As it happens, I missed the press preview for "Fly Me to the Moon." It was a stupid misunderstanding, too boring to describe. My fault. I admit I was not inconsolable. After "Space Chimps," I had launched enough animated creatures to the Moon without starting on the insect kingdom. But even more to the point, "Fly Me to the Moon" was in 3-D, and I could all too easily imagine being "startled" by flies buzzing, ohmigod! straight at me!
Faithful readers will know about my disenchantment with 3-D. My dad took me to see the first 3-D movie, Arch Oboler's "Bwana Devil," in 1952. Lots of spears thrown at the audience. Since then I have been attacked by arrows, fists, eels, human livers, and naked legs. I have seen one 3-D process that works, the IMAX process that uses $200 wrap-around glasses with built-in stereo. Apparently that process has been shelved, and we are back to disposable stereoscopic lenses, essentially the same method used in 1952.
There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money's worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience. Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we're seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion.
There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground.
In common with most species, we have excellent perception of movement. The first rudimentary "eyes" evolved to sense the difference between light (the source of energy) and darkness (its absence). Very slowly those early cells developed an ability to sense motion. The notion that eyes had to be an example of "intelligent design" is flawed because it cannot imagine an eye evolving toward what it cannot conceive. But sight has evolved independently dozens of times on this planet, growing more complex not because it what it was evolving into, but because of what it was evolving away from: less perception of light and movement. Those few creatures who because of chance mutation gained an advantage were of course more likely to survive.
Our ancestors on the prehistoric savannah developed an acute alertness to motion, for the excellent reason that anything that moved might want to eat them. Movement perceived against a static background is dominant, a principle all filmmakers know. But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie.
There were a lot of perceptive comments about my recent blog entry, "The Effect of Effects." The consensus seems to be that, in most cases, not all, those effects are best that don't seem obvious. The contrast was drawn between the cartoon-like movements in the first "Spider-Man" and the far superior integration of the effects in "Spider-Man 2" and "The Dark Knight." Even obvious effects can be made convincing; witness the readers who became emotionally involved in the final battle between the iron machines in "Iron Man." Of course you knew they were effects. But the staging and situation had been so carefully prepared that in a way you believed in the two creatures, and cared about what happened.
In my review of the 3-D "Journey to the Center of the Earth," I wrote that I wished I had seen it in 2-D: "Since there's that part of me with a certain weakness for movies like this, it's possible I would have liked it more. It would have looked brighter and clearer, and the photography wouldn't have been cluttered up with all the leaping and gnashing of teeth." "Journey" will be released on 2-D on DVD, and I am actually planning to watch it that way, to see the movie inside the distracting technique. I expect to feel considerably more affection for it.
Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake.
* * *
Postscript. I have witnessed a believable 3-D illusion. It was at a ShoWest demonstration of Douglas Trumbell's doomed Showscan. He projected 70mm film at 60fps. It created the illusion of depth not by leaving the screen but by seeming to recede within it. It was like looking through a window and seeing the perspective of reality. You may have seen it being used in thrill rides at Disneyland. It was too expensive for theatrical films. A more affordable process, MaxiVision, creates its illusion with 35mm at 48fps. But Hollywood is profoundly conservative and shy of technical innovation; it embraced HD video because it provides an approximation of what they're used to. Once on a panel at Sundance, I asked an obvious question: Why does HD approximate the film standard of 24 fps, or the TV standard of 30fps, when it could just as easily approximate 60 fps? None of the experts had an answer.
-30-
I am far from being a 3D fan myself, I find it gimmicky and lame, and that it ruins my cinematic experience every single time I see a film featuring the overrated technology.
Have you seen the Real-D process? It shows in 48fps.
If you haven't already you should also check out this interview with James Cameron. It sold me quite a bit (though, admittedly, Cameron has something to sell).
Hooray! I'm glad that someone with your stature is speaking out about 3D vs. 2D films. When I read about people like Jim Cameron, David Katzenberg, and George Lucas talking about making all of their future features in 3D only, I'm saddened. I have a vision defect that prevents me from enjoying any 3D system of projection, but I can enjoy 2D films just fine. I hope after all the techo-trend chasers go flying headlong into this "new medium" a few good filmmakers will still be around to make pictures for people like me. Or maybe I'll just have to make them myself!
I'm curious what you thought of the U2 3D movie? I found that to be the first compelling use of 3D I had ever seen. I don't know if it was a different process or if it was just a different method that created a more realistic feel. I absolutely loved it and left the theater thinking that the method employed could be used to enhance certain full-length theatrical releases.
The last film I saw in 3-D was Beowulf, and I quite enjoyed that.
Ebert: Me, too. Robert Zemeckis knew how to use 3-D, instead of just showing off with it,
Excellent analysis of 3D, and scientific. I appreciate what Mr. Ebert states here because he has made some excellent and very true points. I don't think 3D can survive "long-term" in its current technical state with objects leaping from the screen leaving the rest of the background behind. As Mr. Ebert points out here, this is not the way we see the world. Imagine if we did how many broken legs, arms, cracked skulls and elbows we would have from dodging normal and everyday encounters with objects. Imagine eating with a fork in 3D? Getting out of bed? Opening your car door? The world would be a bigger mess than it already is. Hollywood is turning to technology to produce gimmicks to keep box office rolling. But eventually the gimmicks have to give way to simply making a GOOD film with GREAT acting and a great script. I admire Mr. Ebert very much and it is too bad studio executives and filmmakers aren't paying attention to his sound advice.
