According to Variety GULLIVER is only in about 1,000 3D theaters...

Agree. 3D TV is just rubbish. History will judge it as a massive failure.

We can always discuss about 3D here. Here is the summary of what has happened uptil now....Let another round of discussions begin

Avatar seems more like an anomaly rather than a standard. I also liked 3D very much in Up (the depth added a lot there I thought) and also Piranha 3D was very fun because every scene had a lots of stuff crammed and made 3D more obvious than usual which makes sense or if it was a lake scene then the depth was obvious. But all of the other movies used 3D as a gimmick and looking at the announced movies I don't think that will any time change soon.

Also I've grown tired of having glasses. At the beginning of the craze I really didn't mind. But since then they've changed the glasses and the new ones feel heavier and really uncomfortable. Also the time before the last time I needed to change glasses 2 times because they didn't work. Last time I needed to change them once. But it really pissed me off and when I went to the main office to change them I told the people there that their management sucks and that it's not hard to have someone standing inside the hall during the first 5 minutes of the movie with spare glasses in case a viewer who payed to watch the movie (instead of walking around to get to their offices to change glasses) got faulty glasses and can change them fast. They looked at me like I was an idiot (oh did I mention they were just sitting and joking and smoking, basically doing nothing worthwhile of their paycheck). I can't wait for this new multiplex to open. These bastards won't get my money that easy anymore.



I must've missed something because I'm yet to see a drama in 3D playing in theaters.
Also it's not a coincidence that 3D movies are regularly action, fantasy/adventure horror and CGI animated flicks. Gimmick has been always the main reason for 3D. And that's still the case and those movies are where gimmicks can be used in abundances.


I agree. But besides lone few examples nobody seems to bother to do it right. That's why it feels like there's a 3D fatigue. In the US that is. Overseas the audience is still eating it up.

I haven't seen TS3, but I really appreciated that Up had a bit more subtle approach to 3D and I value that more than a few possible great lone 3D sequences most of the 3D movies are based upon. I thought that instead of letting me wait for the next big moment when 3D will show its face it allowed me to absolutely completely relax and enjoy the movie and also present the world of Up in unobtrusive 3D experience.

There was an ad for Sanctum 3D during the NFL playoffs and I though that actually looks pretty good. I would not be shocked by a minor 3D breakout for this film.

Well James Cameron's name slapped all over this movie will certainly help.

I haven't seen it in 2D yet, only in 3D so I won't comment on that. But I've seen Alice both in 3D and then in 2D in theaters. I actually enjoyed the 2D version more. That's a movie where 3D added nothing at all. But then again it had the usual blockbuster approach to 3D unlike Up, so maybe I'll end up liking 3D version of Up more than the 2D one once I see it.

I feel that with about 50% of the movies I've seen in 3D I wouldn't have missed anything had I gone 2D.

I sense the public is a bit more forgiving of it and excited about it since they see fewer movies, but probably this year or next saturation will be hit and more demands will be made to only see the best quality 3D versions.

I saw Tangled in 3D and felt it added enough to be well worth it.

You saying many people doesn't make that a fact. How many is "many" anyway? The same people that made Avatar the highest grossing movie? The same people that continue paying premium prices for 3D versions of movies? Complainers are always the most vocal.


I was referring to your statement about non-action scenes in 3D movies.


That's because that's the first thing that comes to mind when thinking 3D. People got subjected to gimmicky rides in theme parks for decades. Fortunately, there seems to be a shift happening, some famous directors, like Scorsese, Stone and Mann are doing or thinking about doing heavily narrative driven films in 3D.


At least you're not as hopeless a case as Magnus.


Really? I think it looks like a TV movie. I'd rather not have Cameron's name slapped all over it, might hurt his reputation.

But you do agree with me that non-action sequences in today's 3D movies are heavily underutilized, don't you?


While they're thinking, a storm of converted, gimmicky 3D movies is coming and might damage any good will and bright prospects that were in store just a year ago while Avatar was ruling the theaters. So even if they eventually decide to do "regular" movies in 3D, that might be the case of too little, too late for this generation of 3D.


But still I see just as bleak future for 3D as him, all things considered.

Not really. I can't comment on much of the movies since i haven't seen any of these converted efforts. I don't think, however, that you really need to do anything special with a dialog in 3D, or with any scene for that matter, just roll with your 3D camera like you normally would. Maybe some slight alterations in camera angles to accentuate depth perception.


As far as i know, more and more movies are being shot natively in 3D, it's the only right way to do it. Conversions are relegated more to movies that started filming early last year, around the time Avatar just landed.

Gimmicky, stuff-thrown-at-your-face horror or action is not bad per se, if the picture and 3D quality is great.

Ummm, no. That one isn't even for discussion. Every breakthrough in filming results in different and new ways of filming. 3D should be no exception. I want a reason why they introduced it. In a little over a year I've gotten pretty sick with the format because there's like an already overused template of how 3D movie/scenes should look like.


Of course it's not bad per se. But again those gimmicks shine only in isolated cases where in most it feels like a waste.

You made a poll asking people?

When i think of Avatar's 3D first think that comes to mind are scenes such as the wake up scene in the huge chamber in the starship, or Quaritch's speech at the beginning when the camera pans across the room.

