In a perfect world, there would be no consumer support for converted 3D movies - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 9 Old 10-04-2013, 11:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I want to express my displeasure over how Hollywood is killing 3D by forcing conversions onto directors who want nothing to do with the format, and how people gladly pay the full 3D premium for these studios' sub-par efforts.

Sure, some older converted re-releases can and have looked good, but that's because the studios can selectively pick from a larger catalog of films that just so happened to have been shot in a way that can be naturally accentuated by 3D. Most of today's action movies, however, typically have a flatter, more formulaic look that doesn't benefit as much from 3D.

I just read an interview with the director of Thor 2: The Dark World. As I understand it, a significant chunk was shot without knowing it would eventually be in 3D. The other chunk was shot without much consideration for the 3D at all, even though he knew it would eventually be in 3D. Nothing against the director--- it's just not helping 3D the format in any way, shape or form.

Here is a snippet from an interview the director did with Collider. It speaks volumes about how little they actually cared about 3D when shooting this movie.
Quote:
When I was getting involved, I did not want to get into 3D. I’ve seen some 3D things that made me unhappy. On the one side it was the negatives about not being happy with what I’d seen, the positives were that I had gone through a brief course with Sony and got really excited about the language that 3D can speak and realized that I would have to learn a lot to speak that language. When I came into this movie, it was very much a 2D movie. I was kind of relieved that I wasn’t going to have to speak a different language I hadn’t learned yet. Part way through the process, like it’s common, it was decided mostly for financial reasons—I think, you know markets are constantly being read to see where the payoff is—so, I think the decision was made that it was a good idea to do 3D. So, we’ve heard that partway through, we are aware of it now, I’m not radically changing the way I’m shooting it, we’ll see. I think we have wonderful imagery, I think that’s the one great thing about the Marvel universe is it gives you a chance to play with big, wonderful imagery, which hopefully will be a pleasure in 3D. But we aren’t throwing spears at the camera any more than we were before. We’ll see what happens.

http://collider.com/alan-taylor-thor-2-dark-world-interview/

In contrast, here's a brief statement about Ang Lee and his 3D boxing film, coming from the screenwriter:
Quote:
[Lee] wants to work with 3D technology that will make an audience feel as if they’re inside the ring

It's very simple: when a director WANTS to be involved in 3D, no questions asked, that typically is very encouraging. Even if that film's 3D winds up not being that great, it still put that film on my radar and gave 3D a positive word of mouth for a while.

Also, I will attempt to visit this thread often and post more interviews of directors who either do or don't express an interest in the format.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 9 Old 10-05-2013, 11:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

I just read an interview with the director of Thor 2: The Dark World. As I understand it, a significant chunk was shot without knowing it would eventually be in 3D.

I find that hard to believe, given that the previous Thor movie had a 3D conversion, as have all of the subsequent Marvel films.
Quote:
It's very simple: when a director WANTS to be involved in 3D, no questions asked, that typically is very encouraging. Even if that film's 3D winds up not being that great, it still put that film on my radar and gave 3D a positive word of mouth for a while.

The issue here is less about footage being converted from 2D, and more about the filmmakers actively planning and shooting with 3D in mind. Gravity, for example, was shot entirely in 2D and converted in post, but Alfonso Cuaron planned for 3D all along. Most of the reviews and word-of-mouth have said that this is one of the best uses of 3D to date.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #3 of 9 Old 10-05-2013, 11:54 AM
Senior Member
 
cbcdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clevedon. UK
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 47
I don't mind conversions as long as a Stereographer is present on set to advise the Director, the Director listens and follows the advice given by the Stereographer and the film is shot with 3D in mind. When a Director though has no idea, doesn't care or is forced to think 3D with little or no enthusiasm for it, the results will be nothing but a disaster.

Sadly some of the studio executives are clearly clueless idiots though who think they can make a quick buck from 3D simply by converting anything and everything going. They are greedy, lack any real passion for 3D or indeed the art form that film making is and are the very people that are killing 3D. They only think in terms of money.

Perhaps what is needed is for the film makers as a group to come together and say No to these idiots too. We all remember when scrip writers went on strike so it can be done! I think a similar stance is required from the talent, Writers, Directors, Cinematographers, Actors, Producers and all the other people who actually produce the goods. They need to stand up to the suits and tell them that 3D is a tool and needs to be used selectively and appropriately. It is not a cash cow and they cannot continue to treat is as such because to do so will result in the demise of 3D altogether.
cbcdesign is offline  
post #4 of 9 Old 10-05-2013, 12:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
The problem is not with post-conversion, which has improved by leaps and bounds in a very short time. The problem is with studios shoe-horning 3D onto films that were photographed in such a way that they derive no benefit from 3D at all, be they new productions or catalog titles.

I think people are becoming more and more saavy in figuring out when a movie warrants being seen in 3D and when it does not. There are lots of resources for figuring out if a film's 3D has any merit or not and it's become pretty easy to separate the good from the bad before a film is even widely released.

Recent films where the 3D was an afterthought (Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, Wolverine for example) have had ever diminishing 3D ticket sales. Many saw that as a sign that 3D was on the way out again but with Gravity, a film designed from the ground up to with 3D in mind, pulling in a very healthy 3D box office so far ($17.25 million in its first day) its pretty obvious to me that people will watch 3D when it is well done.

