Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Is 3D the future?

In the past few months it has been brought to my attention that almost every other movie preview I’ve seen has “coming in 3D” attached somewhere in it. I don’t know about other people but I like my movies in 2D. All of that 3D stuff really gives me a headache. Then there is the hassle of getting the 3D shades before the movie and turning them in afterwards. Just because a movie is in 3D ,does it make that movie better? Not necessarily in my opinion, but I think it relates to Postman’s book. In the book he discusses the evolving of media and how there is always something more to come, something bigger, something better. Technology and technological advances has become a huge part of society, and now I feel that they are trying to improve movies by making them come out in 3D. This is a good strategy when it comes to appealing to younger crowds because after all it usually costs more for this kind of entertainment, but what about the rest of the viewers? Maybe if it was sticking only to animated films I would feel better, but even regular movies such as, The Last Airbender is coming out in 3D. Is there no limit now? Is 3D the future of all movies?

12 comments:

  1. "Just because a movie is in 3D ,does it make that movie better?"

    Janae, I couldn't be on your side any more than my love for life. Movies are great when they have a good meaning, when they have the ability to make you laugh without being meaningless and most importantly when they are in 2D! I just imagine that movie makers think 3D is a step closer to "reality" in a way. Like you said, Postman says technology always has something new and improved...but what happens when we don't want it that way? 3D, 3D, 3D!!! It's making me so frustrated, they are even coming out with 3D T.V.s for in-home where you will eventually watch sports in 3D, I mean C'mon, If you are a sport lover like I am you will not want to watch Tennis in 3D, sounds like a bad idea if you ask me. Even HD gets on my nerves, it ruins the illusion of fictional television; when I watch T.V. I don't want it to be like real life; I watch T.V. to get away from real life you know what I mean? I just like it simple, it's fun at times but I see enough 3D in my everyday life, I don't want to see it in my books or movies now. Janae, you have provoked my thoughts with this as I have thought of this for a while too! You were just the first to bring it up, kudos! This blog is relatable to me and I hope to everyone, 3D is a waste of money. Who ever thought "Hmmm Chuck, this movie is good but what if we made it so it pops out of the screen to make it seem like you're there?!" Psh, if I wanted to see a movie that looks like I am there; I would go to a Shakespeare play. Not a movie theater.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's the nature of technology. To make things better. It's constantly, and remarkably, evolving to fit the "needs" of society. We're in the technology age. We are in the midst of an unprecedented period of technological breakthroughs. And of course, the entertainment industry will take full advantage of this.
    I would not be surprised if 3D is the future of movies. In fact, I bet one day we'll have 3D Television.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't worry Janae! The way I see it 3D is a passing fad. There was an article in Time about it that basically sums up my opinion.
    "The 3-D Cow Can Be Overmilked
    Studio bosses saw 3-D as the best idea since sequels. Sequels allowed them to extend a popular franchise; 3-D let them charge premium prices. And since the surcharge was way more than the added cost of shooting in 3-D, they could mint money. Filmmakers only had to perform last-minute stereoptic transplants on their 2-D films, like Alice and Clash of the Titans, to give them the patina of an event and rake in untold extra loot. Except that Clash wasn't the smash it hoped to be, and Shrek Forever After, an actual 3-D picture, also "failed to meet expectations." It's likely that certain spectacular fantasy films — the ones by Cameron and Burton — will lure audiences to pay more for a unique experience. But as more movies play in 3-D and the format becomes the norm instead of an event, the glamour could wear off. And with it the grosses."

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1995182-2,00.html#ixzz0sxBdwiZp

