Originally Posted by skoolpsyk
What's interesting is I've never heard anyone say "boy, I wish that movie was in 3D". I think the sole reason movie theaters are showing 3D is because they can charge more and feel justified that they are giving something "extra".
If they stopped showing 3D there would probably wouldn't be many complaints just as there hasn't been for lack of 3D at home. The major complaints would be from the studios/theaters from the loss of revenue.
3D has it's fans for sure, but I don't think it's any kind of deciding factor on whether they are going to go see the movie in a theater or not. Christopher Nolan doesn't release his movies in 3D but people aren't boycotting the theaters because of it...
I bet you wouldnt believe that I am not huge on 3D!? I am however huge on entertainment that is paied for giving all that it has the potential to give.
3D, at its core, is an attempt to bring the spatiality on screen that we visually process everyday. 3D could actually be called "what we see". But 3D has become a catch phrase for technology of one or another. Its not supposed to be. 3D is supposed to be a way of visualizing, on a screen, the natural way humans process the world around them. 3D means "Three dimensional", its what we experience when we move the catsup bottle out of the way to get the salt shaker. The attempt to bring that reality to the movie sceen has been going on for decades.
A directors vision (npi?) is to bring his story to screen - telling visually - explaining the concepts and threads of the story that he is directing. He is placing to screen the humanity and sometimes inhumanity including all of the vices and virtues that story telling encompasses.
A director major role is to make the best attempt, attempt being the main word, bring a reality to screen from what was on a script/screenplay Chris's imagination is sooo fluid that - especially inception - that a 3D version would be a throw back (npi#2?) to times when barf bags were a staple in movies showing the first 3D movies.
3D is "NOT" <only> a catch phrase for technology. Its - at its core - a way to bring a realism to the way we pickup a catsup bottle, but its not "we" picking up the bottle, its the guy on screen doing so.
3D is milenna away from a holodeck version of "Terminator 22" or "Starwars the tenth prequel". 3D is however one of the steps that will path movies there.
A directors vision (np...?) is what he/she wants to put on screen. 3D or not 3D - that is the question. If Nolan was against 3D, who is to say the he was right or wrong. When a movie is being shot, the understanding that certain angles must be adhered to in order to acquiesce to a movies 3d, only brings an additional complexity to making the movie work. Imagine inception being done with the additional complexty of making sure camera angles were 3D appropriate. And costs more.
Will studios make more by making 3D? Yes! Do folks like it? Yes! Does it cost more to make? Yes! So in reality its the same issue, is this a movie that I want to see - Drama, SciFi, Documentary, Action........whatever. Oh yeah, what means this 3D? Does it tell the story a bit better? Its more like a Universal Studio's ride. Then ok, I'll try it.