Hopefully, Hollywood will notice the trend and not try to force 3D down every filmmaker's throat.
TonyDP is offline  
post #5 of 9 Old 10-05-2013, 02:15 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Of all the new release conversions I've seen in full or at least trailers of, Frankenweenie and Gravity are the only ones I feel deserved to charge extra. But Gravity was like 70-80% CG, and Cuaron had a legitimate reason for needing to use smaller 2D rigs. And I think it's probably easier to convert stop motion animation like Frankenweenie.

So no, I'm not literally calling for all conversion tech to end- and I certainly wouldn't want people to avoid Gravity or Frankenweenie just because of their use of conversion tech-- but man oh man, do I despise Hollywood for relying on conversions to generate more revenue, because the majority of those did nothing to help the 3D business.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is online now  
post #6 of 9 Old 10-05-2013, 03:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
In my estimation, people who don't think 3D conversions are THE MAIN cause of the negative attitudes toward 3D have simply not seen high quality, "holy **** im looking through a window...." 3D. Thanks to Nvidia's controls on their 3D Vision software that allows you to finely tune the 3D, i've seen 1500 hours of it - and i now pass on all 3D conversions. Except i might see Gravity because i think the scenery makes it much easier to fake 3D well. The Earth, space and stars for example should always be a max separation and you don't need two different slightly different viewpoints, just the separation for them to appear HUGE and/or far away.

Of course they could put the earth at screen depth or floating in front of you if they wanted the full on gimmickry.
tory40 is offline  
post #7 of 9 Old 10-05-2013, 05:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post

In my estimation, people who don't think 3D conversions are THE MAIN cause of the negative attitudes toward 3D have simply not seen high quality, "holy **** im looking through a window...." 3D. Thanks to Nvidia's controls on their 3D Vision software that allows you to finely tune the 3D, i've seen 1500 hours of it - and i now pass on all 3D conversions. Except i might see Gravity because i think the scenery makes it much easier to fake 3D well. The Earth, space and stars for example should always be a max separation and you don't need two different slightly different viewpoints, just the separation for them to appear HUGE and/or far away.

Of course they could put the earth at screen depth or floating in front of you if they wanted the full on gimmickry.
Gravity is a very difficult movie for me to put a finger on what is and isn't CG. I do know they CG'd the glass on the helmets, and obviously the earth and stars. I'm pretty sure they CG'd the majority of the space shuttle exteriors and various structures, but can't be sure. I also believe they CG'd the bodies in the space suits at times, leaving only the faces real. And whatever is CG, is native 3D.

Gravity's 3D comes not just from the sense of background scale, but also from the various close-range objects. The film does a great job of creating a consistent and smooth sense of depth and presence, and I never got taken out of the movie by flatness, but I did get taken out in a few spots when Sandra Bullock's face had slight signs of conversion.

My thread title was a little sensationalized-- I don't want people to stop supporting films just because they're conversions, but I think if people took a stand against the bad conversions and it happened on a large enough scale, somebody could take notice.

Natively shot films aren't magically good for 3D either-- all that solves is the technical accuracy of depth-- you still have to direct the photography in a way that enhances the story in a meaningful way, and you have to get the interaxials set to the appropriate values or else people won't be able to tell it's 3D. And I think even the best native 3D films could have had slightly stronger 3D and they'd be even better. IMAX documentaries are amazingly immersive because of their realistic 3D strength.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is online now  
post #8 of 9 Old 10-09-2013, 05:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 633
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 69
^ Heavy levels of depth is not realistic, nor do I think realism is in anyway a must in film making for what I think are obvious reasons. The closest we have to realistic 3d is probably The Amazing Spiderman. I'm not saying the 3d was great in that, but for 3d to be realistic a shoot of a city should essentially show no depth, likewise the stars in gravity should all appear at one level of depth. But that is not what I think you want, I think you want more obvious depth that is more heavily applied based on what you have said about imax.

Personally I want film makers who want to shoot in 3d to play around with the format and discover what they think works best for the films they are working on and those wanting to film in 2d to be allowed to do so without a conversion being slapped on. I do think studios do need to provide film makers incentives for shooting in 3d as it is a lot more work and many film makers will no doubt give it a pass on that alone.


For what it is worth I saw the 3d trailer for Thor 2 and was very impressed with the results though I do agree that I want to see an end to forced conversions. Than again the director of Thor 2 must have been rather dense to not realize Marvel was always going to release Thor 2 in 3d and should have chosen to film in/for 3d or chosen not to be involved with the project).
FilmReverie is offline  
post #9 of 9 Old 10-09-2013, 05:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

^ Heavy levels of depth is not realistic, nor do I think realism is in anyway a must in film making for what I think are obvious reasons. The closest we have to realistic 3d is probably The Amazing Spiderman. I'm not saying the 3d was great in that, but for 3d to be realistic a shoot of a city should essentially show no depth, likewise the stars in gravity should all appear at one level of depth. But that is not what I think you want, I think you want more obvious depth that is more heavily applied based on what you have said about imax.
Amazing Spiderman's interior non-action scenes had very weak 3D.

For an example of realistic 3D, check out Ultimate Wave: Tahiti. Now, I'm not saying every shot of every IMAX documentary looks realistic- but they typically resemble human vision far better than feature-length films.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is online now  
Reply 3D Content

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off