Chris Nolan on why Dark Knight is 2D: "I never meet anybody who actually likes 3D" - Page 7

Widescreen is a near universal format for film now, but in a hypothetical universe where it was possible to expand the frame left and right, I'd be fine if 4:3 movies stayed 4:3. Why? Because they were specifically composed with the 4:3 medium in mind.

edit: Before I'm quoted I don't mean to imply that classic movies wouldn't benefit from 3D (I thought Lawrence of Arabia looked pretty damn nice in Prometheus), but rather that converting movies shot for 2D would not be the strongest case to make for why 3D is useful, just as expanding the horizontal borders of The Third Man wouldn't sell widescreen.
Edited by cakefoo - 7/24/12 at 6:05pm

Hmm, I just had visions of the scene in Star Wars where the fighters dive down into the Death Star trench. Or the opening scene with the Star Destroyer flying over. The opening scene in Raiders. John McClane jumping off the building in Die Hard. Some of the shots with distinct foreground/background scenes in Citizen Kane would be interesting. The Searchers. Vertigo. North by Northwest. King Kong. 2001.

Casablanca? Perhaps not.

So yeah, movies that are primarily about people sitting around talking may not be the type to benefit from 3D. But to think that a "Great Movie" from the past couldn't have benefited significantly from 3D does seem a bit narrow.

A great collection of 3D glasses to have for a family is this set on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/LG-AG-F216-Cinema-Glasses-6-Pairs/dp/B005EWTKN2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343181577&sr=8-1&keywords=LG+AG-F216+Cinema+3D+Glasses+Family+Pack+%286-Pairs%29+for+2011+and+2012+LG+Cinema+3D+HDTVs

The price of these has almost doubled since I purchased my 6-pack, but if you look down at the Refurbished ones, you will see brand new ones with free Prime shipping for $29.95. Get those.

2x Adult Clip-On's
1x Adult men's metal frame
1x Clear plastic Adult female frame
2x clear plastic Child's frames with bungie straps to hold them on.
6x microfiber cleaning cloths
6x soft drawstring bags

If you own a passive 3D HDTV you should own this set. If you like going to 3D movies at the theatre you should own this set.

...when Greedo shoots at Han...
But seriously, there are given scenes where 3D could be utilized in Star Wars, but I don't think it's lacking without it. Do you? Dial M for Murder... To state 3D would improve an old movie one must presume the 2D version is lacking and I just don't think that's the case. To say a movie like Star Wars is significantly better because a star destroyer pokes out at you seems a broad definition of the word. That's not to say they wouldn't have been better had they been conceived as 3D all along, but then we'll never know that. As it stands, I have yet to see a movie in 3D wherein the 3D effect is much more than just something to gawk at. But I could be wrong. It's just an opinion.

So James Cameron makes TV series . . . or shoots football and baseball games . . . or the evening news?

Your optomistic opinion might suit you, but the reality of 3D overtaking 2D content is nothing more than wishful thinking - no matter who thinks differently. Remember, that 3D movies still only consist of less than 10% of all movies made and shown in theaters. And we are into the 7th year of 3D's rebirth.

When did people become such hardasses about what visual techniques are implemented in films? Was it when they diverged from what has been an unchanging medium for the past 50 years? I think it was.

Hate 3D? Then You're A Geek:

http://3d-tv-gaming.blogspot.ca/2012/01/hate-3d-then-youre-geek.html

Actually, the Cameron Pace Group does supply 3D rigs for many of the 3D sports broadcasts, so James Cameron is directly involved in the quality of 3D television. Cameron had an interesting take on this issue at the 2011 3D Entertainment Summit. He said that 3D will replace 2D as the norm when broadcast moves aggressively to 3D, citing cinema's 100% shift to color within a year after TV broadcasts moved to color.

(14:00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41EZ6gj2p8A

I think we have a long way to go before that happens. Both theater and In-home 3D technology need further improvement and costs needs to go down. Although, if the majority of filmmakers eventually learn to appreciate good 3D and how to shoot rounded 3D, I think a 100% shift to 3D would be possible (while still allowing options for 2D viewing).
Edited by BleedOrange11 - 7/24/12 at 9:46pm

Not at all. Titanic wasn't lacking in 2D, but James Cameron did a thorough conversion job and made the movie a slightly better experience for many viewers. Star Wars Ep. I 3D, on the other hand, wasn't as well received because the artists didn't push the 3D enough to make the images as rounded and life-like.

