Chris Nolan on why Dark Knight is 2D: "I never meet anybody who actually likes 3D" - Page 6

Agreed.

How have you made over a thousand posts in this forum but yet still haven't grasped that your own personal experience and opinions do not reflect every, or any, one else's?

Nolan is simply a person that understands movies are primary story telling vehicles a good story will carry itself without gimmicks, 3D is a gimmick that usually adds nothing to the story. If you like 3D fine but lets not pretend it it adds anything meaningful to the story, good movies stand on their own.

While 3D is apparently not for everyone, there are those of us that have excellent 3D home theater setups that enjoy the heck out of them. I've had many projectors in my home and love the improvements made over the years. I can remember a time when folks on AVS talked about how 3D a movie looked based on the image quality of the source and projector. It's funny, but now that we have real 3D available in the HT, I see so many nay-Sayers putting down the technology. Well, if you don't like 3D, don't buy it or pay more to see it in the theater. Nobody is forcing you to buy or watch it. And if you don't like 3D, what they heck are you doing trolling in the 3D Content section anyway?

Those of us that do like 3D and are enjoying it done right in our theaters are only too happy to pay more for the added depth and dimensionality of a well done 3D movie. Just like I prefer to watch a movie in it's OAR as intended by the director, I feel the same applies to 3D over 2D. Avatar, Resident Evil, Hugo, Prometheus (on Oct. 9th), IMAX 3D and animation look fantastic in my HT, just the way they were intended to be enjoyed.

I strongly suspect that a lot of the negatives come from people watching in poorly setup movie and home theaters. I was annoyed with the dimness, flicker, and ghosting from my JVC RS40. I also found the X103 glasses to be heavy and annoying. I still think that the IMAX theaters are too dim. However, 3D in my 2.40:1 HT via Epson 6010 and MonsterVision 3D glasses is something in a different class. It's very bright, yet there's plenty of shadow detail; ghosting and flicker are non-issues; and the glasses are quite comfortable. ZERO complaints from anyone that has seen it; just a lot of oohs and ahhs and requests for more from children of all ages.
Edited by stevenjw - 7/23/12 at 1:46pm

I couldn't agree more. I wanted to upgrade from a 720p to a 1080p projector. It was a reasonable added cost to go 3d as well. (About 380.00 with the cost of four sets of glasses and the 3d model over the 2d I was looking at.) I like the choice of watching 2d or 3d. If 3d isn't for you great, why should you care if I like it?

Perhaps that's why it worked so well with Avatar. The movie didn't really stand on it's own, but there were moments I was so awed by the depth and texture of the visuals in 3D that it carried the movie through the slow parts. You are right that 3D doesn't have to do with the telling of the story, but movies are a visual medium and are about more than just the story. A director can have an artistic vision that is better realized in 3D than in 2D.

I just like shiny things!!!1

Why the HELL does it matter? You haven't convinced me that movies are SOLELY about story. If they were, then why do we need anything more than black and white mono?

There's hundreds of tools to enhance the quality of a movie, that don't improve the story, and yet nobody is throwing their arms up in the air over Hollywood's use of them

Enough with the "3D doesn't add to the story" complaining. Good for you but you're a hypocrite if you like other filmmaking tools like surround and stereo and color. What do any of those add to the story on the average picture? If that's your primary excuse for not liking 3D I don't want to continue this stupid discussion.

3D is about visual style > I like nice cinematography > I like good stereography > Therefore 3D isn't a pointless gimmick.

People are only so hard on 3D because it costs more. So don't pay for it? I know that's out of the question though, cuz like, totally, you have to go a whole .5 miles further to find a good 2D show. So people hate 3D to spite the studios. Not really a good reason.
Edited by cakefoo - 7/23/12 at 6:01pm

It's a visual medium. If you don't find the visuals contribute to or enhance the story in a worthwhile way, that's fine. I'd suggest spending less time worrying about movies and more time reading books. There's a huge supply of great books with great stories out there.

Yes Avatar was derivative tripe dressed up up gimmicky visual baubles the movie equal to a empty meal and as a result it will end up as a technological footnote and not considered a great movie, that is exactly the point. Yea people rushed to see something they had never seen... they saw it and after the rush yawned.

Yes movies are a visual medium but the story is still king and will stand without additional not so shiny baubles if the movie is truly good in 3D it will be truly good in 2D, 3D does nothing to make movies good just makes them different. Of course nice cinematography is important this has nothing to do with 3D.

