I just finished reading Kristin Thompson's excellent, detailed blog post on the current state of 3D films: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2019/ ... ealdvided/
To summarize: Thompson has long been skeptical of the once-popular view that 3D would become the norm in mainstream filmmaking. It turns out, she was probably right. I've assumed that 3D was still rising high, but she offers extensive evidence that it has been steadily declining in audience popularity since its heyday, which not coincidentally was just around the time Avatar came out. In 2010, 21% of US domestic box-office receipts went to 3D films; in 2017 it was 12% and the curve is downward. The reasons are many, but basically: 3D remains a niche product only befitting animated family films and sci-fi/fantasy flicks ("Who would want to see If Beale Street Could Talk or Vice in 3D?") and exhibitors don't like having to charge more than necessary from customer's at the ticketbooth when they make their best profits on concessions. She wonders whether 3D will eventually die out altogether.
That said, she doesn't want to see 3D disappear altogether. She champions Gravity and Adieu au langage as the only films that must be seen in 3D, and she also praises Cave of Forgotten Dreams as an artful use of the format.
What are your thoughts on/experiences with 3D as a format? Any usages of 3D you particularly loved? Personally, I tend to purposely avoid seeing movies in 3D, as I much prefer to 2D, and I watch most flicks at home anyway — but I also expect she's right that a 2D home viewing of, say, Gravity and Adieu au langage would be a notably diminished experience. (Haven't seen either, missed 'em in theatres.)
3D Films: What's the Verdict?
the last 3D film i've seen, shankar's 2.0, was one of my favorite experiences with 3D, but telling that the most extraordinary use of the format wasn't any of the elaborate sci-fi imagery but footage of a flock of birds in flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNm55ptmDcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNm55ptmDcs
i just watched gaspar noe's love, which was filmed in 3d. i didn't get to watch it in 3d though. idk if that's a good thing or a bad thing
The last few 3D films I saw were so underwhelming in their use of the format that I actually felt ripped off -- Pixar's inane INSIDE/OUT and Miller's MAD MAX FURY ROAD. To be fair, FURY ROAD was seen in such a shitty theater with such shitty projection that nothing would have looked good.
I like 3D when it works -- GRAVITY, AVATAR, Jackson's first two HOBBIT films were intelligent uses of it, whole worlds were put onscreen. INSIDE/OUT was a pure cashgrab, no wit or imagination in any way whatsoever, and in fact marked the beginning of the end of my use for Pixar.
I like 3D when it works -- GRAVITY, AVATAR, Jackson's first two HOBBIT films were intelligent uses of it, whole worlds were put onscreen. INSIDE/OUT was a pure cashgrab, no wit or imagination in any way whatsoever, and in fact marked the beginning of the end of my use for Pixar.
These matters are best disposed of from a great height. Over water.
Even it 2D, that scene's use of depth and perspective is quite impressive! I can only imagine how it must have looked in 3D.
My favorite use of 3D has probably been Adieu au langage (2013), I can't see how those separation shots could be achieved otherwise (I assume the 2D version just superimposes the shots over one another). Some other films I've seen use 3D in a noteworthy way are Prototype (Blake Williams, 2017) and Ken Jacobs' later works, which have all been exploring 3D without the use of glasses as can be seen below. (warning: flickering lights)
https://vimeo.com/189386968
I agree with Kristen Thompson's thoughts. Filmmakers have only scratched the surface with 3D so hopefully the medium remains viable for those interested in exploring it. I have to imagine that even if declining box office numbers eventually lead to 3D disappearing from studio releases, independent practitioners will continue to develop the craft through their own methods and as long as theatrical exhibition lives on, we'll see another resurgence of 3D technology again someday. Hopefully repertory theater options also remain viable for those who missed films like Adieu au language on their initial runs.
Don't watch much 3D. Really liked Hugo. Probably my fav 3D movie. What was that, like 2011? Goodbye to Language is the only good thing I've seen recently
I LOVE LOVE LOVE 3D!!! 
Great innovative stuff, good for any kind of film (no matter if it's people sitting at a table talking to themselves, or things on the screen being thrown at the audience). Of course you have to film in 3D. That's the whole point!!! When a filmmaker films in 3D and plans in 3D - you see the difference.