Personally for me, the "gawking" is part of the heightened emotional attachment from 3D. I don't expect 3D to drastically change or improve the storyline. If the 3D image can convince me that a landscape or setpiece or actor/acress looks almost identical to how it/he/she would with real-life 3D vision, then that alone significantly improves the movie experience for me. And the more realistic the image, the more I "gawk" and the more attached I get to the story.
Edited by BleedOrange11 - 7/24/12 at 9:30pm

Want to sell me one more copy of Fifth Element? Do a good 3D conversion.

Yeah, I'll buy all the Star Trek Movies, again, when they get the 2D to 3D conversion.

Lord of the Rings? Sure, those too!

The Matrix? Yeah baby! Bring it on in 3D.

24 series? eh... I think not. It was great one go around but give me more sequel in 2D and I'll be fine.

Yep! But those first 3 years were nothing but ~4 anaglyph releases. Unless you want to go back to year 1999 when field progressive made the scene for a couple years. They did about 30 movies in that home format for a short resurgence attempt but it never really caught on. On a continuing basis, Hollywood would release a movoe or two each year and even the home version in anaglyph but mostly low budget horror films.

I think this time I would start the stereographic current trend in 2009 CES, as the beginning of the home 3D movement and with Avatar 3D in the theater, that made big news and what made average public take another look at 3D stereography. It also was the year the manufacturers introduced 3D TVs for the home in a big way where the price was not out of this world. 2009 was the year stereographic 3D went mainstream, which makes it a 3.5 year old trend by my calculations. What happened in 2005, seven years ago, that you feel was the start of this current trend in 3D?

2005 - Chicken Little - Full color Stereoscopic Digital 3D. There were no Anaglyph showing in theaters. Don't confuse home video releases with theaterical releases Don.

Supplying cameras is not the same as being involved in productions.

Broadcast began moving to HDTV in 1998. So here we are 14 years later - you think HD has replaced SD for television? It sure hasn't with optical disc. BD can barely muster 25% of total disc revenues, 6 years after it's launch.

And broadcasters are going to have the same problem with 3D as they had with HD - who pays for the upgrade? They can't charge advertisers more. They have to bear the cost - something they do not enjoy doing with little or no financial return.

You can see all the resistance to 3D just by reading all the posts on this thread and others like it. Those not in favor of 3D will not support it. It isn't a "natural - in the scheme of things" upgrade like Color, Stereo/Surround Sound and HDTV were.

As a kid, I recall the move from B&W to color TV and it too had significant resistance among the consumers. Older, I recall attending one of our AES meetings in Manhattan and this was an open house where the "audiophile" was invited to attend. Here was a demonstration of some of the first surround quad systems being introduced to the public. The reaction was mixed, a huge vocal group at the open house opposed it with passion. It was the best comparison of what I see today with the fear of 3D by those who appear militantly opposed to it. There was huge opposition to surround. It was not a smooth natural transition. I believe what finally made surround acceptable in the home theater was it's use in home video movies. But, observe that Hollywood continued to present in surround sound.

What seems to be more anger over the 3D change or addition to the hobby is that today, unlike even the introduction of HDTV. we have the internet and social networking. Traditional news editorial commentary is now over powered by the self made expert, opinionated stubborn bonehead, with a computer and keyboard who has never walked the walk or talked the talk. His expertise lies solely in his frequency of typing his opinion. Social media has become the credential of authority. So, I believe it only appears that there is more dissent today with change than we had 10 years ago. What once was an open house meeting in Manhattan for those able to attend and present their opinions, today we have a few vocal bloggers who can garner the attention of millions of people by telling them what they should think and what they should and shouldn't enjoy.

I think as long as the industry continues to make content to see and equipment to present it in the home we will see a continued growing acceptance of the technology in the home and theater. The theater will need to step up and give us a new WOW factor and it is already in development with market tests in Korea with "4D". IMO, Disney has been doing "4D" for 25 years or more so this is not new but just spreading to an industry outside of Disney.

Camera and rig suppliers are involved to a certain extent. Often they customize the rigs for their clients' particular shooting needs, enabling them to get better 3D shots. Of course it's not the same as being a director, but it is involvement. Then there's also all the 3D promotion that Cameron does by giving talks to TV broadcasters and laying out feasible 3D broadcast business models.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/20/james-cameron-the-future-of-3d-will-be-defined-by-tv/

HDTV is pretty mainstream. I can get around 10 free HDTV channels with a basic antenna here in Nebraska. I can also pay a cable/satellite company to have every single channel in HD. Yes, SD still exists for basic cable for people who want a cheaper solution with more channels, and that's okay. Every single TV and movie production is shot in HD though, and most all of them are available to buy on blu-ray in retail. Production has moved entirely to HD, but many consumers are still in the process of making the switch and will resist until SD is no longer available.

