Seriously check this out, might just change your mind:
http://www.reald.com/

Yes 3D is coming, friend of mine told me today that all the Animated cartoon films next year will be in 3D, some parts of “Journey to the Center of the Earth” are going to be in 3D as well.
There working on a way to create a laminate that you will be able to cover your tv screen with at home to do the same thing.
Within 5 years the glasses will be obsolete.

Just like in the Matrix, I fear eventually we will all be so locked into the visual entertainment experience that we will get lost in it. Talk about numbing the masses.

I’m not sure this is a good thing and I still hate 3D.

That being said, Transformers 2 should rock in 3D *ONLY IF* Bay can pull back from the action a bit and let us see what is going on during the action scenes. In Transformers 1, the camera was so close to the bots that it was a CGi blur and you couldn’t see any details which was a great disappointment to me.

Again I really hope they do Transformers in 3D. Its just what that lame franchise needs to fail.

And to address your “refinement” argument, I have to respectfully completely disagree.

Sound was an addition to what was a silent medium. It brought a new dimension to it. Color, too, was an addition to what was by the point a mixed medium shot in black and white. Both were jarring additions that caused filmmakers to completely re-think the way they made movies.

The reason you don’t hear anyone complaining about those is because we’re living 70 years after they were introduced. By this point they’ve become the norm. However, check your film history: at the time people considered “talkies” a fad that would eventually fade away.

Put in its proper historical context, you can see the startling similarities. Seventy years from now, when they add who-knows-what new technology people will be having the same conversation you and I are having, except the person on your end will be calling 3D a refinement and arguing how no one complains about that.

I get your point about people writing 3D stuff into a movie that has no business being in 3D just to use the technology. That leads to crappy stories and thus crappy movies.

Unfortunately it seems like my third post didn’t go up (probably because my laptop died) where I addressed this.

Ultimately 3D is just another tool for filmmakers. It’s neither “good” nor “bad.” Because you don’t like something, or, more appropriate to this case, because it hasn’t been used correctly does not mean it’s inherently “bad.” And I agree with you that, up this point, it has not been used effectively to enhance any movies. Yes, for the most part, up until now it has detracted from the experience.

But I think it’s jumping the gun to discount the tool because no one knows how to use it yet.

It’s the equivalent of being around when movies started having sound and saying “well, now they’re going to make movies just to use the sound technology and ignore the story.” In fact, I bet you for every “M” (Fritz Lang’s seminal sound movie) there were 100 horrible movies that used bad songs and sound effects for the sake of using sound.

Think about the beginning of the color era. You have a movie like “Wizard of Oz” which used it effectively in the context of the story. I can only guess how many movies seemed like a Pollock painting on crack and had no substance because they wanted an excuse to use color.

Both “M” and “Wizard of Oz” were successful in using these new technologies because they told stories that were enhanced by their use.

We’re at the beginning of the 3D era. No one knows how to effectively use 3D. Yet at some point there will be a movie where the filmmaker really understands how to use 3D effectively in order to enhance the story and not build the story around the effect.

I, for one, do not want to miss that moment because Michael Bay and “Superman Returns IMAX” used it so poorly and we threw the baby out with the bathwater.

My personal guess for the movie that does this, by the way, is James Cameron’s “Avatar.” Check out what he has to say about 3D:

“When most people think of 3-D films, they think first of the gimmick shots — objects or characters flying, floating or poking out into the audience. In fact, in a good stereo movie, these shots should be the exception rather than the rule. Watching a stereo movie is looking into an alternate reality through a window… First and foremost the film must be a good movie. It needs to be firing on all eight cylinders whether it is conceived as a 2-D or a 3-D film. As a result, a 3-D film when screened in 2-D, on a screen of any size, should still deliver. The 3-D should always be thought of as a turbocharger, an enhancer, to a work whose raison d’etre is vested in its story, its characters, its style, etc.”

Hearing him talk makes me feel like we’re a the cusp of a whole new era for the theater going experience. Exciting times!

-dg

@ duca

Studios are hoping that by 2010 there will be 3,000 digitally equipped screens nationwide. That’s about how many screens a movie like Transformers would normally open on. Hence, the increase in 3D movie announcements.

Take the glasses off and it looks like someone spiked your doobee with mescaline

Amen. Except maybe kids for who 3D is still like a novelty item.