Yea I know true believers rage it ain't so but markets have actually decided and contrary to what some think in this thread the vast majority could care less about 3D.

This is mostly about the emotion some seem to invest in 3D look at the hysterics a couple posts up and the absurd claim anyone who see 3D as a gimmick is a hypocrite... seriously, really it not like 3D has failed before and before and 3D is somehow the same as actually important improvements in cinema, 3D is in fact recycled gimmick.

Yes we know anyone not falling at the feet of the 3D gods is trolling never mind the fact this thread is referenced on the home page and that begs for opinions.

They are not mutually exclusive. The goal should be making a great film and using 3D to its full potential. Would the Avengers story have been better if they didn't convert it to 3D in post production? I liked the conversion and paid more money to see it in 3D. If you didn't like the conversion, fine, but it's not like they blew their budget on 3D and then had to use B movie writers and actors.

3D doesn't make a bad movie good, but it can take a good movie to new heights. That's what I want to see. Push the state of the art in story telling, but it has to be a story worth telling to begin with.

There's no problem with not liking 3D. The problem is your (and many others) use of language to go out of your way to demean something which other people very much like. "3D is a gimmick" implies that my hobby is silly and worthless, and that there must be something wrong with me that I like it. You can say that, sure, but don't be surprised by the response you get.

It would be like if I told Japanese people "sushi is gross, it has no culinary value, and it gives me a headache" and then didn't understand why they took offense.

Say what you thought of the movie but don't put words into everyone else's mouths. Not just about Avatar but you also have a habit of acting like your lack of appreciation of 3D is somehow more authoritative.
Most movies would be fine in mono black and white and shot like a play. But there are many details that enhance the overall atmosphere of a movie. 3D is no exception in that regard, 3D can be used as a tool to enhance the visuals for either aesthetic or even emotional reasons. I see something like Pandora in 3D and I am in awe and in love with the world, moreso than if I had only seen it in 2D. That is not to be debated, that some people appreciate 3D more and consider it to play its own role and isn't just a shiny thing- show an inkling of respect.
That doesn't prove anything. Pricing is important, I'm sure, but I can't speak for everyone. I mean, people don't pay extra just because a movie cost more to make- they don't have to pay more to see Dark Knight than to see 21 Jump Street.

Also, tthat percentage fluctuates based on the season and based on the movie. Hugo and Tintin? High 70's.
Do you have a counter-point about that or are you just here to make cocky references with no context? Seriously, grow the hell up.
So because 3D died in previous iterations, it's somehow proof that today's 3D will die too? Uh... analog film, dual strip 3D, uh, switching film, syncing it, aligning it, dealing with huge bulky cameras, not having many theaters to show it in? Those reasons are why 3D failed previously. You should study up on your history of 3D.

Your opinions that 3D will not overtake 2D is at odds with people like James Cameron and frankly Lee, his opinion and those of his colleagues carries a lot more weight that your does as far as I am concerned.

As for your comment above which frankly seems to me to be pretty damned sarcastic and unnecessary, I think that the reasons behind the headaches are most probably due to a number of factors which vary from poor theatre set-ups including over dim bulbs causing unnecessary eye strain through to poorly conceived shots that are uncomfortable to view. it does also take time to get used to 3D in my opinion. I found it a bit tricky at first but the more 3D I watched the easier it got.

Lastly. I went to the theatre with a thumping headache to watch Prometheus and took a couple of headache pills before I went. Ten minutes into the movie the pills kicked in and my headache disappeared. If there was an inherent problem with 3D causing headaches, I don't think I would have been able to watch this movie without my headache turning into a full blown migraine.

Headaches affect some people but certainly not a huge number, just the vocal minority that bitch and whine about the fact on forums and have jumped on the rather pathetic "I hate 3D and it should Die" bandwaggon.

The same old tired arguments from these people are posted too, time and time again. Its a gimmick, it adds nothing to the story. Its no more of a gimmick than surround sound or colour photography frankly. Its adds to the overall experience, the atmoshpere of the movie if you will. Story is, as Cakefoo has said, just one part of a movie. Its supposed to be an experience, not just story. If all people are interested in is story, read a book as somebody else suggested above!
Edited by cbcdesign - 7/24/12 at 5:52am

I definitely agree with this. Whether it's something physical with our eyes or mental in our brains that accounts for headaches, our eyes/brains seem to adjust with repeated exposure to stereoscopic 3D. This was the case for me and whole lot of people. A lot of people are getting headaches now because they've just never been exposed to this kind of stereoscopic 3D before, where your eyes have to converge to different depths but remain focused at the distance of the screen. Imagine with 3D content more common, people will be exposed to it from childhood. If they're susceptible to headaches they'll get over it at young age (perhaps before they can even remember it) and be able to enjoy 3D for the rest of their lives.