- Warren
Reading this essay, I find myself replacing the word "3D" with "color" or "sound" and rereading this as hypothetical rants by Ebert's forebears in the '20s or '30s complaining about those unnecessary additions to the filmmaker's tools.
You can apply any technique to a film as long as the filmmaker is a true visionary, not a business man.
Beowulf and The Polar Express used 3D effectively in my opinion. Since you seem to agree (at least with Beowulf) it seems to me you object more strongly to the historical usage of 3D and not necessarily what the state of the art technology can produce?
I tend to agree that the best 3D should be more like a 'diorama' where there is substantial depth to the image, rather that having objects thrust a virtual millimeter from your face. Save that for the theme parks.
I can't argue that it's difficult to come up with an example of a film I wish was in 3D, but I wonder if that is perhaps a case of not knowing what we don't know. I dont think its a coincedence that the only two films that got 3D right so far were computer animated - until we see the first 'good' live action 3D we simply can't visualize what it might bring to the table, in the hands of a real artist.
Ebert: I liked "The Polar Express" too. I think I saw both that and "Beowulf" on an IMAX scree. Both seemed to understand the effect, which goes back to the widespread conclusion in the comments on the "effects" blog entry. I would argue, however, that both would have been even more effective in 2-D.
Don't forget "Dial M for Murder". Hitchcock used 3-D to make the movie look like a play. There was depth, but almost nothing thrown out at the audience. You really forgot you were at a 3-D movie, and could concentrate on the plot. I saw this some 27 years ago when the Detroit Film Theater had a festival of 3-D films shown with two projectors simultaneously. They also showed "Kiss Me Kate", and the audience only had to duck from screen projectiles when Ann Miller threw her ring and scarf at us.
(By the way, I don't think the 2-D version of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (2008) will be so preferable, it is pretty lame by any dimension; Also, I had eyestrain by the end of the 3-D version, I wonder if anyone else noticed that?)
Maybe the 3D effect isn't effective in the current mode of film making and watching. The future of visual storytelling might leave the cinema behind.
There was a Hitchcock movie in 3D - "Dial M for Murder." I got to see this in 3D years ago, at the long-gone Dream Theater in Monterey, CA. This was a movie that understood how to use 3D. Hitch only used it in the obvious way once in the entire movie, at a crucial moment, and everyone freaked out.
Dearest Roger,
Isn't there at least one or two classic 3-D movies you enjoyed watching in 3-D? For me, "House of Wax" and "Kiss Me Kate" work beautifully in 3-D (was lucky enough to catch both in revival theaters). I would also love to watch "Dial M for Murder" shown in 3-D at a theater, but I have never had the chance.
The only 3-D movie I've seen that really worked for me was Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder". Most of this had to do with the fact that Hitchcock wasn't interested in throwing things at the audience. Instead he focused on giving his claustrophobic set a sense of depth. It was another way to separate characters and objects from one another.
But what really baffles me is that some directors seem to think that the 2-D that we have is inadequate. Are we children? Do we need brighter, shinier toys? I don't see people complaining too much about the lack of three dimensions at their local movie house. In fact, I think that by keeping things in 2-D we are allowing ourselves a little distance between ourselves and the art. That distance is needed, I believe, to process and analyze the information given us. I'm no video game hater, but it seems that the problems (discussed in great detail on this site) with audience involvement in video games could cross over into movies. The further we are placed "inside" the art form, the less chance we have of truly observing it. I believe that art is meant to have a creator and an observer. Maybe I'm stretching things here, but here's a quote from Steven Spielberg in an interview with Time magazine two years ago,
"But also in the future there is going to be a movie theater that allows the audience to be active members in the story-telling process. And I think the audiences who are flocking to video games, which is an interactive experience, are going to want to interact with movies as they play in real time. And there will be room for both. There will be stories that allow the audience to determine the outcome. Some day in the not too distant future you'll be able to go to a movie and the movie will be all around you. The movie will be over your head, it will be a 360 degrees around you, even be a little bit under you, and you will be in your seat with hand controls where you can rotate your seat, lean back, lean forward, have complete control over your seat to be able to keep up with all the imagery that is going to take you on a mind-blowing journey. I see that kind of experience without losing narrative."
I love Spielberg as much as the next person, but this quote scares me a little.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
Since you commented on Showscan I was wondering if you've ever had the opportunity to view anything on the Super Dimension 70(70mm,48 fps)? Is the experience compatible? Considering the fact that Hollywood really seems to be pushing 3D in order to compensate for declining audience attendance why doesn't Hollywood instead try to revive the beauty of the 70mm format? If we're talking about a $100 million production, use of 70mm film couldn't be much more than 1% of the budget, could it (perhaps my numbers are wrong)? And it's not an experience one can recreate on Blu-Ray. Is 70mm dead for good or might there still be some hope?
Ebert: I try to open Ebertfest most years with a 70mm movie, We've shown "Patton," "Lawrence of Arabia," "2001," "Oklahoma," "My Fair Lady," "Playtime," and "Hamlet."
