quote:

---

Riddled with mediocre money shots that more often that not amount to gimcrack gimmicks..."

"No single aspect of (the movie) illustrates its makers' relative dearth of ideas for harnessing 3D than the fact that the audience is either spit or drooled upon not once, not twice, but thrice during its scant 92-minute running time...spending who knows how much to capture Brendan Fraser spitting onto the camera after brushing his teeth is a waste of money by anyone's calculation."

"There are two separate shots of a yo-yo springing out toward the audience, which is at least one shot too many."

"Audiences' connection to this gimmicky mistranslation of a sci-fi classic is likely to be...spotty."

---

I think the bloom will fall off the 3-D rose even faster than some originally guessed.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-18-2008, 01:18 AM:
 
Plus, who wants to wear glasses while watching a movie... or if you already wear glasses, an additional set?
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-18-2008, 05:29 AM:
 
No mention of Brendan doing a "pearl necklace" scene? That's what 3D was made for!
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-18-2008, 07:15 AM:
 
I guess some film makers believe that 3D has to be gimmicky in order to be good or worth doing, which isn't true.
 

---

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-18-2008, 09:55 AM:
 
There is a significant 3D line up for 2009 - 11 films . . . . . I haven't researched them all but it looks like they are mostly animations. (and there are 6 slated for 2010)

I've said it before - personally I think 3D is here to stay, but it will be mostly animation content and only a few mainstream live action titles (until the kids who are used to watching 3D animations grow up and want more live action 3D movies). There are also many 3D alternate content opportunities coming up, but we'll see how it works out.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-18-2008, 10:00 AM:
 
I wasn't expecting Journey to the Center of the Earth to be a good movie. Even if it turns out to be a pile of crap, that in no way should be used to judge a movie presentation format on the whole.

For instance, one could make the really goofy extrapolation that 5.1 surround sound is a worthless gimmick after seeing one bad movie that used too many ping-pong audio pans. Let's go back to the glory of mono! It's more tasteful!

I remember critics making very stupid statements saying 70mm wouldn't work because they didn't like Far and Away. Just laughably stupid.

Even if Journey to the Center of the Earth blatantly abuses the 3D process, that's just one movie misusing the process. It doesn't have anything to do with other movies that have used 3D well or the 3D presentation technology itself.

I think some people have had their minds made up against 3D for a long time already and are just looking for excuses to bash the format. The biggest problem 3D has had in its history is very few good quality movies used the process. 3D will have a better showcase in 2009 when big budget movies like Avatar and Monsters vs Aliens arrive in theaters.
 

---

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 06-18-2008, 10:15 AM:
 
I believe both Pixar and Dreamworks have committed to releasing all of their movies in 3D, starting this November and by next year, respectively. That accounts for the majority of box office for animated features, if not a majority of animated releases.

Now, I haven't seen a modern 3D movie, so I will reserve judgement on the process in general until I get this, but I am certainly skeptical of the content. The problem isn't with gimmicky crap, it's with filmmakers using gimmicky crap instead of good storytelling, and this smacks of a case of just that. I fully look forward to any Pixar 3D movie, because I feel I can count on Pixar to deliver substance, regardless of medium.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 06-18-2008, 10:33 AM:
 
As a filmgoer, I don't like the idea of 3D because it distracts me from the story, and I don't like wearing the glasses.

But since I try to keep an open mind, I saw Beowulf in IMAX 3D. The 3D distracted me from the story and I didn't like wearing the glasses.

The real reason 3D will never become huge: kids. Most young kids won't tolerate wearing the glasses.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 06-18-2008, 10:37 AM:
 
from IMDB This is the first 3D setup that I did. I sat through the movie only once, It was in a foriegn language with no subtitles.

quote:

---

After reading of the disagreements between IMAX and the producers, I decided that the film simply *had* to be seen, if for no other reason than the support of free artist endeavour, unfettered by the dictates of the machinery used to present it. The visual aesthetics of current 3D projection technology were also a strong drawing point.

First, the up side. Much of the film is computer-generated, usually quite obviously so, but this detracts very little from the beauty of the images on the screen. By way of introduction, the film begins with the viewer flying over a vast expanse of seascape and hillside, circling an ominous castle...getting ever closer and closer. This echo of early Imax films (i.e. North of Superior) is highly effective as a means to draw the viewer into the world subsequently created. The illusion of depth and solidity is maintained, and increased, throughout this rather short offering by clever viewpoints, slow panning and circling, and the creation of interior spaces and movements that had some of the audience gasping in discomfort, yet loving the "ride". Textures were sumptuous, perspectives both nightmarish and realistic, though the meshing of computer-generated surroundings and human actor(s) was somewhat disconnected or abstract at points. The 3D effect was never lost, though oft-times had a cartoonish quality to it. The music was geared to a 15-25 year-old audience, with some of it having an unearthly beauty that sent shivers along my spine.