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just like you Janae, I am not a big fan of 3D, but judging from the success 3D movies produce, this movie technique is definitely here to stay. Although the use of 3D does create an appealing illusion, I think that it is over done at times, expensive, and can also ruin the "magic" of the simple enjoyment of movies. Look at movies that are considered classics. These movies did not leave a legacy due to their use of visual effects but through the emotion and story that they carry. A movie that is in 3D now will not be considered as a "classic" fifty years into the future due to the further development in visual effects that will be present at that time. Sometimes the use of 3D is like putting too much sugar in a cup of coffee: the flavor is overpowering and thus ruins the coffee. (The sugar being the visual effect of 3D and the coffee being the movie, but I'm just stating the obvious.) Another concern that comes across my mind, is the blend of reality with fantasy. By using 3D, a person has an ability to feel like he or she is part of the action. Sure, it sounds like a good idea but is it really? I mean, the illusion of having food falling from the sky in 3D does not sound like a bad idea, but the idea of having a fire ball headed toward my direction in 3D does not really bring a pleasant thought to myself either. Thinking like Postman, doesn't the idea of 3D make it seem like technology is blending in with our reality?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only movie I can remember watching in 3D was Spy Kids, and even then, I didn't like it much. Well, it's not that I don't like it, I just don't like to wear the glasses throughout the whole movie because it feels uncomfortable. Today, however, it seems as though every movie is in 3D. Why?! I have asked some friends what was different about the movies in 3D and I have mostly heard that only a few things were in 3D. What a waste of time and money. Carina, you said that the 3D movie craze could possibly be dying down, and I sure hope so. The whole 3D movie hype was most likely caused by people's wanting to be more technologically advanced. The thought of something in 3D just makes people become extremely excited, but we usually end up disappointed. I recently saw a commercial about 3D televisions. Wow. What's next, you're going to see people in real life in 3D? Oh wait...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I completely agree with you. I think that the change from 2D to 3D is ridiculous and unnecessary. I mean, just a year ago, people could watch a good 2D movie and love it; but now, if something isn't in 3D, then it's automatically awful. Like "Avatar", I think that movie was amazing, it's only downfall from its major length, but whenever I talked to people about it all they could say was "it's only good in 3D". What's so great about paying extra for some uncomfortable glasses that always fall off your face, just so stuff can fly at you? I also agree with when you say that it's just the media advancing; for some reason people want more-and to spend more, for that matter-than the usual, classy entertainment. I wish that the media would cut it out, I mean, it's already bad enough trying to watch a 2D movie also out in 3D, watching a bunch of stuff fly at the screen, get very pixelated, and zoom back out.I absolutely hate 3D, and I think they should tone it down now before we all don't have a choice but to buy the pricey 3D tickets.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good point. 3D is just another way to make something bigger and better. But usually if the media doesn't agree to it being "hot" then it won't become "hot". I agree with Carina, 3D is a passing fad. The way i see it, show buz is just trying to make somthing "cool" or "in style" just like blueray or flatscreens are. It's just a (I guess you can say) tend that is trying to become popular, but lets face it, it won't.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't really see "3D" being a passing fad as others posted above, because it is just naturally going to become apart of new technology. New TVs are being developed with this capability, and soon when the troublesome glasses are no longer a factor, where is the opposition? Some may agree that 3D is being put out as a gimmick to make more money, but they are advancements.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Janae, I agree with you one hundred percent. The glasses are uncomfortable and I think the 3D experience does not add to the effect of the movie. I think that people add 3D to their movies because their plots were not interesting enough to make it big at the box office. I mean, how is it possible for a movie without 3D to make as much money as a movie with the 3D experience? If this is possible, it must mean that the 3D-less movie did not need any extra added features like the 3D movie did to earn a respectable amount of money at the box office. So what I am trying to say is that if a movie is written well and has an interesting plot, it should not need added effects like 3D.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I couldn't agree more. The movie industry is trying to go for what they think would sell quickly but is 3D really what people would go for? In my opinion, there's more pros than cons going to see a movie in 3D (price, nausea, etc.) 3D effects does not make up for a horrible storyline or plot. Because people have ways and easy access to watch movies from theaters online, probably having it 3D will boost up their sales but all in all, the only movie I recall really heating up the box office in 3D was Avatar and that set the stone of having every movie in 3D since that was a huge success. But 3D doesn't enhance a scattered movie plot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree when you say that cartoons in 3-D are fine, but I also get headaches from 3-D movies, cartoons or not. And I believe they are making most movies 3-D because it costs ALOT more that the regular 2-D movies, therefore helping the movie make a bigger fortune. I'm just hoping that the movies do not become 3-D for good. Not all can watch it in 3-D due to their eye sight.
    Though it may be good for the director and actors/actresses to make alot of money, it is really hard to enjoy a movie with a large headache. And the new 3-D television they are coming out with? I have a feeling that 3-D will be our future!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kimberly who? [Insert obligatory complaint here.]

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.