I wonder if 3-D will ever become commonplace enough that the "spectacle" of it will subside and filmmakers won't be compelled to throw things at the camera and explore the subtler uses of the effect. I imagine a good 3-D film being something like a picture window, and I have seen something like that in the occasional 3D film alongside the things popping off screen (the 1961 Canadian film THE MASK, no relation to the Jim Carrey picture, has some good examples of this, but good luck finding it these days.)
The most effective 3d I've seen is the 3d conversion Of Nightmare before Christmas. Nothing came out of the screen, but the screen had depth, the screen was the front, and more distant objects receded behind it. Just like reality. If they would shoot a 3d movie, just like a 2d movie, I think the process would work. It isn't the process that is flawed, but the way it is being used.
Very true words about 60fps... I've played some with high framerates, the "jitter" technique, but the high frame rate seems to be a kicker. lately also with everything being digitally sourced, it seems that even older remade movies have more apparent depth of field. i think it is safe to say that the feeling of your eyes focusing has a lot to do with depth perception, but also there is your eyes leading lateral motion. some of the jump-out stuff needs a cadre between you in the screen to give you reference or the effect isn't there.
i don't know that 3d is really what we're looking for. holograms maybe present us a way to better move around an image, but a stationary image, like you say, is not going to ever give us the feel of how we actually perceive the world.
thank you so so much for this blog!!!!
I remember Mr. Ebert's disdain for 3-D from discussions on the show years ago. Back then, the only 3-D movies were schlock like "Jaws 3" or "Friday the 13th Part 3." Now that James Cameron and George Lucas are working in 3-D, I hope that they take all of these previous posters' points into consideration. James Cameron, in my view, has never used effects 'just because' but has always seemed to integrate them wonderfully into his movies. With his track record, I have a lot of faith in him that he'll do it right. The only movie I've seen in 3-D in recent memory is "The Polar Express" and that was after seeing it in 2-d. I wanted to see it first in a regular theatre before seeing it in IMAX. I thought it was a wonderful movie in 2-D and seeing it in 3-D enhanced my opinion of the effects of it, but didn't change how I felt about the movie overall. I haven't been interested in any of the recent Disney 3-D movies only because the movies themselves didn't interest me. As for the more advanced 3-D experiences at Disneyland, I remember "Captain EO" being fun, as well as "Honey I Shrunk the Audience." But you're definitely getting into expensive technology that can't be transferred into regular movie theatres. I would love to see "Dial M For Murder" someday and with all the older theatres here in Seattle, the Cinerama, the Egyptian, Harvard Exit, et al, I would expect it to play here someday. Until then, I'll be satisfied seeing "How The West Was Won" in three-strip Cinerama!
I think "Avatar" is going to be fantastic and will introduce 3-D films into the mainstream (where they belong). If anybody knows how to use a special effect to its full extent it's James Cameron.
"Beowulf" was amazing in 3-D, very intense. It saddens me that many people will watch it in two dimensions on DVD for the first time, because they've missed out on a really unique film-going experience. (The "bonus" scene where Beowulf slays a couple sea-snakes, what compares to seeing that depth -- his feet dangling above of the ocean, hundreds of feet below? With 3-D you can feel that drop, those hundred feet between Beowulf and the ocean can, if only for a split second, induce vertigo.)
However, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" in IMAX 3D was just painful for the eyes.
The problem with 3-D is you don't just see a movie in a movie theater--you see the seats in front of you, people walking around, the usher with the flashlight, and your friends sitting next to you. All of these immediately destroy the illusion.
I'm still waiting for "Tip O'Neill's 3-D House of Representatives". "You don't think that's scary? That bill could become LAW!"
While it is true that some relatively smaller productions (Fly Me to the Moon, and Journey to the Center of the Earth) have been using Real-D 3D and not screening on I-max. I think that most larger hollywood 3D productions such as Bob Zemeckis' upcoming take on A Christmas Carol, James Cameron's Avatar, and rereleases of LOTR and Star Wars are being made or at least remastered for I-max.
As for a movie that would have been better in 3D it's hard to stay because as you noted above 3d movies are made in a substantially different way than 2d ones. The movies that come to mind though are The Star Wars prequel trilogy, Terminator 2, Speed Racer and any CGI cartoon.
I, too, have had the chance to see "Dial M For Murder" in 3D, and truly think that it stands as an example of an intelligent use of 3D.
My dad reminds me that there was another little gem of a movie from around that time called "Inferno"; he remembers the use of 3D in that movie accentuates the depth of field, and therefore the isolation of Robert Ryan's character amongst the rocks in the desert.
I did get to see James Cameron's "Ghosts of the Abyss", concerning exploring the wreckage of the Titanic with two aquatic robots. I remember one sequence of a pole being stuck in our faces, but other than that I remember the use of 3D in that film as being beneficial rather than distracting, or headache inducing.
Roger, I would be interested to know what fond memories you have of "Sensurround"!
Ebert: As I wrote in my review of "Earthquake" (1974): For the theatrical release, Universal unveiled something called Sensurround, a rumbling bass effect that did indeed make theaters tremble. (When I saw the movie at the United Artists in Chicago, a chunk of plaster fell into the audience, and Sensurround was quickly retired.)
One additional issue I have with 3D movies are those where the 3D is done in post, rather than being filmed/animated stereoscopically. Lucas apparently hasn't squeezed enough versions out of the original "Star Wars" trilogy to ruin it for quite everyone, so he's in talks of doing 3D releases of those films as well.
