Question of the Day, July 4, 2010

[LeonLethality]

I'm on the fence for this one side of me really wants it to be a fad and another side of me thinks it could be pretty cool with the right technology (sort of like the 3DS but without having to be in a "sweet spot" for it to work) Also if they can somehow prevent me from getting sick while watching something in 3D.

 

[Doug]

next big thing would be holograms

This.

3D would be the 'next big thing' if a) people who normally wear glasses weren't excluded, b) it didn't give everyone massive headaches, and c) if 100% of people could see the 3D, not just 85% of people.

i.e. Holograms.

 

[Eekaida]

As someone in the business, I can say that it only have gimmick appeal. Stereoscopic 3D is a fad that comes and goes around every 30 years, and people 3D are already getting tired of 3D animation. The only step left is to achieve complete photo-realism, and once that's achieved the technology will be relegated to special effects and childrens animation, since life action is markedly cheaper.

 

[Zeromaeus]

Why is it that I'm almost always neutral to the question of the day?

 

[Doug]

As someone in the business, I can say that it only have gimmick appeal. Stereoscopic 3D is a fad that comes and goes around every 30 years, and people 3D are already getting tired of 3D animation. The only step left is to achieve complete photo-realism, and once that's achieved the technology will be relegated to special effects and childrens animation, since life action is markedly cheaper.

3D animation...like Pixar?

And yeah, they couldn't get it working back in the 1950's, so why would it work any better now, heh.

 

[Eekaida]

As someone in the business, I can say that it only have gimmick appeal. Stereoscopic 3D is a fad that comes and goes around every 30 years, and people 3D are already getting tired of 3D animation. The only step left is to achieve complete photo-realism, and once that's achieved the technology will be relegated to special effects and childrens animation, since life action is markedly cheaper.

3D animation...like Pixar?

And yeah, they couldn't get it working back in the 1950's, so why would it work any better now, heh.

Yes, exactly (although Pixar is now owned by Disney). The ultimate goal of cgi is complete photorealism, but right now its at the stage where its not quite right, so hits the 'uncanny valley', where the human brain recognises it as something unnatural. For complete photorealism, actors are required for motioncapture, and the processes involved in cg animation make just filming it in live action much cheaper. Once a studio has achieved photorealism they'll stop trying to outdo each other. American childrens movies will still be made in cgi, but not adult movies.

 

[Phishfood]

I can see it being big in computer games, but in movies...meh. If your movie is crap adding 3d won't make it good.

Eventually everything will be 3d though. Except for things like south park and the simpsons (and maybe even those will be)

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I'm halfway on this. I think that 3D as it stands is a fad, because it has the inconvencience of being basically unwatchable to people with really bad eyesight who don't wear contact lenses, and even if you have the eyesight you have to wear those silly little plastic 3D glasses, which are ridiculous and can get in the way of the enjoyment of a movie ('One size fits all' my British arse Vue cinema)

BUT

I do think that if there can be any way to make things appear 3D without needing those glasses then I think it would very quickly become the norm. Of course, this might only be possible with the invention of Star Trek like holograms, which I'm not sure would actually constitute 3D.

So basically I think entertainment in 3 dimensions is the next step, but not with the technology we have now. (Assuming of course that the ultimate goal of entertainmet technology is to make you feel like you're in the middle of the action, virtual reality, then 3D must be a step on that road.)

 

[Rakkana]

The first step to holograms so yes and no.

[http://dragcave.net/view/Tm5s]

 

[veloper]

Will be a fad unless it can be brought to the big screen, without glasses and at a high framerate.

 

[Living Contradiction]

Shouldn't the Escapist know better as just to give us two extreme answers?

Isn't that how you get reactions out of people? If you give four or five possible opinions, nobody will bother justifying why they hold an opinion to be true. But if you force someone to either condemn or embrace something, the unspoken question that comes next is "Why?" Hence the responses on this thread.

Besides, the 3D debate has always been extreme. It was touted as the next big thing back when it first happened and faded quietly into irrelevance and mockery. Now it's back, shouting again how 3D has come and the world will never be the same. I voted fad because I tend to think that patterns repeat themselves. 3D will be popular for a little while, might push an innovation or two that change the way we see entertainment, and will then slip back into its irrelevant niche.

 

[kaiZie]

ill go with next big thing, but it does have it's downsides still. The 3D glasses need to change. Some companies have been making "stylish" ones but the price is about £100 a pair, which isn't worth it at all. The concept works, since, lets be honest, those that saw avatar saw it in 3D and it was freakin' Sweet! Since this is really the beginning of the technology it will take time to develop into something more usable, a bit like DVD players. When they hit the scene they were excess of £100 for the player and £30 for the DVD. We all thought "hell no" to that idea, then a few years later, no one could understand why we had VHS in the first place. This will be the same in my opinion.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Dr. Kermode, take it away.

 

[Yvl9921]

I see this as more of a primitive version of virtual reality than a gimmick of its own.

 

[Stormwaltz]

(leaving)

 

[nick n stuff]

it's like motion gaming...it won't last.

 

[Edward Heffner]

3D seems like it would be to expensive

 

[SovietSecrets]

Hopefully just a fad. Can't afford a $2000 TV at the moment.

 

[Ashendarei]

man, I'm SO glad it's not just me that is thoroughly convinced that 3d is nothing more then a gimmick.

 

[Ruagh]

It's a fad, if a really persistent one.

Granted it's sometimes done well, but most of the time it just looks like the gimmick it is.