"Why 3D doesn't work and never will."

[WillEagle]

I don't need the 3-D either just do the IMAX big screens for most movies. I don't think Eat, Pray, Love would have needed to be in IMAX. Just your action, sci-fi type movies.

[turtlesrock]

I don't need the 3-D either just do the IMAX big screens for most movies. I don't think Eat, Pray, Love would have needed to be in IMAX. Just your action, sci-fi type movies.

that does make sense. also those documentaries in science museums about space. it would be like really being on the enterprise!

speaking of which, has anyone been thinking about holodecks while reading these posts? they're like 3D movies (well i guess they could be called 4D, given you can interact with objects in them)

[X]

I don't need the 3-D either just do the IMAX big screens for most movies. I don't think Eat, Pray, Love would have needed to be in IMAX. Just your action, sci-fi type movies.

that does make sense. also those documentaries in science museums about space. it would be like really being on the enterprise!

speaking of which, has anyone been thinking about holodecks while reading these posts? they're like 3D movies (well i guess they could be called 4D, given you can interact with objects in them)

Nope, you'd still call it 3D, just a more advanced version. 4D would indicate manipulation of spacetime. 3D that are projections of actual events that are happening either forwards or backwards in time.

Although, some theaters in Korea are marketing some 3D films as 4D because they include vibration, wind, and rain physical effects. when it rains in the movie you get rained on.


'Avatar' goes 4D in Korea
Korean firm adds dimension to 3D movies
By HAN SUNHEE
SEOUL -- If the 3D "Avatar" is not enough, how about 4D?
The 4D screening uses more than 30 effects during the 3D film's 162 minute run, including moving seats, smells of explosives, sprinkling water, laser lights and wind. Despite the much higher $15.80 ticket price (an average ticket costs $6.90), screenings are regularly sold out.

"We (started to) prepared the 'Avatar' 4D ride last summer," says Tom Oh, prexy of 20th Century Fox Korea.

But 4D isn't new to Koreans. The nation's leading multiplex chain, CJ-CGV, began 4D shows last year in one 88-seat theater, with"Journey to the Center of the Earth."

But with the success of "Avatar," CJ-CGV opened three more "4D plexes."

Ten films have been shown with 4D effects designed by CJ-CGV's 4D programmer over the last year.

"There is no 4D theater like ours around the world. CGV's 4D plex is the first in the world that fully offers five-sense experiences with a movie title," says Kim Daehee, publicity manager of CJ-CGV.

Exhib has more 4D titles on tap, including the upcoming "Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief."

Hoping to cash in, animation and VFX shingle Wonderworld Studio has announced that it has launched a unit specializing in the 4D experience. A Korea-U.S. joint venture with the L.A.-based Animation Picture Co., company plans to complete 10 4D ride films this year.

[Bryancd]

  Just give me a good movie to watch.

I still am a bit confused as to what you mean by this, beyond the patently obvious that a movie should at least be a fun experience. Yes, a movie should be "good" in some respect, but that will vary by viewer. What movie has been released in 3D that was ONLY about being in 3D? Certainly that movie "Piranha 3D" was a schlock film using 3D as a goofy gimmick, but beyond AVATAR, most of the rest of the commercial film releases were up converted to 3D, so we would have had the same good, bad, ugly, 3D or not. So I am unclear how 3D is altering what kind of movies are made or their quality. It just seems a lot of movies are being changed into 3D for those that want to see it that way.

[X]

  Just give me a good movie to watch.

I still am a bit confused as to what you mean by this, beyond the patently obvious that a movie should at least be a fun experience. Yes, a movie should be "good" in some respect, but that will vary by viewer. What movie has been released in 3D that was ONLY about being in 3D? Certainly that movie "Piranha 3D" was a schlock film using 3D as a goofy gimmick, but beyond AVATAR, most of the rest of the commercial film releases were up converted to 3D, so we would have had the same good, bad, ugly, 3D or not. So I am unclear how 3D is altering what kind of movies are made or their quality. It just seems a lot of movies are being changed into 3D for those that want to see it that way.