When a movie has its 3D done in post it is being pulled, of course, from a 2D source. This leaves many flat and untextured surfaces, looking more like cutouts on different layers. The 3D redo of "Nightmare Before Christmas" had this effect.
I'd love to see more that use the window effect, going into the screen more than out of it. There were scenes in Beowulf, that while coming out of the screen, stayed far enough back to give the feeling of watching something on a stage. I even liked the scene where Beowulf arrives and a spear is held to his face, I felt like I shared his feeling of having a sharp object in my face. However it reached out more naturally than most 3D has.
My biggest gripe about it all is that people can't get over it, and many people, especially children, won't stop commenting on/screaming at/dodging the 3D objects, making it harder to enjoy watching a movie with the public than it already is.
I don't know if you've heard, but IMAX is looking to convert completely to 4k digital projection (and films), and the 3D process might be the only reason left to attend. That effectively kills modern large-gauge 2D film projection.
Thanks for mentioning Showscan.
An amazing display of what is possible. Seeing it was like
watching a magic trick, without the magician.
Maybe some day this will be possible, but as a digital refresh
technique, making it easier to port into theaters.
It's a glimpse, none the less, of what is yet to come. Movies
still can grow up, when they are ready.
-H
Thank you for mentioning Showscan, something I remember reading about in interviews with Trumbull during publicity for "Brainstorm." It sounded like a process that would genuinely improve a viewing experience, and I wish it had received wider awareness.
It sounds like the sort of technology that Walt Disney might have attempted to get theater owners to ramp up for, considering his advocacy of color and stereo sound.
The "effect" of 3D (if so it may be called) seems no more than a gimmick. A studio executive (I believe it was Katzenberg) commented recently that 3D was the new revolution (not his word) for filmmaking, similar to sound and color. I couldn't agree less. Sound and color add to the ability to tell a story while 3D does nothing but surprise without purpose.
It is interesting to think, however, about the purpose of color. What exactly does it add? Realism, a new emotional connection for the audience perhaps? Hypothetically, we could survive without color, not that I'm advocating any such decision.
What seems worse than 3D is stereoscopic 3D, which could a viewing experience that is different depending on the seat in the theater from which you view the film. That would redefine the idea and purpose of seeing a movie for the second time and, in my opinion, not for the better.
But before we kick 3D to the curb, I think we should wait for two things - Henry Selick's Coraline and Disney/Pixar's Toy Story 3. Both of these films are being produced in 3D and both films are headed by certifiable visual storytelling geniuses. If there's anyone who can properly employ 3D, it will be Selick or the Pixar crew and if they fail then 3D has truly become irrelevant.
The reason why HD approximates the film standard of 24 fps and the TV standard of 30fps instead of 60fps is because running 60fps would require twice the bandwidth and therefor twice the data for the same movie. Current technology is already at it's limit trying to find acceptable compression levels to deliver streaming HD content online, and television broadcast standards can't deliver the amount of data fast enough to support full 1080p HD; only optical disk drives and video cards can deliver that.
We all know between 24 and 30 is the "optimum" frame rate to create the illusion of movement without consuming unneeded resources. That's why the industry has been using it for a century. Up until now, any advancements in bandwidth were better applied to improvements in color depth and resolution, but now we've practically reached the perceivable limits of human vision with 1080HD. Perhaps as bandwidths continue to improve in the next 20 years, we will finally see frame rates go up.
I cannot agree more with the basic premise of your blog, though I do wonder if looking at 3D as an artistic choice is the right way of doing it. I cannot think of one 3D movie since the technique was ressurected in the third Spy Kids film that was meant for anyone older than 10. In this context, the technique is not intended to improve the movie. Rather it is there to provide bright colors and distraction to an audience who has not necessarily developed the understanding of what makes 3D horrible. When people start trying to make new films for adults using 3D, then I shall be worried.
From above Spielburg quote: "And I think the audiences who are flocking to video games, which is an interactive experience, are going to want to interact with movies as they play in real time."
Given his recent video game for the Wii, which involves knocking down piles of blocks, I really dread how he'd incorporate this sort of "innovation" into movies. Unless he could somehow make Jenga an interesting film, in which case he deserves some kind of mad genius award.
Thank you, Roger, for your Sensurround memory. My recollection of it is based on seeing "Midway" back in 197-something. I remember that not only did the theater rumbled when a bomb went off, or when a plane passed closely overhead, but also when Charlton Heston would drive up in his jeep, or when somebody slammed a door too hard.
Looking back, I'm thinking that perhaps the theater had the sound mix just a little too rich towards the bass side of the spectrum.
My reason for bringing this up, I suppose, was to think of another gimmick that the theaters tried that had no purpose whatsoever for moving forward the progress of cinema as an art form. Of course, any of William Castle's tricks had little next to nothing whatsoever to do with art...
I've seen 'Kiss Me Kate' and 'Dial M for Murder' in 3D. I love 'Kate'. The director kept control of the process very well; we were looking through a window to the action nearly all the time. The only time stuff got thrown at us was in Kathryn Grayson's 'I Hate Men' number. And the depth of 3D really showed off the choreography well. The only problem was they couldn't do both 3D and Cinemascope at the same time, so everybody had to crowd into a 1.33:1 frame.
'Dial M' didn't work well for me, for one reason. There were some shots set in rooms with windows looking out on the street. And when you looked past the foreground actors, you could clearly see the rear-projection screen, flat as a wall, about 10 feet back from the window! It makes the willing suspension of disbelief a bit difficult.
