Prometheus

[Deadpool]

I've seen movies where the 3-D could be called 'good', but none where it was even remotely necessary and plenty where it was detrimental.

I think the use of "necessary", in this context, under the umbrella of Entertainment has to be omitted from our language. What would necessary use of 3D be? What's necessary use of color in a movie? Is sound or music even necessary? It wasn't necessary to use color in The Wizard of Oz, but it enhanced the experience. It wasn't necessary to film or present Avatar in 3D, but it heightened the level of immersion. A movie in and of itself is not necessary. We all know film making is about storytelling above all. Ideally, one wants to be lost in the story, and (when done well) 3D can accelerate that feeling - it doesn't provide it (again, that's the story's responsibility), but it can be supportive. Like you said, it can just as easily be detrimental, too. It's a tricky device because if you paid for it, you want to recognize it, but you don't want it to be so apparent that you're constantly acknowledging the artificiality of what you're watching.

I totally get the backlash, and most arguments are valid, but I'm still pretty excited by the technology. Speaking as a movie-goer, it's fucking expensive, and not always fulfilling, but I like that it puts people in the theater. I've had varied experiences, but seeing the last trailer for The Avengers in 3D got me all riled up again (and that wasn't even filmed with 3D cameras). In Ridley's enthusiastic hands I think there will be some notable 3D sequences in Prometheus.

Regardless of the amount of Ds present, this will be an incredible film!

[Lutz]

Herzog's documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams is a good example I can think of where 3D greatly enhanced the experience.

[owinn]

Herzog's documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams is a good example I can think of where 3D greatly enhanced the experience.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams is brought up time and time again in regards to the production of this movie, I've not seen it but it seems Scott holds it in high regard.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

What's necessary use of color in a movie? Is sound or music even necessary? It wasn't necessary to use color in The Wizard of Oz, but it enhanced the experience. It wasn't necessary to film or present Avatar in 3D, but it heightened the level of immersion. A movie in and of itself is not necessary. We all know film making is about storytelling above all. Ideally, one wants to be lost in the story, and (when done well) 3D can accelerate that feeling - it doesn't provide it (again, that's the story's responsibility), but it can be supportive. Like you said, it can just as easily be detrimental, too. It's a tricky device because if you paid for it, you want to recognize it, but you don't want it to be so apparent that you're constantly acknowledging the artificiality of what you're watching.

Man, if I had a dollar for every advocate who strained to draw comparison between 3-D and the sound and color. Both of the latter developments were huge, major, adding substantially more information to the film. They were as significant as being once deaf and now able to hear, or evolution of the eye from something that can detect the existence of light but not wavelength to one issuing forth images as vivid and real as we now experience. From interspersed dialogue/action cards to fluent parallel dialogue and embedded music, from shades of grey to yellow roads and pink elephants and blood in all manners of red; these were enormous changes that exploded the artform.

But 3-D is more like going from one eye to two, adding depth perception to the same image. It's clearly a change, clearly affects the experience of 'seeing' the movie, but not so much that of 'watching' it, as filmmakers have always been able to play with space and have always been able to convey their images in a way that implies the third dimension, our brains construct the extra dimension as we watch, even if it isn't present in the 'flat' frame. The vast deserts stretching off to the distant horizon in Lawrence of Arabia, or the huge green or snow-white mountains in Lord of the Rings were not harmed nor made less real somehow by their limited medium. This is why the format has been met with some ambivalence by so many directors and cinematographers: we've already been 3-D.

With the new '3-D' the effect is overt to the eye, but it brings with it new problems, including a current technical one that muddles any fast action, and a practical one that a very large minority of the audience is incapable of perceiving the stereoscopic image. And there are other issues.

But the point is, no: the advent of 3-D is not comparable to sound or color.

Speaking as a movie-goer...I like that it puts people in the theater.

Except it doesn't put people in theaters. 3-D attendance has never really been what it's cracked up to be, and it—and enthusiasm and acceptance for the technology from movie-goers—has been declining steadily. When programmed against an equivalent schedule for the same feature without the enhancement, attendance for the 3-D version is almost always (exception being only, as far as I can remember, Avatar) lower, and often significantly so. People coming to the theater attest to feeling cheated when prime show times are given to 3-D versions of a film. The big story in 3-D has always been in revenues (especially on the production side: printing thousands of 35mm prints for exhibition costs tens of millions of dollars), enabling NATO and the MPAA to talk up growth in industry with new box-office records while attendance continues its yearly decline.

[Lutz]

The "latter developments" in your example became huge over time from people experimenting with the new format. Your comparison doesn't make any argument against the format at all and it certainly doesn't serve up any points of contradiction as to why this is an invalid format.

I think if I was to make a comparison I would compare the use of 3D on Avatar to the use of surround sound on the original Star Wars. You can certainly apply everything you said regarding why 3D is not necessary to surround sound as well.

And lets not forget the most amazing reason for 3D - DARIO ARGENTO'S DRACULA 3D aka DARIO ARGENTO'S ASIA ARGENTO'S TITS PART V;

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

The "latter developments" in your example became huge over time from people experimenting with the new format.

No. Part of the point was that those were such huge advancements by their very nature rather than as a result of how they were used. What they represented in terms of possibilities is beyond comparison with 3-D.

[Lutz]

No. Part of the point was that those were such huge advancements by their very nature rather than as a result of how they were used. What they represented in terms of possibilities is beyond comparison with 3-D.

Of course the fallacy in your argument is that you were the one who decided to frame your opinion of 3D based on it's ability to advance filmmaking. Any of the advocates you speak about who strain to make a comparison for you do so because it was a tenuous leap to make to begin with.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

Of course the fallacy in your argument is that you were the one who decided to frame your opinion of 3D based on it's ability to advance filmmaking. Any of the advocates you speak about who strain to make a comparison for you do so because it was a tenuous leap to make to begin with.

No, I responded directly to Deadpool regarding the comparison of 3-D against sound and color (a very, very common comparison between those pushing the technology), speaking more explicitly in terms of what each represents and, only briefly, the additional limitations of 3-D. You then replied noting sound and color became a big deal after experimentation (i.e., 'possibilities' yet unexplored), to which I pointed out that this isn't the case and such a point was implicit in my original complaint. Judging our current 3-D 'based on its ability to advance filmmaking' is not a frame I chose or one I would favor, and those who promote the tech on those speculative terms are carefully vague to ward off specific criticism.