The disturbing images are inadvertently humourous, lacking even the "horror punch" present in everyday hellfire-and-brimstone preaching, letalone the creepy-crawly quality present in "Nightmare Before Christmas".

The down side? The plot isn't much, characters lack depth, and trite philosophy underlies much of the dialogue on the screen. The technology is barely tolerable, with rather heavy eyegear needed to complete the illusions of visual depth. Watching three hours with this equipment on one's head would be physically painful, if not impossible. Though I soon adapted to the equipment I had to move my head, rather than my eyes, to look at different sections of the screen, in order to avoid a disconcerting strobing effect. This is hardly "ergonomic".

All in all, worth seeing as an almost-spectacular demonstration of a technology in its primitive stages of development, and a visual genre still in formation. More will come our way, and further refinements will no doubt amaze us in years to come.

---

The other setup I did there was a 4D system which was a cool experience. The film was short and the effects made it very entertaining.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-18-2008, 10:46 AM:
 
There's 3D done right and 3D done wrong. Done right, 3D simply ads a level of depth to the image and never throws itself out at you to scream "Hey! Your watching 3D!"

For the most part, the current generation of 3D films have been excellent. Nothing in Nightmare Before Christmas or Meet the Robinsons jumped out into positive space (appearing closer than the screen).

I think the last 3D film I saw that I really hated was Sharkboy and Lavagirl. Thats an example of 3D done wrong. Not necessarily because it was anaglyphic 3d (red/blue), but rather because the 3D was used as a gimmick with many scenes where objects entered the positive space, drawing attention to themselves instead of moving the story forward. Those 4D theme park attractions are 15 minutes long for a reason. Gimmicks get boring after 20.

What I really like is the idea of using 3D as a cinematographic element. A director who might visually express emotional distance between to characters by placing them at opposite ends of the screen, might now express the same distance by placing them at different depths of the screen instead. I hope Pixar will be the first to experiment with it as a way of advancing the story. They have a good sensibility about what works and doesn't.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-18-2008, 11:01 AM:
 
If anybody can pull it off, Pixar can -- and I have confidence that they will make it work in 2D and 3D both.

I guess the biggest problem I have with 3D is the marketing. If they scream 3D!!! all over the advertising, any theatre that does not have the movie in 3D will at least get complaints, and probably lose business too.

I'm not against 3D -- I love it in a theme park ride, for instance. In a movie I just have never seen it as being necessary. I've seen thousands of movies but I can't remember ever thinking to myself, wow, this is a good movie but it would be so much better if only it was in 3D.

And I don't like wearing glasses either.
 

---

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 06-18-2008, 11:28 AM:
 
I haven't seen any modern 3D movies yet, but I can't help but laugh when watching the regular 2D versions where the "Look, it's 3D!!!" scenes show up. Apparently the studios are using Comin' at Ya! and Treasure of the Four Crowns as a model for a "good" 3D flick...

I'd like to see a drama or other non-effects driven movie where the 3D is "natural," without doing anything to call attention to it.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-18-2008, 11:38 AM:
 
Try Dial "M" For Murder.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-18-2008, 12:14 PM:
 
U23D was excellent.
 

---

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 06-18-2008, 01:27 PM:
 
Hollywood has fallen into the 3D trap several times. Do it right, and it's a whole new level. Do it wrong and you get "Jaws 3D", "Friday the 13th Part 3D" just to mention a couple of stinkers.

On the topic of 2D and 3D, we had a number of "where are my glasses" complaints when we played "Meet the Robinsons". I actually considered making a sign for the box office window that said "we are not one of the 484 theaters playing this film in 3D".
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-18-2008, 01:49 PM:
 
I can just imagine, every tired old horror movie franchise will now be rebooted....in 3-D!
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-18-2008, 03:10 PM:
 
I had the good fortune to be around when the first color dual projection 3-D film was released in 1952 and it was Arch Oboler's BWANA DEVIL in Natural Vision at Honolulu's Liberty Theatre. I was only fourteen at that time and I was immediately hooked and made an effort to see every 3-D film that played there. Unfortunately some of the better 3-D films that were released later such as KISS ME KATE, DIAL M FOR MURDER, HONDO, CHARGE AT FEATHER RIVER and one or two others did not play in Honolulu in 3-D. Some of the better ones I remember seeing included INFERNO, THE MAZE, THOSE REDHEADS FROM SEATTLE in addition to the classics such as HOUSE OF WAX, IT CAME FROM OUT OF SPACE and THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON.