Although the technical aspects of 3-D filmmaking have definitely improved over the years (with the exception of the cheapo process inexplicably favored by Robert Rodriguez--a version so ugly that I actually sat through Spy Kids 3-D twice on the assumption that there was something wrong with the projection at the first screening), the reason why most current 3-D films are pretty bad is the same reason why they were bad back in the 1950's and the 1980's--the filmmakers are more concerned with getting their money's worth from the effects than in figuring out a compelling story that can utilize them.
I'm not trying to sound like a snob--I love things like "House of Wax" and "Creature from the Black Lagoon" as much as the next person and watching "Friday the 13th Part 3" back in the day was kind of cool for my 11-year-old incarnation--but unless you are a young child who has never seen a 3-D film before, most of them have nothing to offer beyond that gimmick. When a filmmaker comes along who is able to balance the technical aspects with the dramatic, then I can see 3-D becoming just as viable a tool for artistic expression as color or sound. Zemeckis came close to this with "Beowulf" (certainly closer than he did with the monstrous "Polar Express") but I suspect that if anyone can pull it off, it will be James Cameron.
However, I would like to second the enthusiasm for a couple of recent 3-D titles that have already been mentioned. "U2-3D" was an undeniably impressive achievement and though there aren't many musical acts that could pull off such a thing, it does illustrate the format as a excellent one for capturing the spectacle of a large-scale concert. (I would also note that if there were ever to be a film of a Shakira concert in 3-D and IMAX, I might never leave the theater.) The other is the retrofitted version of "Nightmare Before Christmas"--this one is especially good not just for the quality of the effect (though it is pretty stunning) but because it has been done in such a way that it enhances an already wonderful film instead of distracting from it.
As a long-time fan of stereo photography & film and of Mr. Ebert as well (and appreciating that his hatred for 3D still allows him to offer selective praise for some 3D films, like Polar Express - which I incidentally and humbly submit is loads better in 3D. It transports the viewer to an immersive, magical world. In 2D, the viewer is left to contemplate what dead-eyed zombies the characters are), I just want to offer this: There's a big difference between the red/blue glasses of Spy Kids 3D and the polarized glasses currently offered by the likes of Imax and Reel-3D. My main point is to encourage readers to decide for yourself. If your conception of 3D is seeing "Creature From The Black Lagoon" in red/blue 3D at a Saturday matinee in the '80s, give it another chance.
"Journey to the Center of the Earth" was a pretty mediocre film, but if I was a little boy, I (as Roger also said) would have loved it, and as an adult, it was fun in 3D. That's all, just fun. Which is all I asked of it. In 2D, it would have been less-gimmicky, but also less fun.
An example of a relatively recent offering that worked well: "Monster House" in Reel-3D. Not high art, just an enjoyable 90 minutes. Why do people expect 3D to infuse Hollywood movies with art? Most Hollywood movies are mindless entertainment. Anything to make them a little more fun seems worthwhile to me. "Zabriskie Point" would not have been a better movie in 3D (though I'd like to see more houses blow up in 3Dmovies), but "Center of the Earth" certainly was.
Anyway, at the very least, I suggest people check out a good 3D Imax film. I can never remember the names of those 40 minute documentaries about space or fish or insects, but the 3D is usually impeccable and a great experience. James Cameron's "Ghosts of the Abyss" made good use of the medium. And "Deep Sea 3D", filled with stunning shots of amazing alien-like undersea creatures, would have made Jacques Cousteau jealous. 3D made it mesmerizing, realistic. . . and a whole lotta fun.
Is 3D an unnecessary gimmick? Most of the time, yeah. Can it be used to enhance the movie-going experience? Definitely. Is it another element of a talented director's artistic arsenal? I submit that it really can be (even though I have little evidence to offer), but most directors aren't up to the challenge yet. Though I hope the next couple of years will change that.
Finally (with apolgies for my blathering, but I've been following Roger since his early PBS days, and this is my first-ever comment here), I'll mention that Brendan Fraser recently said the big studios and theatres are very hopeful for the success of 3D films, because it's a movie-going experience that can't easily be replicated with a pirated BitTorrent copy. In order to really see the movie, you have to go out and buy a ticket and sit in a theatre seat. Could 3D be the saviour of the Hollywood system? A horrifying thought for many, I understand. But as I said above, most Hollywood films are pretty disposable. Great art will still be made either way. Because great artists are so driven to create. As for me, if I get to see a couple cool 3D movies a year, I'll be happy.
I review DVD's and their extras for the San Antonio Express-News web site, and I recently posted a review of the impending DVD release of "Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert" DVD. You can read it here: http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/dvd/archives/2008/08/hannah_montana.html
The second disc presents the concert in 3D, using the old blue/red anaglyphic cardboard glasses, not the polarized versions issued to movie theater patrons. I saw "Chicken Little" in Disney Digital 3-D (Disney's version of the Real 3D format) and I know the "Hannah Montana" film was released in the Disney Digital 3-D format in theaters. 3-D films presented at IMAX theaters and theme park rides use the same process.
To me, the theater 3-D process is vastly superior to the TV 3-D version. I couldn't watch more than 15 minutes of the 3-D version because those blue/red anaglyphic glasses not only gave me a headache, but the cardboard was cutting into my ears. And while the blue/red process did give the illusion of 3-D, it did so at the expense of a lot of other colors. Fortunately, the first disc of the set has the 2-D version, so I could complete my review.