That's a good point Bryan. 3D isn't changing the films other than giving people that want 3D a chance to see it. I don't think Quality has been affected by this choice at all. I also don't think it will ever come to a choice between a good movie or good 3D. I don't see a director tossing the script budget out for 3D conversion any more than they currently do in films that are more about the effects than the story.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

 Just give me a good movie to watch.

I still am a bit confused as to what you mean by this, beyond the patently obvious that a movie should at least be a fun experience. Yes, a movie should be "good" in some respect, but that will vary by viewer. What movie has been released in 3D that was ONLY about being in 3D? Certainly that movie "Piranha 3D" was a schlock film using 3D as a goofy gimmick, but beyond AVATAR, most of the rest of the commercial film releases were up converted to 3D, so we would have had the same good, bad, ugly, 3D or not. So I am unclear how 3D is altering what kind of movies are made or their quality. It just seems a lot of movies are being changed into 3D for those that want to see it that way.

Its that the studios are trumping up 3D and trying to make the movie seem good that way.  I think that is what Rico is getting at.

King

[Bryancd]

Its that the studios are trumping up 3D and trying to make the movie seem good that way.
King

No, they are advertising and marketing a film that can also be seen in 3D, there's a difference. I don't think that's what Rico means at all, that's simply what you think.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Its that the studios are trumping up 3D and trying to make the movie seem good that way.
King

No, they are advertising and marketing a film that can also be seen in 3D, there's a difference. I don't think that's what Rico means at all, that's simply what you think.

Well....well, that's all that matters is what I think Bryan!!  ;)

I did say THINK anyway.  I can't read minds :P.

King

[Bryancd]

 :boxing
:lol2

[davekill]

So what indicates a good movie then?
If not just fantastic CG visuals or the reemergence of the 3D craze or even something like "Feel-a-Rama" as featured in the 1974 comedy The Kentucky Fried Movie - then what?

I know what doesn't make a good movie.
Corporate committees with accountants that expect maximum return on their investment due to universal appeal.

The afore mentioned Kentucky Fried Movie was made on a shoe string budget had no universal appeal, but like many other pop culture movies of it's time helped to define a generation.
I'd call that a good movie.

[Rico]

Not sure why you guys are confused as to what a good movie is?  Don't you know what movies you like??  And don't like???  I really don't know why this same old discussion seems to go on and on?  For me (and just me, although others may feel this way), a good movie first is about the story they tell.  Not, the effects, not the look, and certainly not 3D.  If I find the story absorbing, the characters intriguing, then I will enjoy the movie.  Again, I don't need this 3D gimmick (and it is a gimmick) to make me like the movie - if anything it will detract from it for me.  Go to most of the big movie websites and look up the last year's worth of 3D films and see what the majority of people thought of the 3D gimmick.  This isn't just me saying this, not by a long shot.  And with that, again I've said all I need to say. 

[X]

Not sure why you guys are confused as to what a good movie is?  Don't you know what movies you like??  And don't like???  I really don't know why this same old discussion seems to go on and on?  For me (and just me, although others may feel this way), a good movie first is about the story they tell.  Not, the effects, not the look, and certainly not 3D.  If I find the story absorbing, the characters intriguing, then I will enjoy the movie.  Again, I don't need this 3D gimmick (and it is a gimmick) to make me like the movie - if anything it will detract from it for me.  Go to most of the big movie websites and look up the last year's worth of 3D films and see what the majority of people thought of the 3D gimmick.  This isn't just me saying this, not by a long shot.  And with that, again I've said all I need to say. 

Considering your criteria, color, sound, motion, and any effects would also classify as a gimmick. None of those are needed to tell a good story. Appreciated, but not needed if the story is there.

[WillEagle]

I would agree that 3D is a gimmick. I have only seen one movie in 3D and thought it was a waste of my money. I'll be honest though and say that the movie itself wasnt that great so I probably would have felt the same way if I paid regular price. But I would have had more money for popcorn. OK at the theater I probably wouldn't have had more money for popcorn.
X, I don't think I would classify color, sound & motion as gimmicks. Maybe to a slight degree special effects. But, hey, to each their own.