After dual projection 3-D had faded away in the fifties, I was very happy when I learned about a single projection 3-D system some studios were going to use to reintroduce the process in theatres with FRIDAY 13th in 3-D, JAWS 3-D and a few others. Frankly, I thought the process was dreadful and no way came close to the 3-D films I had enjoyed in the fifties.

After that bad experience, the next opportunity I had with 3-D cinema was
IMAX 3-D when I saw ACROSS THE SEA OF TIME at Lincoln Centre in New York City and was captivated by the process and was very happy when Honolulu's now defunct IMAX theatre had installed it.

Today's 3-D films in Real D is very good but in my opinion is not as good as the original 3-D films in the fifties and IMAX 3-D. Unlike many of you, I am very excited about the future use of 3-D in cinema but not too trilled about it's use mostly with animated films in the near future..

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-18-2008, 03:42 PM:
 
3D didn't add anything to Nightmare Before Christmas. That's one of my favorite movies, so when I saw it in 3D I was underwhelmed. I'd rather watch it in 2D. Surround sound adds to the movie experience... 3D notsomuch. Also, charging people more for 3D movies is ridiculous, especially when it adds little/nothing to the experience. You don't charge people more for movies in 5.1 sound. So the 3D/surround sound analogy is extremely flawed.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-18-2008, 03:43 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I guess the biggest problem I have with 3D is the marketing. If they scream 3D!!! all over the advertising, any theatre that does not have the movie in 3D will at least get complaints, and probably lose business too.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

3D didn't add anything to Nightmare Before Christmas.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

U23D was excellent.

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

As a filmgoer, I don't like the idea of 3D because it distracts me from the story, and I don't like wearing the glasses.

---

Yeah Geoff, having to wear glasses for any reason totally sucks.

Nice avatar, BTW.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 06-19-2008, 12:59 AM:
 
Hahaha!

 

---

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 06-19-2008, 01:38 AM:
 
I like 3D where I've seen it. Grant that's limited to thing like Terminator 2-#D, and Muppetvision, and other theme park shows. But as previously stated about the novelty, or special presentation value, I think trying to make your average cinema feature in 3D isn't a very good idea. Those special shows are designed to show off the 3D and are watched under the premise that you will have spit gags and the like. You are watching it for the novelty of it. And yeah, from what I understand, any 2D movie "upconverted" to 3D is craptastic. I've ben wondering how you add in that extra D worth of information, where it didn't exist with the original image.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-19-2008, 03:39 AM:
 
I've only seen one modern 3D film and that was Beowulf. What impressed me was not the gimmick shots, but the depth of field. There was more than one scene where I truly got the feeling of being in the room - as though I would see more by leaning to the left or right so I could peer around the shoulder of the character standing in front of me. In my opinion, that's where the real future of 3D lies.

I have to admit there is a perverse side of me that is interested in seeing something like a Saw or Hostel made for 3D.
 

---

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 06-19-2008, 04:16 AM:
 
Well that'd be cool if they'd spray warm water over the audience, like it was blood in a scene where blood got sprayed out somehow. Though it may be enough to make some of the weak minded sick. Or even cause panic, in Japan. Those people are always running in the streets, especially chased by a giant lizard. Which would actually be a decent movie for 3D. Lots of debris, Godzilla throwing cars and such. Blasting the audience with his breath. Good fun. Somehow I expect there's already a #D version of it in the old blue and red.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-19-2008, 07:18 AM:
 
Just like good and bad movies, there is good and bad 3-D. The key is the story. If you have a good story, 3-D can enhance the picture. If you look at DIAL M, there are very very few 3-D gimmicks. The only time the 3-D is obvious is when the hand with the knife comes out of the screen, involving the audience with the act. Another good 3-D film is HOUSE OF WAX, with a good story. Gimmicks are limited pretty much to the amazing paddleball guy. But the story still is the strongest element. (and the director of that film had only 1 eye and couldn't see a 3rd dimension)

Polar Express works well as a 2-d film, but even better in 3-D, because the story is the important thing. 3-D added only an element of fun to NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS...its still a great picture.

Until someone (and I've got high hopes for James Cameron here) pays more attention to the story than the effects, 3D will be hot for awhile then die off.

Someday Hollywood will learn that GOOD STORIES will save the industry, not gimmicks.
 

---