Unfortunately, the blue/red process is the only method that will work for home video at the moment. If Lucas, Spielberg, Cameron and others are serious about 3-D, hopefully they are working on a process where home viewers will be able to see the films in 3-D without resorting to the blue/red glasses.
Chicken Little Real-D. It's the Real Deal.
Hey, I'm a fan of the process. So many horrible movies are going to be made anyway--why not make them in 3D? Ghosts of Mars, 3D! Hellride, 3D! Interiors, 3D! Well, maybe not. But the process can take a terrible movie and make it, well, not quite so terrible.
But I did get a chance to see Disney's Real-D process at the El Capitan in Hollywood where they premiered Chicken Little. (I had strangely run into the sales rep for the system at an unrelated job function and he talked me into giving it a try.) Disney, from whom god borrows money, had dropped a ton of change into the process and the screen at the El Capitan and it was, I was told, to be the showpiece of the new technology.
I hate kids' movies. Still, I gave it a try.
Chicken Little was great. Not the story, not the animation, not the voice work. It was the process. It was truly fantastic. Not only did the process give the screen great inward depth, but it allowed the characters to reach into the audience, seemingly at an angle that approached 90 degrees to my seat. I actually found myself looking to my left at what appeared to be a full-color, full-motion hologram.
This was great.
The movie, not so much. And the process is impossible to replicate at home or even in another theater, unless the proprietary projection system is installed at your local googooplex.
So ask for it by name! Interiors Real-D! The voice of the people will not be silenced!
I have no interest in 3-D. I've seen only two short sections of film that used it, both in features aimed for kids and I didn't like it one bit. It gave me a headache and became triesome VERY quickly.
I am intrigued, however, about the fact that studios want to use it to bring audiences back to the cinema and I was re-reading your article on Maxivision48 last night and every time I see a mention of it in one of your essays or reviews, the anticipation builds more and more. You described back in 1999 that it is like "3-D in reverse, like looking out through a window into the events of the film." Curiously, the most popular movie at the moment, "The Dark Knight", is using IMAX technology WITHOUT 3-D and its popularity is booming. Imagine if a major director like Steven Spielberg - who still edits his movies on film - combined Maxivision 48 with shooting entirely on IMAX. That'd be a great way to introduce the new technology along with something people are familiar with. Also, I heard that Christopher Nolan is planning to shoot the next Batman movie entirely in IMAX. Imagine if he were to shoot it in Maxivision48 as well! Do you have the kind of pull and power in the industry to tug at peoples' sleeves and help them realise what you have described as the future of cinema?
P.S.: You mention in reply to a previous comment that you show a 70mm film every Ebertfest. May I make a recommendation? "Tron". It was shot in 65mm (I don't know the difference, but it wouldn't be much, I'm guessing) and it is a very overlooked film, as you well know. Plus, there's a long-delayed sequel arriving soon. Maybe they should shoot THAT in Maxivision48!!
Ebert: We actually showed "Tron" at the first Ebertfest!
As a child I was taken to a 3D show (At the Royal Easter show, if you want to know). It involved a runaway car speeding along a road, or something like it. I declined to watch: I was terrified. I found the technique disturbing and turned away from the screen until it was over. It is like clowns - tradition trumps common sense and observation. If Tim Curry and Robin Williams didn't settle that clowns are terrifying, then Heath Ledger finally has.
Most of the time the novelty of 3D has the same utility as spinning around really fast and then lying on the ground to feel the dizziness. Most of the time: I think it is misguided to dismiss a medium of itself. There is always the potential, if the artistry is there.
I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey again the other night and realised that although the chimps are scarcely convincing, evidently men in chimp suits, I preferred this to CGI because of the skill of the photography. The subtle play of light and shadow, the sense that the creatures are tied to gravity and moves as if they were and not in a virtual world, was more important. The apes just seem stylised, which is fine. Over-use of effects remove the primary pleasures of observation offered by photography and montage.
It was a pleasure to learn that the Faun in Pan's Labyrinth is a man in a suit: he is convincing, wonderful. The computer embellishments were inspired by painting and not other films (or, God help us, computer games) which is as it should be. Also note the eery effect in A.I. of making Haley Joel Osmont into a robot boy without really doing anything at all.
I must confess I tend to enjoy 3-D as a gimmick, but I concur with those who mentioned Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER as being an unusually thoughtful use of the medium. The film isn't a series of characters jabbing fishing poles or yard sticks at the audience; most of the time the use of 3-D is extremely subtle. There's a lot of play with the layers of distance in the frame -- big liquor bottles and tables will fill the foreground with the characters in the back corners. The intention, I think, is to try to break down the barrier between the people on screen and the people in the theater. If Hitchcock and the 3-D do their job, you begin to really feel like you're in the room with Grace Kelly and Ray Milland.
The big mind-blowing moment comes in that famous shot, immortalized on the DIAL M poster, where Grace Kelly is getting attacked. Struggling against her assailant, she reaches directly towards the camera and us, as if she's begging us for help. In that instant, that careful cultivated illusion of shared space gets shattered in this wonderfully painful way, when we realize we're powerless to do anything but keep watching.
I'd seen the movie before, but seeing it in 3-D (as Hitchcock originally shot it) a few years ago at Film Forum was a great experience.