For all we know, 2D could give headaches to an adult who has never seen it before. It's not really something found in our natural environment before the arrival of TVs, photography, paintings and art. There's plenty of mixed signals with a 2D image, all the monocular depth cues (it's 3D!) contradicting the stereoscopic depth cues (but it's flat!) that your brain has to sort out and somehow reconcile. But in our modern world, 2D images are unavoidable from birth, so our brains have long learned how to handle it.

Absolutely and this is why I agree with the film makers who have embraced 3d when they say they see the format becoming dominant in the future, particularly when cem's manage to perfect glasses free 3D panels. That opens up all sorts of possibilitites.

It would be interesting to see some data on how quickly kids get used to watching 3D. I have a feeling they probably take to it very quickly indeed with very few problems older people may have.

I prefer 3D over 2D .... But for many years there were folks who preferred mono over stereo .... I saw Avatar in 3D in the theaters and totally enjoyed it. Later I purchased the 2D BluRay and though I enjoyed it I missed the 3D effect. Then when I got the Avatar 3D promo disk with my 3D player purchase, I got to see the 3D version again and it brought back great 3d enjoyment. The 2D version will just be collecting dust in my library...

This is also a great reminder that 3D isn't the only cause of headaches. Google "headache," click through the links, and you'll see vast lists of possible causes and potential cures. But, many people just accept that 3D causes headaches because they've heard people say it on the internet. It's sort of a negative placebo (that is, a self-fulfilling notion). Get a headache during or after a movie, even if slight (I mean how could you not, it's three-D!), and forget all those lists of causes. Forget your cold, forget your hangover, forget your allergies, forget your stress, etc etc, it's definitely the 3D!

It reminds me of Barry Sandrew's comments about aversion to 3D glasses:

As a Movie Theater manager, I have had lots of experience with 3D and customers. Unfortunately it has become a niche that only a small amount of people are enjoying. When 3D digital projection was first introduced in theaters people just could not get enough of it. Mainly, I believe because it wasn't readily available. As it slowly expanded more and more guests wanted to see 3D. What I really found out is what the guest wanted to see was the same 3D that they saw at Disneyland or Universal (you know, the 10 minute shorts where they throw everything at you). Once they started watching the movies I got guests complaining about it. Either someone was getting a headache or they just didn't feel like they were getting enough from the effects. Studios kept forcing Theaters hands by making them play both the 3D versions and 2D versions of the screen until everyone expanded. Because of this, 3D cost went up too, driving more people away from the experience. I noticed a sharp downturn in 3D guests when the upcharge increased from $2 to $3 at my multiplex. Different managers at different theaters experienced the same.

Now I feel studios are forcing people into 3D. They require theaters to take on more 3D than 2D in some instances, so when the 2D sells out, people have no choice but to get the 3D or wait two hours for the next 2D. On opening weekends I find myself often waiving the 3D fee when someone brings their ticket up because they couldn't find the seating they enjoy in the 2D and I want to keep them at my theater. Other problems I find is that 3D is only available in select auditoriums. So it clogs up bigger auditoriums taking up valuable seats that could be given to movies people really want to see. For instance, this last weekend I still had to play 3D Spider-man in a 280 seat house, which forced me to play a Dark Knight Rises print in a 210 seat house. 3D Spider-man never did more than 50 people. This happens more times than I wish it would. I am hoping for another 3D projector eventually in a smaller house, but at the same time I'm not sure it is worth the expense.

Don't get me wrong, people still like 3D as many of you have said on here already. I get people asking about it often. Heck, I like 3D sometimes. However I do feel like it is playing itself out until studios consistently do it right. People don't want to pay the upcharge until then. I was happy when Nolan stated it wouldn't be in 3D. That way I knew all my guests would be happy.

Thanks for your insights Adam Heath, I found that very interesting.

