Comments on 2719 HYPERION: Multi-Dimensional Thinking

I think the big problem here is that people are ca...

2010-03-27T11:13:45.446-04:00

I think the big problem here is that people are categorizing the current slate of 3D films under the same umbrella as what was considered 3D in the past (i.e. Jaws 3D or The Creature from the Black Lagoon Saturday TV matinees). Fitting it into the definition of fad or cyclical trend doesn't work because it is no longer the brethren of those previous fads. It's a new thing using the same name. Sort of like how my Chevy Malibu is not the descendant of the Malibus of the 70s and 80s.

This new 3D is an extension of CGI technology and is not about gimmick, it's about adding depth. Avatar was built around submersing the audience into that world. The Toy Story 1/2 rerelease (though retrofitted as 3D) was about adding depth to technology that could convert easier than live-action. I've seen concert films in 3D (i.e. U23D) where it was more about putting you on stage with the band. This is basically what we were told virtual reality was supposed to be.

I think the big problem is that adults are trying to make sense of something that is aimed at a younger core. I straddle that line, as I always have, because the internet/gaming/tech boom happened while i was in college (i'm 35). But anyone after me has grown up with plasma TVs, High def, insane game consoles, CGI movies, and all sorts of high-end fancy technological instruments (iphones, laptops) for most of their lives. Refuting it all comes across like a crotchety old man refusing to buy a computer thinking they'll fade away. The reality is that this is like any other young technological trend...it's going to have resounding success, and then there will some quick-buck retrofitting responses that don't always work. (Movies like Alice and Clash of the Titans were not filmed for 3D.) But this is a natural step forward for the CGI movement. 3D is not going to come at the cost of smart storytelling because CGI already did that. And CGI has lasted a long time. 3D is going to grow in all ways...good, bad, amazing, putrid.

On the business side, Jeff hit all the right points about saving Hollywood money. But it also earns them and the theaters money since I happily paid well more than $10 to see Avatar in the theaters twice. I never see movies more than once in theaters since it just costs too much. And here i had to pay more. PLUS, they are using this to expand TV technology and get people out buying 3D ready TVs. In a few years, those DVDs you upgraded to Blu Rays will have to be upgrade to 3D. Hollywood may be sneaky, but they ain't stupid.

Great insightful article Jeff. Always a fun read.

For me, 3F had it´s fair chance, but failed comple...

2010-03-21T09:02:24.205-04:00

For me, 3F had it´s fair chance, but failed completely - I´m through with it, and will never again see a 3d movie,not even for free. (and I did not even experience headaches, like many of my friends did).

Really glad all of those classic movies have 3 D v...

2010-03-20T11:07:12.943-04:00

Really glad all of those classic movies have 3 D version.
Hope in the future more 3D will come.

Both "Meet the Robinsons" and "Up&q...

2010-03-19T22:08:25.719-04:00

Both "Meet the Robinsons" and "Up" benefitted from the 3-D because they already were stories of true depth. (pun unintended) MTR has become one of our all-time favorites for so many reasons, even though it's 2-D at home.

Incidentally, over at cracked.com they descriped "Avatar" with a Venn diagram: when "Ferngully" meets "Pocahontas." As visually stunning as it was, I think that about nails the plot. ;-)

Don't get me wrong, I've been a 3D Film fa...

2010-03-19T19:26:46.813-04:00

Don't get me wrong, I've been a 3D Film fan my whole life. In particular, I love what 3D brings to animation. I've been advocating for it my whole life. I'd love for 3D to be the norm. But the current "boom" is not fueled by any artistic vision (AVATAR excepted), but by the major studios desire to save money by having theater chains convert to digital projection. I'm delighted 3D is popular at the moment, but all it will take is a few mediocre films to tear it down. The gimmick will wear out its welcome (as it has several times before). I admit today's digital 3D (which is the version we have now - using one projector, as opposed to two projectors, the old method) is superior to 3D film technology of the past - but it's content, not technology, that will keep people coming to the movies.

Anonymous-- I believe that the current wave of 3-...

2010-03-19T16:47:44.050-04:00

Anonymous--

I believe that the current wave of 3-D has extended well beyond the novelty phase. Avatar has become the highest grossing movie of all time--nothing novel about that.

Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Avatar, Up and Coraline among others are good films, at least in the sense that they can stand with or without the 3-D enhancement. And again, it seems that almost all theater venues are offering 3-D and 2-D options. And consumers are certainly not rejecting these films when the hit the non-3D home entertainment markets. It's not quite the same dynamic that has been characteristic of Hollywood fads of the past.

I think the knee-jerk, 3-D=bad movie mentality is the latest in fashionable online negativity, but does not bring a lot to a balanced, intelligent discussion on the subject.

Most consider 3D a novelty. At lest the films are ...

2010-03-19T12:35:16.545-04:00

Most consider 3D a novelty. At lest the films are not in red and blue.

One thing I don't want to do when I go to the movies, is have to wear a pair of glasses.

I think is shows some desperation on the part of studios to have gimmicks(like this). Instead of making good films, whenever I see something marketed like this, I make it a point to avoid it.

I saw Nightmare in 3-D. It was ok. The 3-D did not...

2010-03-19T11:17:14.031-04:00

I saw Nightmare in 3-D. It was ok. The 3-D did not add to it. It was great to see UP in 3-D. Avatar was astounding in 3-D.

I enjoy the process of seeing the 3-D films. It adds a little more to the experience of theater-going.

3-D needs to move beyond gimmicky (like in Journey to the Center of the Earth) and start becoming more like color and sound. Just a natural part of the experience.

You didn't miss anything by missing Nightma...

2010-03-19T09:36:53.549-04:00
You didn't miss anything by missing Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D. You'd think, being in 3D already, it would have been a perfect choice to upgrade. Frequently, however, it didn't really work (why is Jack's hand IN the wall?!?) and overall the 3D added nothing.

Which is about right for any 3D movie so far. I also had the misfortune of seeing Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D and there were only a handful of times that it did anything of note. None of those, I should add, were the "look, we're in 3D!!" moments like Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Pancakes.

Avatar made tons of money, not because the story w...

2010-03-19T02:52:55.469-04:00
Avatar made tons of money, not because the story was awesome, but because of the visual effects. Without it I can't help but think it's just a mediocre movie. 3D is what made people come out to see it, because they now it's not a movie to wait for the DVD.

It does enrich your movie going experience although if you wear glasses like I do it's kind of a pain.

Anyways, great post!