Hi Roger! The beginning clip of you wearing 3D glasses with a subtle smirk on your face http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0vsiNSTLyI back in 1983.
The best experience I had at a 3-D movie was a screening of the 1950s B-movie "The Maze," and that was largely because of how it was utilized in one of the most ridiculous endings to any horror movie ever made. Let's just say that what wound up flying at the audience was the last thing anyone was expecting.
It's a pity that 3-D is never used for anything but action sequences or dumb stunt shots (like, say, the popcorn in "Friday the 13th Part 3"). I could imagine it being utilized by creative filmmakers in the way that experimental theatre can play with the live audience. Using 3-D for mainstream efforts will never really catch on for the same reason that most plays don't feel compelled to invite the audience onto the stage: If it's not the center attraction, it's just a distraction.
"Nightmare Before Christmas 3-D" was a case where the effect worked extremely well, but I suspect (as with other films that receive IMAX 3-D screenings) that's largely because the film wasn't originally made with 3-D in mind or had to remember that most audiences would see it in a "flat" version and therefore the filmmakers weren't driven to show off the effect to no purpose. Therefore, the 3-D comes off as quite subtle and doesn't pull you out of your concentration. But I fear the final word on 3-D as a whole will remain the "Dr. Tongue" skits on SCTV.
Red/Blue glasses 3D is awful, truly awful.
The newer 3D systems, most notably the IMAX system, are quite stunning when paired with computer animation. Part of the reason is that the films are actually rendered in 3D and then flattened. 3D simply pulls the image back in shape.
Ok, done with the process talk. On with the Movies talk.
If the filmaker creates a movie and then applies 3D technology to enhance the movie, it can work. I personally loved the look of the Polar Express (it was supposed to look like a living picture book - ok) in IMAX. I also quite enjoyed Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D. I suspect this is because the movie came first, then the 3D. I am looking forward to seeing the Pixar catalogue remastered in 3D again, because the stories ALWAYS come first at Pixar. Bruce the Shark should be great fun in 3D!
So that's it, simply put, if a filmaker makes a movie, 3D can be a terrific plus. But if the filmaker makes a "3D Movie".........ugh.
Theatrical gimmicks are employed when studios feel threatened by home viewers. Many people have home theaters that are almost as impressive as most theaters, and they don't have to deal with morons on cell phones on underlit movie screens (which is why I won't go to a single theater in Joliet, where I currently live). As a result, we get the current glut of IMAX and/or 3-D presentations.
The day after I read Mr. Ebert's excellent article, I saw this fake movie trailer, from the film "Matinee", which I haven't seen in years, online: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20219168_2,00.html
Gimmicks will come and go in cycles. Great movies have, and will, always remain eternal. And Mr. Ebert, hopefully, will be around for a long time to guide us to them.
Although 3D's been around in films for 50 years, I think we're still at the very early stages of using it as a technology. Beowulf uses 3D quite well (though even there there are a few silly pointy shots), as does Nightmare Before Christmas 3D, which was a retrofit. But most of these films are still riddled with really silly 'gee-whiz look at the 3D' shots.
I take stereo snapshots of my family just because they're fun to look at and provide a heightened sense of location when you look at them later. So far, the only modern liveaction 3D I've seen has been stuff that's been badly retrofitted (though I should probably watch U2 in 3D). But in principle, 3D has to be as good for movies as colour film, or first stereo and then surround sound; both widely derided as gimmicks in their time. In time directors will move to 3D because their films will look more real that way, not because they'll look more spectacular. But that's not likely to happen while we have a delivery system that requires glasses.
I think 3D only works in the films you see at Walt Disney World or Disneyland. Films like It's Tough To Be A Bug, Mickey's Phillarmagic or Honey I Shrunk the Audience work because they're short enough to make the process work.
Hi Roger,
I TOTALLY agree with you. Not only is 3-D ineffective, it's uninteresting, adds NOTHING to the soul of a film, and only makes
viewing the film a pain in the butt because we are forced to wear
ridiculous eyewear. I think 3-D should be reserved for those B-list
horror movies that made Saturday morning triple features and drive-
ins a hoot. I boycotted "Mummy 3-D" because I refused to be bothered
with the mechanics of watching a film. I don't want to be "bothered"
when I'm watching a film. I want to sit back in the dark, eat my
popcorn quietly (should I choose to partake) and enjoy film the way it
was supposed to be enjoyed ---- 2-D.
Begore I get to 3-D, I miss the gimmick that was 70MM (films shot in that format as well as 35MM blow-ups), but I know nothing about the technology other than that the film itself was larger. Can someone please explain to me how watching a movie in 6-track digital sound on a big screen is different from watching, say, "The Rocketeer" in 70MM?
I love IMAX, and think IMAX DMR is great. When I was a kid growing up in Toronto, our local IMAX screen (the first permanent IMAX screen in the world - now sorely underused) used to show Hollywood movies every winter, all to huge crowds. Most, but not all, of the films were in 70MM, and even though they only took up around half the screen, the image was still enveloping, and the sound was incredible, and it was an amazing place to watch a movie. With multiplexes having, at most four large screens among 25, and single screen theatres all but extinct, IMAX has become the closest thing we have to recreating the size and sound of the great cinema-going experiences many of us grew up with.