Oh yes, it is. The sole reason for 3D is adding depth. Would Avatar be different had it been only in 2D? I don't think so. You hear the same sounds whether in stereo or surround, just that in the latter case they, well, surround you.


I don't understand, you want gimmicks? Isn't that what you're against?


Really? I'm curious, how do they look like? And again, for the most part, you're talking about movies that were shot primarily with 2D in mind and converted only after the fact.

Like a dream within a dream is a gimmick.

Is there any reason why movie format needed adding depth at all? There are still movies which amaze with their 2D imageries unlike anything before. Avatar is a lot different in 2D. You mention wake up scene and speech scene in Avatar as examples of what 3D is to you. Those scenes add nothing to me. Where Avatar excels for me is the forest scenes. It really brings the nature of Pandora alive. That effect loses a lot of its punch in 2D for me. Considering that most of Avatar's running time is in Pandora's nature that's the reason why 3D in Avatar works completely for me and feels as a genuine artistic device rather than a gimmick.


I think I explained this above.


No, I'm talking with movies shot in 2D with conversion to 3D in mind as most of these conversions are. It was painfully obvious which scenes were supposed to utilize 3D in HP7.1 for instance (entering the Black mansion, Nagini's attack, etc.). Just as it was obvious in Narnia 3 (which I've seen in 2D). And scenes like these are what I call a gimmick (a word which you misuse while quoting me) - there's no reason why they're filmed like that besides for the 3D effect which compromises quality for cheap 3D effects. And judging by the movies slated to be filmed in 3D I see no reason to believe that similar decisions of compromising scenes to benefit 3D just for the sake of it won't happen just like in the case of these 2D movies (obviously filmed in mind for 3D conversion).

Why would that be a gimmick? That actually adds a lot to Inception's story and isn't there for the sake of it. Gimmick is the lame ending Nolan provided though.

Is there any reason for surround sound?

Yes, because it's awesome. You see and hear three dimensional in real life, it makes you feel that much more like you're there. I dunno how many more times i have to repeat myself until you people get it.


I loved movies before this new wave of 3D started as well and i still love those same movies today, you know. 3D, like surround sound, just adds an extra level of immersion.


It really isn't. But my point was, would he have shot it differently, had it been only in 2D.


Are there youtube clips of some of those scenes? Do they involve some items flying at the screen or wild camera rides? I have a strong suspicion you're imagining things. I can find you a bunch of similar scenes in other movies long before Avatar was even greenlit, such as in LOTR for example.

I'm perfectly aware that i won't change YOUR mind, i'm trying to convey what WE, the forward-looking people, like about 3D.

1890's, 1920's, 1950's, 1980's, 2010's - - the 3D fad is like clockwork - - they roll it out every thirty years.

They're were still using variations on the same old stereoscopic technology - - luckily it's due to it go back into hibernation soon.

OMG. It's like you refuse to get it.


Why are you stuck with comparing 3D to surround sound? It's not even remotely the same advancement as 3D is. There is a reason why 3D has been trying to break intro mainstream for decades. And it always seems that it will make it, but the interest always wanes in a couple of years. Surround obviously enhanced movie going experience and did so by improving on something that was always there - it just made it slightly better but it wasn't obtrusive in any shape or form. 3D has a lot of things to work out. First of all, obviously 2D and 3D is not the same at all (if you think that everything is better just by added depth, fine, but hundred's of years of filmmaking disagrees with you). Second of all 3D with glasses still needs a lot of work. Some people get headaches, bespectacled viewers have problems (obviously), glasses are heavy, sometimes they don't work, etc. and also there's problem with movies looking darker (some to the point that some scenes are too dark to actually see anything). Those kicks can certainly give stigma to 3D experience which is exactly what it's happening. Add unimaginative use of 3D to the table and there you go. The need for 3D in this way and form is far from justified.


But surround actually has great use from the start. 3D doesn't. It always relies on same tricks. You know while you're watching a horror movie that someone is going to get stabbed through the head and the bloodied part of the weapon will come out of the screen and into your face. In an action flick you know there's going to be a big explosions just so something gets into million pieces that fly into your face. And don't even try talking about how the wave of films actually filmed in 3D is just coming. As I already said, nothing that's currently slated in 3D looks even remotely to challenge the already tired 3D formula. On the other hand, sound mixing in some movies can surprise all the time.


I think he would. But I guess we'll never now. I can't make a statement that he definitely would neither can you make a statement that he would film the movie exactly the same if he was filming it in 2D. But my opinion that scenes would be framed different.


There is a difference in framing between an item flying at the camera and an item obviously meant to fly out of the screen.

When used appropriately, I think 3D is a fantastic experience that allows for already enthralling films to be even moreso. The problem is, I think director's choose to use 3D as a distraction from a bad story as opposed to an enhancement for the storyline. Even reviewers, I think, are misconstruing the possibilities of 3D. I remember reading various comments about how the 3D in TS3 and Up! was pretty useless, but I think the sparse use of it allowed it to elevate from a gimmick to an enhancer to the story. Seeing the horrible hell that the TS3 gang was in in 3D made it all the scarier and more frightening - it became hell. Not a trash compactor or whatever the hell it was, but a HELL.

...anyways, I'm running long and class has started, so...

Yup.

Exactly.

Enhancement perhaps, but don't forget to subtract the trade-offs in picture darkness, poor color saturation, and having distracting glasses framing your view.