I liked Transformers and I will definitely be watching the sequel regardless if its in 3D or not. honestly why even waste the money on 3D for a sequel since 90% or greater (making up numbers) of the people who see it are the people who liked the first one and I really do not think saying its in 3D is going to bring in anyone who is already not going to see it

Boooooooo

Your comparing improvements to a visual effect.
The improvements in sound, color and picture are a natural refinements over time
To say that having a character or object come out of the screen to grab your attention is not a refinement its a gimmick.
Not to mention one that hasn’t been perfected.

I don’t hear anyone complaining about the refinements that films have undergone however not everyone digs 3D.

With 3D films you also get scripts that are tailored to having objects come alive. Its a distracton. frankly why does anyone (over 12 years old) need that?
I’m just saying (I Don’t need 3D). If you think its the next step in films I sure prey your wrong because I will not see any 3D films….. ;-)

I think you’re right about the quality of the theater equip b/c the last 3D flick I saw didn’t work for me. Either way I’m not paying extra just so I can wear those stupid glasses.

@ 790

I agree. I don’t need shit popping out at me to enjoy a “good” movie, either.

Point being that every 3D movie I’ve seen thus far has used 3D to hide the fact that the movie, itself, sucked.

Thank you for the information. This makes me think that a blockbuster like Transfromers 2 would not go the way of the 3D, eh? They want to be on as many screens as possible and make as much money as possible so why would they pigeon hole themselves? I can understand a “3D at the IMAX” version. That would probably be freaking neato, but at the regular old cinema? Ah, ain’t gonna work for a few more years yet.

To get really good 3D you need digital projectors and polarized glasses. I imagine most people here complaining 3D doesn’t work for them (except for those with physical ailments) just have not been someplace that has good enough technology. Theme park attractions, like the Terminator show in Universal Studios are mind blowing. They, however, only need enough money to set up one really good system.

The real problem, as I see it, is that the technology is not there yet for mass distribution. This, however, is why there’s so much fighting between distributors and studios these days. They all want it but they want the other to pay for it.

I imagine I’m going to run around in circles with you because you’re denying the logical progression towards 3D in order to justify your preference (which is totally acceptable, and in fact I could care less about 3D myself). So one last pass at this from me and I’ll be done.

I’m not saying that 3D is something that’s naturally missing from movies. I am saying that, if you’re going to take a next step in evolution, it’s the logical one. Why was sound added? To expand on the spectacle of going to the now talking pictures. Why was color added? For additional spectacle and give the artists more to work with. Why was widescreen added? To open the scope of films, and add spectacle when people could only get a square image at home. Why was surround sound added? To add depth to the audio experience and add to the spectacle.

How have each of these been marketed as they were released? With huge exclamation points as a selling point to a new experience. “Now with sound!!!” “Now in Technicolor!!!” “Presented in Cinemascope!!!” “THX Certified, Experience the difference!!!”

Historically speaking they were all gimmicks used to bring in new audiences. None of them were necessary or naturally missing. After all, there were plenty of great silent, black and white, square framed movies. They didn’t have to include these others things except for the fact that they needed to offer something to get people into movie theaters. And, at the time, only the big spectacle movies used these sound and picture advancements. Only after a time did they become the norm.

Now, think about the last truly revolutionary “gimmick” — digital surround sound. First of all, at first it was only a selling point for big spectacle movies like Jurassic Park (don’t jump down my throat, I don’t think Transformers 2 will be as good as Jurassic Park but it is in the same spectacle, summer blockbuster, sci-fi genre). Most importantly it added depth — 3D — to the sound.

It only stands to reason that at a point where people can recreate the surround sound, widescreen, crystal clear experience at home, movie theaters and hence studios and distributors will need something new to bring in audiences.

Thus, logically speaking the next natural progression is adding 3D to the picture. And it will start with the big spectacle movies, like Transformers 2 and they’ll throw a big tag on the poster saying “Experience it in 3D!!!!” and the masses will come. And for a time, at least, people who are resistant to the idea of 3D will be accommodated by having the option of 2D screenings, like they did with Beowulf. But looking at it from a historical context, it only stands to reason there will probably come a time when most if not all movies are 3D.

-dg

PS: to quickly address your VR point, the difference is not the component but what it’s used for. 3D sound is already used in movies and VR. But in VR you use it to create a world that you can be a part of. In movies it’s used to tell a story. Same thing with 3D picture. It won’t be used to create a world in which you interact with but to tell a story in which you are a passive observer.