The "problem" is, that around 90% of Hollywood and mainstream movies aren't shot in 3D but merely shown in 3D. The "magic word" being CONVERSION. Which is basically shit. It's cheap, doesn't look good, and adds absolutely nothing to the film. A film which was shot in 2D actually loses in 3D, composition-wise. You cannot stage your mise-en-scene for 2D and 3D at the same time.
I hope 3D continues to thrive, and filmmakers who'll want to shoot in 3D will always be around.
There are (and were) many different 3D systems, and I've enjoyed most of them, though I'd say "analogue" 3D was (much) superior to digital 3D.
I haven't seen that many 3D films, but some of my favorites would be:
Inferno (Roy Ward Baker, USA 1953)
Flesh for Frankenstein (Paul Morrissey, France/Italy 1973)
Comin' at Ya! (Ferdinando Baldi, Italy/Spain/USA 1981)
Captain EO (Francis Ford Coppola, USA 1986)
Resident Evil: Afterlife (Paul W. S. Anderson, Germany/UK/Canada/France 2010)
Dracula 3D (Dario Argento, Italy/France/Spain 2012)
Of course I would not watch a 3D film in 2D - what's the point!?
Great innovative stuff, good for any kind of film (no matter if it's people sitting at a table talking to themselves, or things on the screen being thrown at the audience). Of course you have to film in 3D. That's the whole point!!! When a filmmaker films in 3D and plans in 3D - you see the difference.
The "problem" is, that around 90% of Hollywood and mainstream movies aren't shot in 3D but merely shown in 3D. The "magic word" being CONVERSION. Which is basically shit. It's cheap, doesn't look good, and adds absolutely nothing to the film. A film which was shot in 2D actually loses in 3D, composition-wise. You cannot stage your mise-en-scene for 2D and 3D at the same time.
I hope 3D continues to thrive, and filmmakers who'll want to shoot in 3D will always be around.
There are (and were) many different 3D systems, and I've enjoyed most of them, though I'd say "analogue" 3D was (much) superior to digital 3D.
I haven't seen that many 3D films, but some of my favorites would be:
Inferno (Roy Ward Baker, USA 1953)
Flesh for Frankenstein (Paul Morrissey, France/Italy 1973)
Comin' at Ya! (Ferdinando Baldi, Italy/Spain/USA 1981)
Captain EO (Francis Ford Coppola, USA 1986)
Resident Evil: Afterlife (Paul W. S. Anderson, Germany/UK/Canada/France 2010)
Dracula 3D (Dario Argento, Italy/France/Spain 2012)
Of course I would not watch a 3D film in 2D - what's the point!?
To please the majority is the requirement of the Planet Cinema. As far as I'm concerned, I don't make a concession to viewers, these victims of life, who think that a film is made only for their enjoyment, and who know nothing about their own existence.
-
Senor Arkadin
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:38 am
The last 3D film I saw was The Creature from the Black Lagoon on VHS when I was 10 or 11 years old. I rented it from the video store, however they didn't give me glasses and I had to make my own out of red and blue candy wrappers. They didn't work super well, and diminished the rest of the experience, but the 3D sort of came and went with big moments, and I watched it so much I had them memorized. So whenever I knew the 3D was coming up I'd quick throw the glasses on for a minute, then take them off again.
So yeah... I guess I'm cool with it.
So yeah... I guess I'm cool with it.
Oh I forgot about Pompeii by PWS Anderson. Maybe the movie that was most ENHANCED by the use of 3D. And of course there's Dial M for Murder, which had a 3D release, which I've seen in cinema and is...really no finer than the normal version
ohhh yeah! i’d watch pompeii in 3d 4sho. i think back to p-funk’s review: ‘this wasn’t supposed to happen,’ which might be a paraphrase (but seriously, the goodness of that flick sneaks up on you (meanwhile, poor evelyn is still waiting on some meaningful argument about the tenets of 3d filmmaking, and here i am still posting whatnot))
-
Evelyn Library P.I.
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:36 pm
Looool! Not at all, the discussion thus far has been the bees-knees! lots of diverse feedback and recommendations, i'm thrilled to see this response! I'm sorry for running off on ya'll, friends: schoolwork briefly enveloped me, but i have returned to our titular film zone, stronger than ever!
