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

[Towowo2]

If

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.

I also use glasses, Personally I don't believe 3D will take off fully unless they can produce the 3D visuals without the awkward glasses.

The arguements people regularly use agaisnt it aren't really saying why 3D is a bad idea. But rather the after effects of 3D. No one has made a valid argument why 3D is a bad idea. Depending on if it truly takes off or not is another matter. Of course 3DTV's are going to be expensive it's the nature of new technology. HDTV's were really expensive when they first hit the consumer market.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

People said the same thing about the Wii. Give it time and it'll be just as much of a fad as the Wii.

 

[maxben]

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!

Are you saying IMAX 3D is impossible?
Point is, I love 3D and I think they both make good points.
If everything was in 3D, it'd be stupid.
But certain things just work.
Right now, anything animated works.
Once directors figure out how to use the technology, other forms of film will too.
Its new right now (Real 3D is worlds apart from the old red-blue).
And, btw, whining about the glasses is stupid, they charge more because it takes more money to film and because movie pirating is causing a lot of strain on movie theaters so they need a gimmick to charge more (read MovieBob's article Why Movies Suck Nowart Two).
Its the same thing that is upping the price of PC games.

Seriously, the anti-3D crowd just come off as a bunch of Luddites.
It's actually kind of sad.

 

[Doug]

The arguements people regularly use agaisnt it aren't really saying why 3D is a bad idea. But rather the after effects of 3D. No one has made a valid argument why 3D is a bad idea. Depending on if it truly takes off or not is another matter. Of course 3DTV's are going to be expensive it's the nature of new technology. HDTV's were really expensive when they first hit the consumer market.

Ahhhh, thats a different question - when people say "3D films are rubbish/its a bad idea/etc", they of course mean the current technology 3D. Personally, I think a 3D technology based on holography in the future would be the ultimate film projection technology.

 

[Cherry Cola]

To the people who hate 3D: Just watch the movies without 3D. It's not like it costs more.

No, but the movie experience is more annoying than how it would have been had the movie not been shot with 3D in mind.

To elaborate, when filming a movie that's going to be in 3D, you want lots of shots where stuff flies into the camera to show of your 3D stuff. If you don't, then the 3D starts feeling kinda pointless and boring.

Which means that directors put in tons of those scenes in their films, which is cool for the 3D audience, but for us only wanting 2D, we get annoyed at scenes like that, partly because they feel cheap and could be replaced with much better action, and partly because they do it so many times.

Just look at the trailer for Resident Evil: Afterlife


Shurikens, airplanes, swords, glasses, all just in the trailer are thrown with the unmistakable purpose of "3D-ing" them.

 

[Cherry Cola]

To the people who hate 3D: Just watch the movies without 3D. It's not like it costs more.

No, but the movie experience is more annoying than how it would have been had the movie not been shot with 3D in mind.

To elaborate, when filming a movie that's going to be in 3D, you want lots of shots where stuff flies into the camera to show of your 3D stuff. If you don't, then the 3D starts feeling kinda pointless and boring.

Which means that directors put in tons of those scenes in their films, which is cool for the 3D audience, but for us only wanting 2D, we get annoyed at scenes like that, partly because they feel cheap and could be replaced with much better action, and partly because they do it so many times.

Just look at the trailer for Resident Evil: Afterlife


Shurikens, airplanes, swords, glasses, all just in the trailer are thrown with the unmistakable purpose of "3D-ing" them.

But see, these are bad movies. A good director isn't going to change their movie for these kinds of shots. Action scenes can still be fun with cool-looking 3D objects flying around, even if there aren't any scenes where some object flies towards you.

I don't doubt that there are directors who won't do so, but a good director is rare nowadays.

That means that for every good film with 3D effects that aren't overwhelming, there will be tons that do have that. It will be a gimmick more than it will be an important tool to use, and that is why I don't like it.

It's a bit like the Wii's motion controls. Not hating on the Wii or anything, but that console had more shovelware than the PS3, 360 and PC put together.

Some games for the PS3 threw in mandatory sixaxis movements simply because they could, even though they weren't useful.

And I am standing firm on the belief that the same thing will happen with movies.

 

[ZephrC]

I think that someday, maybe around fifty years from now, 2D displays will be looked on the same way we look on black and white now. It'll take time, but eventually they'll solve the headaches and the need for glasses. Then all they have to do is come up with a reasonable price and there simply won't be any reason not to use 3D.

That being said, I think some companies now *cough*sony*cough* are jumping on this thing a bit too early. It's not there yet, and a lot of people just got HDTVs. 3D going to be hard sell for the next five or so years even if they can perfect the technology, and I have my doubts about the necessary improvements happening that fast. I think this current bout of 3D is probably a fad, but the next one will likely be the real deal when it hits. If they improve the technology fast those two might run together though.

 

[Corven]

"Yes, 3D is awesome" *smile* *nod* *walks backstage for check*

 

[Flying-Emu]

Whedon said it.

IT
MUST
BE
TRUE

Actually, it makes perfect sense, really. Some movies do look better in 3D, but like he said, not all.

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

Please, don't suck me into that AU again.

Dude, I was being completely serious.

Whedon is the one director I can say that I trust fully. In terms of creative license, at least.

 

[Flying-Emu]

So was I.

I know

I just wanted to make sure you understood that I wasn't being a sarcastic ass.

 

[Green Bastard]

Wait... both of them kept their hands *above* the table? Oh. I guess it means this was a words-only circle jerk.

Did anyone wait around to see if Nathan Fillion was hiding under the table, 'earning' his role as Ant-Man?