I'm not talking about a total removal of 2D--just that everything is shot with 3D cameras like it's now shot with HD cameras. That business model works fine. 2D SD, 2D HD, and 3D HD can all be extracted from the one 3D broadcast, and the consumer has the choice between 2D and 3D. Obviously 3D channels would require a premium charge for the customers like it's being done now and how it first started with HD channels. We're not in a place now where CBS and ABC could be shot entirely in 3D, but 5-10 years from now when more people upgrade their TVs and get 3D capability as a bonus feature, we will be.
Edited by BleedOrange11 - 7/25/12 at 8:27am

Yes, there were lots of digital 3-D and IMAX 3D features before "Avatar". Chicken Little was followed by Monster House, Open Season, Nightmare Before Christmas, Meet the Robinsons, Scar, Beowulf, U23D, Journey to the Center of the Earth, My Bloody Valentine, Bolt, Miley Cirus Concert, Coraline, Monsters vs Aliens, and many others.

www.3dmovielist.com

In 5 to 10 years from now, there will be something else - there always is. The window/time frame for new tech to become a mass market product shrinks each year.

No, though it's hard to know what a scene like that would be like if done really well in 3D. I do remember the trench dive sequences were practically dizzying the first time (first saw the movie on one of those giant curved screen when I was ten years old). The addition of 3D could potentially make something like that all that more immersive.


It's too bad the closest thing to a "real" movie in 3D in the 50's was such a poor candidate for the 3D treatment. I will certainly agree that a movie where people stand around talking doesn't tap into what's cool about 3D and that it was pretty pointless not to just shoot it 2D.[/quote]


I know what you're saying I think. Though it's a bit circular to think of a classic movie as "not lacking" in 2D when in certain cases it could theoretically have been significantly more immersive in 3D. I'm only talking about the visually expansive type of movies like Star Wars or something. I was thinking more of the part of the sequence where the Star Destroyer is moving *away* from you. I can imagine 3D depth into the screen could be pretty cool for a shot like that. Right?

I'm always kind of on the fence when it comes to 3D though. The thing about 2D movies is that your brain can more-or-less fill in the 3D world. In fact, a less literal image can almost be *more* immersive in a sense, since it's your imagination that fills in the scale and depth.

I don't know, I think we just need more examples of really well done 3D movies that also happen to be good movies. I think when you have both, 3D can be more of a plus than a minus. How much of a plus remains to be seen, since so few 3D movies so far feel like a natural extension of the movie-going experience.

I don't know about the TV transition, but in terms of the movie theater, I don't imagine there were a lot of complaints about The Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind being in color in 1939. The B&W versus color thing doesn't seem comparable to the difference between 2D and 3D, everything else being equal.

That resistance was because of the very high prices for a Color TV and the lack of color content. It definitely wasn't because consumers would rather watch in B & W instead of Color.

Quad was a disaster. It was expensive and truly nothing more than a gimmick. Placing the speakers in the 4 corners of the room did not make the sound natural. As a matter of fact, it was un-natural.

I would like to see you document this supposed "huge opposition to surround" as you claim. SS was a huge hit in theaters when This Is Cinerama was introduced. Then through TODD-AO and other movie formats. It was Ray Dolby who licensed the the old Quad "in-phase/-out of phase" method to be able to bring 4 channel SS to 35mm optical prints (along with his Dolby A noise reduction) and set up his 3 screen channels and a mono surround channel. One of the first movies to have the new Dolby Stereo was Star Wars. Read the original reviews for Star Wars - most rave about the audio.

It wasn't until years later that Dolby Surround (3 channel) and Dolby Pro Logic (4 channel) was offerred to consumers. If there was any opposition, it was strictly based on the cost to acquire. But that is common for brand new tech.

But we have Roger Ebert who absolutely hates 3D. Isn't he a well respected movie reviewer? And look at the comment Nolan makes about 3D which is the basis for this entire thread.

That 4D is 200 equipped theaters (not all seats BTW) over the next 5 years. And the premium will be $8 on top of the 3D premium.

To see how 3D has done over the last number of years just go to page 9 of:

http://www.mpaa.org/policy/industry

2011 Theatrical Market Statistics
Latest box office and movie attendance trends.

The forecast for 3D's revenue for 2012 is less than 2011 BTW. And I believe the number of 3D movies released in 2012 is greater than 2011

Ebert doesn't deserve respect. He's a liar. All his negative comments of the format are treated as gospel, earning headlines galore, while his praise is swept right under the rug.



