyway, Hugo is basically two hours of proof as to why 3D is a force for good in this world and I've long since grown tired of the reactionary anti-3D circle jerk. This coming from somebody who's childish enough to boycott a theater solely because they made me watch Harry Potter in post-production 3D.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

The only major 3D movie I'm considering shelling out for in the upcoming future is the Hobbit. Last one I recall seeing was How to Train your Dragon.

[Aerozord]

"Money" or "Once"

Anyway, Hugo is basically two hours of proof as to why 3D is a force for good in this world and I've long since grown tired of the reactionary anti-3D circle jerk. This coming from somebody who's childish enough to boycott a theater solely because they made me watch Harry Potter in post-production 3D.

I think most of the hate isn't 3D itself. I mean this is the internet so sure alot of people are hating to hate, but alot of people find 3D actively diminishes their movie going experience and often they are forced to watch it. So I think (hope) its less about the gimmick and more that people dont want to pay more for a crappier product simply because studios think its trendy

[Seil]

Nah, man: I'm just thinking that not only is it terrible that 3D is the hip, new, trendy thing and every producer/director wants it in their films (including the films that were out of theaters ten years ago and are back in because of a gimmick), but also because people will actually go see the old films again because they're now in 3D! OoooOOooOOhhh!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The only thing Hugo was proof of was that Scorsese knows how to make a good film but chooses not to to spite me.
But on topic I don't see how the 3D really helped the film that much or was needed. It could have been done in 2D without losing anything.

The only film I've seen where 3D was really good and necessary was Cave of Forgotten Dreams where 3D really brought out the environment of the paintings and manipulated their space in your head in a way 2D wouldn't have.

I have also heard some of the ballet 3D movies are really good because they choreographed dances specifically for 3D but fuck ballet.
E: Pina is the dance film I was thinking of if anyone is interested.

[Archbio]

If they didn't want us to treat like a freaking gimmick, they wouldn't bill it as a gimmick, like when they put 3D in the title. Like, maybe The Jazz Singer kind of used the title to suggest that it was a talkie, but it's not The Jazz Singer TALKIE, is it?

A few big directors fall in love with it enough that they're willing to champion it like animated movies about gnomes and undead children travelling to the North Pole have been championed, and suddenly it's like 3D isn't going to sort of just slink back to Forgettown until the next big gimmick revival.

But then again, maybe we're stuck with this forever because audiences will pay for anything anytime and this is a real article of faith to the industry. Like the dream of movies without actors is to George Lucas.

[3stan]

I hate 3D movies, but sometimes I wonder if I'm like those guys who thought colour in film and sound in film was a ridiculous idea and it's possible that some genius filmmaker will find a way to use it to enhance the story rather than distract from it and eventually everyone will copy those guys and eventually the concept of a movie not being in 3D will blow people's minds and become one of those things only pretentious artsy films do.

But then I think that Charlie Chaplin was against talkies, and being like him would be pretty cool.

[Aerozord]

both audiences and film makers WANT 3D to be a good idea. They want to escape the limitations of 2D videography. So much so that they ignore the practical problems.

When those practical problems are solved (which they wont be until we perfect cybernetic eyes) people will be all over 3D movies. But people are impatient and want to get there now even if what they get is more of a crappy imitation then actual 3D

[stefan]

both audiences and film makers WANT 3D to be a good idea. They want to escape the limitations of 2D videography.

except that 3D doesn't really solve any videographic issues possessed by 2D filming, especially depth ones which can be dealt with more simply with depth of field.

[Aerozord]

except that 3D doesn't really solve any videographic issues possessed by 2D filming, especially depth ones which can be dealt with more simply with depth of field.

thats like saying sound or color doesn't solve any of the issues. Yes there are ways around the problem. Though its still an issue. No matter what you do objects moving straight to or away from the camera looks unnatural. There is also the problem of forced perspective, and conceptualizing size. Forcing you to always need visual ques to tip off the viewer as to the size and distance of an object.

There are other issues but I'm just making a point that 3D can add alot to a movie.

As a disclaimer, I said could, not that it does. This is a theoretical perfected 3D with a director that knows how to properly use it.

[CelesJessa]

thats like saying sound or color doesn't solve any of the issues. Yes there are ways around the problem. Though its still an issue. No matter what you do objects moving straight to or away from the camera looks unnatural. There is also the problem of forced perspective, and conceptualizing size. Forcing you to always need visual ques to tip off the viewer as to the size and distance of an object.

Hahaha really? Don't people just... use visual ques to know how big/distant an object is anyway? I thought it was just something that people... do naturally without having to think about it.

And, just to clarify, what's the forced perspective "problem"? I thought movies have been using it to their benefit for years. (Heck, forced perspective is used outside of 2D mediums anyway.)

[Aerozord]

look if you do not get why there would be advantageous to adding an entire axis to a visual medium I'm not going to argue it. I mean if there were no perks to stereoscopic sight why the heck do you think we evolved it in the first place.

[pochercoaster]

Um, the perspective in movies has never looked unnatural to me. The perspective in 3D movies certainly has. 3D movies aren't truly 3D anyways, so it just makes them look weird and ruins the experience.

Roger Ebert wrote a good article on the problems with 3D here. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html) Hint: a lot of those problems have to do with theatres wanting to make more money.

1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

The medium is inherently 2D. It doesn't need 3D any more than books need to be 3D, or paintings such as the Mona Lisa, or any other 2D medium because the medium directly benefits from being 2D.