One thing I'd like to point out to the naysayers is that the problem here is the business practices of studios, not the artistic value of 3D. I love 3D, but I too don't pay a premium for 3D at the theaters (I don't go), nor pay for overpriced 3D Blu-rays that I otherwise want (the price insults me too much). I have bought a budget DLP projector and a modest PC along with a bunch of cheap PC games, plus a few reasonably priced 3D Blu-rays in order to enjoy 3D. A fair amount of money total, but in each case I feel like I got a great deal for the 3D I wanted. Liking 3D doesn't mean you like to be gouged.

An honest question to Adam Heath: how's the quality of your 3D screens? Are they bright?

In my opinion, that's the best kind of 3D. You aren't waiting for the next cool effect, or saying "This scene looks flat - maybe the next one will be better" - you are just enjoying a normal movie. Then Spidey swings at you and you say "Wow!" That's a good 3D movie to me.

Spider-Man was the first IMAX 3D movie that I've enjoyed, I think. Harry Potter did seem very dark, and some others had bad crosstalk. ASM really made me forget about the glasses.

I used to be rather "meh" about 3D in the past. I wear prescription glasses, and having to stick another pair of crappy plastic glasses over my own, and then having focus problems, or parts of my glasses not covered by the plastic glasses from the theatre on top of it all just being uncomfortable made me choose 2D more often than 3D. However, I've now changed my tune since purchasing a passive 3D HDTV for my home and getting a pair of high quality clip-on 3D glasses that just attach to my prescription frames. The better lenses make a difference on sharpness and clarity, the fit makes it all look and feel better, crosstalk is gone, and the list goes on. Seriously, bring your own quality passive 3D glasses from home, and get a pair of clip-on's if you wear prescription glasses. You'll most likely think differently about 3D in the movie theatre once you do. I know I did.

where do you buy clip-ons for prescription glasses? aren't they all different shapes?

http://www.tr3ndy3d.com/style/clip-ons.html

I totally disgree that 3D is a gimmick, yes movies tell a story "supposed to anyways" but 3D helps that story become better. For instance, Saw 3D a story about people being locked up against their will and being killed. 3D adds to this buy giving depth making you feel like your among those people. Often you can feel like you are there and to make it more real blood squirts outa the screen right in your face.
3D can add realism and this helps the story.
Those whining that it's all a gimick need to sit down and watch a damn good 3D movie and not just watch a few in a crap theater then make opinions.

Studios developed 3D in an effort to boost sagging ticket sales, just like back in the 50s and 80s. So 3D is a gimmick. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it anyway, but don't act like it was implemented for what it adds to a movie articistically.
Edited by repete66211 - 7/24/12 at 2:39pm

So you maintain that a gimmick can't add to a movie articistically? How about 7.1 or Atmos surround sound? Those are gimmicks also according to your definition.

That's not what I said. On the contrary, I said 3D wasn't implemented for the purpose of increasing the artisitic value of the product, but for the "wow, different, new!" factor. That 3D may improve the artistic value of a movie (according to some) is beside the point.

Yes, Atmos and 7.1 are gimmicks, but they're gimmicks for Dolby not production studios or theater chains. Practically speaking, 7.1 isn't much better than 5.1 in a home theater situation because most people (i.e. me) don't have dedicated rooms and therefore the space necessary to exhibit 7.1. And if we did there are so few movies actually released with a 7.1 soundtrack that it's hardly justified to have a 7.1 speaker setup. I don't know much about Atmos, but it appears to be the same only worse. It's out of the question to have 64 (or more) discreet channels in a home theater setting, but it's pretty unrealistic to expect many theater chains to dump $25,000+ per screen to exhibit a soundtrack mix that probably won't be used by anything that's not Pixar or Michael Bay. This is especially true considering all the money that's been invested in digital, 4k, 3D and any other new technologies over the last few years. I'd love to hear what Adam Heath has to say about Atmos.

Of all the Great Movies I've seen, I can't think of any that would have been significantly improved were they present in 3D. That doesn't mean 3D can't be fun but to quote Ebert's comment about CGI, 3D should be the topping, not the whole pizza. It should flavor the movie, not dominate it. And when it does the movie should be good with or without 3D.
Edited by repete66211 - 7/24/12 at 5:20pm

This is true. It's a lose/lose. People base their interest OR hatred of modern 3D on those theme park experiences. The former are disappointed, the latter baselessly hate on today's 3D. Just watch anyone comment about how they don't need to see x flying at their face.