Ebert said of the format:

But also said about Prometheus's 3D:



Ebert said of the format:

But also said about Pina's 3D:



Ebert said of the format:

But also said about Tintin's 3D: And Hugo's 3D:



Ebert said of the format:

But also said about Polar Express's 3D:

Nolan is a similar contradiction.

3D sucks

Cameron via his 3D company with Pace is involved with TV productions as a matter of fact.
Also, sport productions, concert films & commercials.

Your statement that movement to colour and surround sound was a natural next step but 2D to 3D isn't strikes me as being extremely odd too. Moving from 2D to 3D is every bit as natural as the other two improvements, all three of which we see and experience real life. You can argue that the way sterescopic 3D is presented with current technology has problems for some but that is completely different argument. The next steps are perfecting 3D, higher frame rates and even higher resolutions.
Edited by cbcdesign - 7/26/12 at 6:31am

Exhibit A?:

I guess we shouldn't be surprised then that you're a "3D enthusiast" in title and anti-3D defender in practice.

I agree, but I think that illustrates the limiting factor of 3D. Some might say HD is the same in that animated and colorful action movies benefit more, but I think all movies look better in 1080p while only some [genres] might look better in 3D. I agree. Even before motion pictures you had the magic lanterns, zoetrope, etc. that demonstrated our ability to perceive smooth motion when viewing a series of still images. Thus, the motion in movies is itself a sort of a figment of our imaginations. Ever notice how quickly you forget a movie's in black and white? Or that you're reading subtitles? The brain does a great job in filling in the blanks. Maybe that's why I think 3D is so unnecessary, because it's less facilitating than jarring.

Definitly? Just because you imagine these claims doesn't mean you know what everyone else thinks!
I'll never forget the comment my grandfather made when Dad showed him our new color TV-
He asked, "can you shut off the color and make it black and white?" Dad said sure and showed him by turning down the color control. Then Grandpa said, "that's much better, looks normal now!" Lee in any scenario with any new introduction you can find some people who will always cry the change is too expensive, even if it is only a penny more, sometimes even when the same price.
The same cry was that transistor radios were never going to sell over tube radios because they were too expensive, even though they were introduced at smaller size and lower prices than tube sets! The perception here was that the transistor should be way, way lower in price because of the smaller size. It took some time before the perception of small was a plus to pay extra for.
We're really talking about comfort in status quo and resistance to change as a part of human nature here. Only those with a vision for the future become the early adopters, the pioneers, the visionaries that become the point people for those too afraid to embrace the benefits of change. Eventually these laggards get on board and join the rest of the world. Heck, even today I can comment to a fellow customer in Blockbuster that I prefer the BluRay and they sometimes inform me that they haven't made the move as they don't believe it is a format that offers any benefit, nor will it stick. As a video duplicator, I still get a few orders a year for VHS copy of some of my titles I sell. I'm amazed that their player is still working!

Yeah, it's true that higher density visuals (whether film or digital) is something that just about any content can benefit from, while I don't think 3D should be applied to every single movie. I have to admit that I was kind of glad that the Nolan Batman films were 2D only. I mean, I actually like 3D a lot of the time, but 3D somehow doesn't quite mesh with the more serious tone of those and they're really pretty character and theme-based stories more than "roller coaster rides." Though even as I type this, I can think of some scenes in the new one that might have been cool in 3D that involve a flying vehicle. I did see it in 15/70 IMAX though, which was pretty sweet.

I see something like color vs B&W or 2D vs 3D as more of a stylistic choice than anything. It's hard to imagine that if Sin City was in full color that it would be "better" somehow. The B&W imagery was an integral part of the art direction. Wasn't there a recent silent movie? But that doesn't mean every movie needs to be B&W or silent!

So I don't think it needs to be an all-or-nothing deal. I do understand not wanting every movie in 3D, but I kind of don't understand hating *all* 3D movies; a few of them really do make sense to be in that format.

Nope - Quad and Surround Sound were/are two different audio formats.

I am a 3D realist - something that many here cannot claim to be. They are still out looking for Unicorns

Having the equipment used in a production and actually producing the production are two different things.

And yet this is the third time that 3D has been presented to consumers. So if 3D is a natural progression as you claim, then why didn't it in previous attempts?

Being emotionally invested in the success or failure of 3D is pretty silly. That 3D is "better" for certain types of movies is an indication of its strength but, more importantly IMO, it also illustrates its shortcomings. No format will really be universal if it's only beneficial to Pixar or comic book movies (for example).