I'm also trying to dig up an article on how 3D forces your eyes to move in unnatural ways which causes the headaches so many people get, but can't seem to find it. It has something to do with how the line of sight from both your eyes converges at some point in order to create perspective but 3D movies force your eyes to look in an uncomfortable direction where they don't converge. At the very least, 3D is unpleasant (in mine and many other's personal experiences) such that I have a policy of not seeing 3D movies anymore even if it's a movie I'd really like to see. I don't want headaches to be the new side effect of watching movies.

I mean if there were no perks to stereoscopic sight why the heck do you think we evolved it in the first place.

Also if I recall correctly CJ does not have stereoscopic sight which gives her an interesting... perspective on perspective. Ha! I'm good. :cool:

[Fifthfiend]

Hahaha really? Don't people just... use visual ques to know how big/distant an object is anyway? I thought it was just something that people... do naturally without having to think about it.

Yeah but I think zord is it creates a challenge for filmmakers because they have to remember to arrange each shot of their movie to have have stuff in it to provide those cues. Which I will say is probably fair to call the sort of thing you end up considering a hassle to remember every single iteration of a routine process after twenty or thirty years of doing it.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Wait, there's a problem with depth perception on screens now? Wierd, cos I can look at anything, on screen or off, and it looks perfectly fine to me. Trying to make movie images more like human vision is a pointless affair anyway as human eyes work totally differently to cameras.

A camera, you point it somewhere, and you capture the whole image with equal clarity across a square surface.

Human eyes, you have peripheral vision around the edges of your vision that blurs out the parts you're not paying attention to. Human eyes also turn themselves on and off again every time you move to focus on those other things, so you don't get queasy trying to refocus on new stuff.

Should we therefore add some sort of bizzare bluring effect around the edges of cameras now, and stutter the image every time it moves? Of course not, because that's fucking stupid.

[stefan]

thats like saying sound or color doesn't solve any of the issues. Yes there are ways around the problem. Though its still an issue.

no, it isn't. Look, I'm a student of photography and videography, 3D is utterly superfluous. Anything it does can be done less intrusively with control of aperture and depth of field. Your mind already SEES a movie screen as 3D, adding a 3D effect causes confusion for the visual centers of your brain.

No matter what you do objects moving straight to or away from the camera looks unnatural.

no there isn't. contextual clues are already everything you need to determine if something is growing larger or moving towards the camera.

Forcing you to always need visual ques to tip off the viewer as to the size and distance of an object.

you are supposed to have visual cues. Your subject should not exist in a vacuum.

[Amake]

I have no idea why we should be looking at film cameras - if not movie visuals themselves - and go "this needs to emulate the mechanics of the human eye". It's like saying games need to have photorealistic graphics, but on a whole new level. I don't need or even want to look at a movie screen that looks like I'm looking through the eyes of another person with my eyes. Actually that sounds more like the plot of Being John Malkovich than a movie watching experience.

I'd have no problem with a movie depicting the world of the second dimension in a way that would be impossible to show in 3D. It's not that movies easily can fool us into thinking we're looking at a 3D world, though they can. It's that we absolutely don't need any cutting edge technology to be fooled. We don't even need pictures. Of course it's not going to stop anyone from passing off technological innovation as creative work if it's all they can do. Heck, it's worked for the videogame industry for decades.

[Magus]

As soon as they perfect holograms I think we'll all forget about this 3D shenanigans.

[Archbio]

Mang, I'm still over here, waiting for sculpture to fully replace painting, which is in limiting 2D.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Yeah and why haven't audio books completely replaced written words yet? You can't get the full experiance from a book surely? There's like, a whole dimension that written books are missing by not having audio to them!

[Osterbaum]

3D gives me a headache. I don't go to movies to get headaches.

[CelesJessa]

Also if I recall correctly CJ does not have stereoscopic sight which gives her an interesting... perspective on perspective. Ha! I'm good. :cool:

Hohohohohoho. Perhaps I am the next step in evolution, where stereoscopic sight has been rendered useless.

look if you do not get why there would be advantageous to adding an entire axis to a visual medium I'm not going to argue it. I mean if there were no perks to stereoscopic sight why the heck do you think we evolved it in the first place.

No, I honestly don't really get why it would be advantageous (or at least i'm not understanding the kind of use that you would think would be advantageous). The only way I could see is maybe a holodeck sort of deal and I think that in of itself is a little too far away from "movies" to be considered here. I mean, I regularly animate using three-dimensions and I think it would be a nightmare, compositionally, if the picture wasn't restricted to the frame that the camera makes for you.

You're free to not explain it to me, but I asked because I don't get it and honestly wanted clarification. As someone who doesn't have stereoscopic vision, I have always been fascinated by what it might look like to have it, so I never considered before that movies might normally look funny to people who do have it.

Yeah but I think zord is it creates a challenge for filmmakers because they have to remember to arrange each shot of their movie to have have stuff in it to provide those cues. Which I will say is probably fair to call the sort of thing you end up considering a hassle to remember every single iteration of a routine process after twenty or thirty years of doing it.

Eh, honestly I wouldn't really think so. At least from personal experience, in animation there's the mindset that every frame, if you take it alone, should be compositionally appealing, so it's all part of setting up the composition, which filmmakers have to consider anyway because that's what makes them filmmakers and not just dudes holding cameras (if that makes sense?)

[RickZarber]

I'm also trying to dig up an article on how 3D forces your eyes to move in unnatural ways which causes the headaches so many people get, but can't seem to find it.

Is this (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html) the article you meant?

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. [...] [T]he audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.