Joss Whedon and J. J. Abrams Sound Off on 3D

[Greg Tito]

Joss Whedon and J. J. Abrams Sound Off on 3D

You might be surprised to learn that the two entertainment luminaries don't entirely hate the 3D trend that Hollywood is currently hot for.

Filming in 3D has been around for a long time, but Avatar made it work for relatively mainstream films instead of just horror and shlock. Some people hate the format, but Joss Whedon and J. J. Abrams, arguably two of the most influential creative forces in the industry today with such credits as Firefly, Buffy, LOST, and Star Trek under their belts, think that 3D has a lot of potential, even if it doesn't work with every film.

"Honestly, I'm totally into [3D]. I love it," Whedon said during his panel with Abrams at San Diego Comic Con. "I really think that the technology is really good. It puts you into the space. It doesn't give me a big headache. I think that it's being done so much now that we're past the poke-things-at-the-screen era of 3D and it just adds a little something. There definitely are movies that shouldn't be in 3D, say like Cabin in the Woods..." Whedon is referring to the horror film that he produced, directed by Drew Goddard, that has been slated to be transferred to 3D.

"That came about because [MGM] looked at the schedule and said, 'Oh my god, every horror movie is going to be 3D forever,'" Whedon said. "But Drew shot something very specifically, in a classical mode. He made it almost a little old-fashioned. So what we're hoping to do is be the only horror movie that's not in 3D so we can advertise, '2D! See things move across the screen! Cabin in the Woods is painterly!' It's going to revolutionize the industry."

"The thing with 3D is that everything gets dim," Abrams said, taking the more cautious approach. "It all feels a little grey and muted. I want to see the vibrant [colors], I want to see the movie. I get into it I adjust to it, but for me it always feels like those first five minutes feels less than the IMAX experience, which is my favorite kind of immersive experience. The 3D thing, I'm not totally on board with yet."

Is 3D just a fad or is it here to stay? "I have no idea," Abrams said. "My guess is that it will continue, the equipment will be there, the technology will improve. Not everything will be made in 3D but a lot will. I have no idea."

Abrams was clear about one thing. When asked whether his project with Steven Spielberg, Super 8, will be coming out in 3D he simply said, "No."














Permalink

 

[Baldr]

The thing about 3D is that you loose a ton of image quality, animated movies don't have the quality that going to a big loss, but actually well filmed movies can totally be ruined by a conversion.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I feel like Joss Whedon's unrestrained enthusiasm for 3D has vindicated my belief that it's incredibly fucking stupid.

 

[Flying-Emu]

Whedon said it.

IT
MUST
BE
TRUE

 

[Retosa]

Really, the only reason it's making a resurgence is because they can now market it more mainstream due to the technology for 3D TVs.

I hate the idea of it, simply due to the fact that it really DOESN'T immerse me any more into the movie. And because you can really only do it for SOME scenes. It's not amazing, and I actually am horribly underwhelmed by it.

The only thing I like about it, is the fact that I can get NORMAL 2D TVs cheaper because of it. Stupid 3D bullshit's useful for something. I'm just afraid that it'll become so mainstream that I'll NEED a 3D TV for the next generation of consoles.

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

Till they make Pseudo 3d that doesn't give me eye strain, and headaches I wont buy into it.
I've yet to see a film in Pseudo 3d that I was able to sit through that benefited from being 3d *including avatar*

we just got HD so I could see the mole mark on extra number 845 in the background, the vary nature of making this stuff 3d is by making stuff look like its in the background so stuff in the foreground has more prominence...therefor stuff in the background is hazy just like if you were to look at something in real life...So whats the point of HD if all that clarity is now lost?

but beyond that my problem is the physical problems I have with it, and others do as well.

hell lets not forget when Movie studios make 3d movies in mind, thus adding useless at you scenes, and changing the nature of the movie and script for 3d in mind.

 

[Hito-Chan]

Whedon said it.

IT
MUST
BE
TRUE

IF WHEDON MAKES IT, IT WILL BE GOOD IN ALL DIMENSIONS, INCLUDING 4D AND 6D.

Honestly though, I think Whedon has proven that he's the only person that can make certain things work. My running theory is that he was actually a mutant genius turned inside out so that everything happens to him backwards: his best show gets canceled, his least good show gets a second shot, and a low-budget short film is, for the first time in history, completely awesome on it's own merits instead of for how bad it is.