Inspired now to make a Letterboxd list of Films to See in 3D if the chance arises. Private for now, like most of my lists, but might make public if I feel sufficiently social... [Edit: Yup, why not!] Collated all your recommendations, plus I remembered the existence of House of Wax and The Mask which tends to get shown once a year in my city these days, thanks to its Canadian ID.
Excellent point there, wba!
Not something that Thompson discusses in her article, if memory serves, and a missed consideration to be sure. I wonder how many of the 3D films I've seen were actually shot in 3D. I will pay attention to this from now on... Definitely agree with this assessment as well. I'd completely forgot about Blake William's work, but he's an excellent example of what you're talking about there, in terms of independent practitioners using the format. Never seen his stuff, but I believe he lives/works in my city so I'll be sure to keep an eye out for any screenings of his work that will likely arise in future.arkheia wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:43 pm I have to imagine that even if declining box office numbers eventually lead to 3D disappearing from studio releases, independent practitioners will continue to develop the craft through their own methods and as long as theatrical exhibition lives on, we'll see another resurgence of 3D technology again someday.
One thing I might note about post-conversion is that it often depends on how the director choses to use it. There was an article I remember reading (might have been this one) where Paul WS Anderson justified his decision to opt for post-conversion with Resident Evil: The Final Chapter because the 3D rigs were too large for the camera setups he wanted. Thus, the film was shot in 2D but with everything calibrated in preproduction for the footage to be converted into 3D during post. This yields a different effect from that of the directors who shoot with 2D in mind and then hand the film off to a post-conversion facility or merely supervise the process but don't initially plan out the compositions for 3D projection.
has anyone seen roy ward baker's inferno? even if not seen in 3d it's got one of the best robert ryan performances and one of the great movie vultures.
One of the best uses of 3D I know of, nrh! That's why I mentioned it in my post.
I watched it in its original 3D presentation/process at a cinematheque, with two 35mm projectors running simultaneously/synchronized (very hard job for the projectionist...) and it was mind-blowing!
I watched it in its original 3D presentation/process at a cinematheque, with two 35mm projectors running simultaneously/synchronized (very hard job for the projectionist...) and it was mind-blowing!
To please the majority is the requirement of the Planet Cinema. As far as I'm concerned, I don't make a concession to viewers, these victims of life, who think that a film is made only for their enjoyment, and who know nothing about their own existence.
I for one cannot stand 3D. I find it to be an absolutely useless gimmick that doesn't improve my enjoyment of the film. On the contrary, I find 3D an unnecessary tool, because viewer already sees the scope and depth in traditional film. When you look at a 2D movie, it’s already in 3D as far as your mind is concerned. Also, 3D films are vastly darker because of how the technology of light (foot-lamberts) works.
I liked what editor Walter Murch has written to Roger Ebert:
"And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch."
Full link: https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journ ... ase-closed
I liked what editor Walter Murch has written to Roger Ebert:
"And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch."
Full link: https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journ ... ase-closed
This is only tangentially related but I came across this trailer today and thought I might share it here. Very funny stuff and made me think about wba's comment about 3D being good for any kind of film. The potential for 3D in comedy seems underutilized in being relegated to children's animated comedies (the only recent exception that comes to mind is Jackass 3D)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8ReqVoSZOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8ReqVoSZOM
That's right! I completely forgot about that and I ever watched it in 3D at the theater when it came out! 
Is this a bot that’s supposed to give me an uncontrollable urge to go buy James Bond DVDs on Amazon?
did it work?
i think we have at least one or two people around who tend to vote for james bond movies on polls.
i think we have at least one or two people around who tend to vote for james bond movies on polls.
"Most esteemed biographer of Peter Barrington Hutton"
Nope. I think the technology still has a long way to go.
I could live with Butterfly Boomslang as a new moniker I guess, or maybe go with Dexter Lace instead? Man, these tough decisions kill me.
Actually double x-ing it and using Septimus Boomslang is kinda my favorite.
Actually double x-ing it and using Septimus Boomslang is kinda my favorite.
Last edited by ... on Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
princess siri malvolio
lazarus x