While all the other directors are trying to get to the finish line, Whedon's doing a freestyle waltz on the ceiling, and he still manages to be more captivating than the rest.

 

[Jared]

I still dont like it...I cant see it, or use it so what point is there to it...Yes, I know we had colour blind people, who, cannot see things when colour came around...but, that didnt effect me.

This does, so...yeah, </3 3D

 

[fullbleed]

I feel like Joss Whedon's unrestrained enthusiasm for 3D has vindicated my belief that it's incredibly fucking stupid.

This is win. I pretty much agree with Abrams, Imax is a far more immersive experience and comparing Avatar in 3d to Imax is no competition.

Oh and if 3d really is going ot be the future of films (which it isn't) then they have to stop fucking charging us more for it! An extra couple of quid for some crappy glasses made most likey in a 3rd world company for tupence? NO!

 

[The Great JT]

Then permit me to disagree with you, Mr. Whedon, because to me, 3D is a gimmick and a crutch. It's a gimmick to sell tickets at higher prices and it's a crutch for bad movies to sucker in unsuspecting fools with the promise of stunning visuals. I hate to keep using it as an example, but look at how Avatar did their 3D. That is an example of good use of 3D. As for things that aren't Avatar, well, look at 90% of modern movies with 3D.

 

[sooperman]

"that has been slated to be transferred to 3D"

Oh gawd 2D-into-3D. This ought to be good... -_-

So it looks the two big shots of sci-fi are split on this one, but let's not kid ourselves; 3D isn't going anywhere. As much as 3D may be a gimmick, it's making a bunch of money right now.

Personally, I'm excited to see some more films be created in 3D, like, you know, *that movie*. 2D-into-3D conversions don't seem to work, but *that movie* has taught us a lesson, methinks.

 

[Skreeee]

Still a cheap, useless gimmick. Still won't fork over 3-4 extra dollars for a ticket.

 

[Vern]

They're both completely crap directors, so why exactly should I care what they think? A soap opera with vampires? A soap opera with invisible forces on an island that turned out to be a dream? A revamp of a series that's been around for 50 years? Real creativity there folks. There's nothing wrong with a normal movie, in a standard aspect ratio. Come and See on a regular TV will beat Avatar in 3D any day, because it actually has a soul. A movie based on an event that actually happened, with real actors, recreating real events, with live ammunition being fired, and no 3D computer generated images trying to push an agenda? That's ridiculous.

 

[Irridium]

Nope, can't get on board with 3D. Mainly because it makes me nauseous. Plus having a fucked up left eye kind of ruins the whole thing as well. So my left eye doesn't see what its supposed to, and the movie just makes me sick instead of blows my mind.

Don't care either way, because if your movie isn't good, it doesn't matter how much crap your throwing through the screen at me, if its not good I don't give a damn and will not watch it.

 

[Towowo2]

Fad and gimmick must be the most popular words around here it seems. Also people need more better arguements agaisnt 3D other than: "It gives me a headache!" or "It strains my eyes!". Only poorly made 3D visuals do those things.

 

[JaredXE]

Fad and gimmick must be the most popular words around here it seems. Also people need more better arguements agaisnt 3D other than: "It gives me a headache!" or "It strains my eyes!". Only poorly made 3D visuals do those things.

Ok, how about "IT'S NOT REAL 3D"? All it is is an optical illusion that provides no actual depth, the image is the same no matter the viewing angle, and I get the privilege of paying $3 more for no goddamn reason.

Oh, and "It gives me a headache" is a perfectly valid argument as that is a sign your eyes are being fucked up.

 

[Doug]

Fad and gimmick must be the most popular words around here it seems. Also people need more better arguements agaisnt 3D other than: "It gives me a headache!" or "It strains my eyes!". Only poorly made 3D visuals do those things.

Because its been done before.

It comes around every decade or so, people claim it'll be the Next Big Thing, then it dies and everyone forgets it again.

Also, "Gives me a headache" is a valid reason if a large part of the population get the eye strain from it - "Only poorly made 3D visuals do that" is only valid if Hollywood actually knows what the hell it's doing.

Edit: Also, have they worked out a way for me to use 3D yet? I wear glasses normally, and as far as I'm aware, the 3D glasses won't slot over them in any workable way.