As for 3-D, as an eyeglass wearer, I'm not a fan. There were times during Beowulf where I had to take the glasses off because, if you're not sitting in the right place and your glasses aren't aligned the right way on your nose, the image gets a little blurry. The first 3-D thing I ever saw was a dead fish at the beginning of Jaws 3D. It was also the last, cool 3D effect I've ever seen. It's fun, and an interesting gimmick, but unlike IMAX, digital projection or 70MM, it can only be distracting, because for the length of the movie, you have a foreign object attached to your head descrambling the image on screen.
It's disappointing to read that PIXAR will be releasing its upcoming films in that format. Did WALL-E, Toy Story 2 or Rattatouille suffer because it was projected flat?
3D movies are a complete waste of time for me. I only have one eye that works properly.
Also, in relation to the YouTube link Larry Koehn provided, you look real "bitchin'" in those 3D glasses! :)
I have very fond memories of seeing The Creature From the Black Lagoon in 3-d.I can still see that webbed hand reaching out of the screen and the beauty of the under water scenes.
I still go to the modern 3-D films hoping to see something on the level of that film but it seems that since they stopped using the 2 projector method it has not been a very good experience for 3-D at the movies.
Then again maybe it was just the combination of being 8 and experiencing a great exploitation film
that has left me with such fond memories of 3-D
I believe 3-d has some relative merits, so long as its in the amusement park context... in movies? you're right, it's working against the form.
Movies were unrivaled until the 50s when TV came along. It was a copy of everything, but in the home. It 'threatened' the film industry. They retaliated with new ratios, and this widescreen 'gimmick' tried to pull viewers back. To a lesser extent, sound was also experimented with and the Dolby Digital standard took foothold in the early 90s.
Now HDTV has 'stolen' those perks as well. 3-D is the film industry's next "answer" to keep people coming.
I'm in agreement with you that 3-D has been poor, and with Toy Story 1 & 2 being re-rendered in 3D along with the forthcoming Toy Story 3, things will be interesting to say the least. Can Pixar do it better, or will they drag down their most beloved tale with it? I can only imagine what good and potential harm they could do with comedic 3-D effects.
As for frame rates. I'm conflicted. 60 frames per second looks like video to me. It's so smooth that it looks cold, calculated, and artificial. Perhaps actual film looks different than a TV signal. Either way, I'm unsure about it as 3-D. Despite image problems from the slower 24 frames, most people will probably admit they like that warm familiar look.
The masses seem to be split on the new 120Hz TVs that create artificial frames between 24 and 60Hz signals to make it look incredibly smooth. Some like it, saying it's like looking through a window, and others don't, saying like I stated, it looks like video, not film.
As for movies I wish I could see in 3-D, I found a way to see a few moments of Buster Keaton's silent movies that way.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJm5e8l2xEo
What about Pixar? They've decided to make their next set of movies in 3D. Although, I believe, they are going to make the movie like they made any other, and then convert it.
The greatest 3D film ever seen was “The Fantastic Invasion of Planet Earth” (1966) starring Michael Cole of “The Mod Squad” fame. I’ll never forget the scene where Mr. Cole, having helped himself to one too many drinks at the local bar, suddenly notices a waitress’s tray of beers floating in the air. If 3D is going to work in a film, the director must include at least one scene of a levitating tray of frosty brews. Anyway, whenever I see a film in 3D, I am anticipating good times dodging flying debris. I never expect to take the film seriously because, if it were truly a good film, why use 3D?
Interesting that, as you say, so many 3-D effects consist of simulating a kind of abuse of the audience in the form of objects hurtling at them. I wonder if the very strain on the eyes produced by those cheap glasses could be considered somewhat abusive as well.
I believe that in Hollywood film there is usually a subtext with regard to the audience and the overall financial success (or not) of the movie. 3-D films, the most desperate of all entertainment, seem to take their resentment for art and desperation to be seen out on the very people who actually pay money to see them.
I will second the impressiveness of the 3D in U2 3D. The crowd comes alive, and you do feel like you are in the audience. In addition to most of the problems mentioned with 3D, my biggest pet peeve is that only once (Polar Express IMAX) has a 3D movie given me glasses large enough to cover my peripheral vision. When you are aware of the frames in your field of view, that is a major distraction.
No wonder I think 3-D films are crap and opne of the biggest gimmicks in the history of cinema. It's all in our evolution! Thanks for posting this convincing argument against 3-D. It adds nothing to the experience and most of the time makes it much worse. I loved Polar Express, but not in the distracting 3-D version.
That being said, I will watch Avatar as a last chance. If Cameron cannot pull it off and make it enjoyable, then 3-D should go the way BetaMax did.
Mr. Ebert mentions the IMAX 3D process and states that it has apparently been abandoned. Marcus Theatres uses XpanD 3D technology at 12 locations in the Midwest. The glasses in this system are active LCD glasses very similar to the old IMAX system. The glasses are controlled by an infrared transmitter and provide a better 3D experience than disposable polarized glasses. In the Chicago area the XpanD system is available at the Orland Park and Gurnee Marcus Cinemas.
"Why does HD approximate the film standard of 24 fps, or the TV standard of 30fps, when it could just as easily approximate 60 fps? None of the experts had an answer."
warning, tech info from a layperson ahead: The answer is because FPS is largely meaningless. When you watch a film, in each 1/24 of a second you see a frame that holds 1/24 of a second worth of information. That's why when you pause a movie it looks blurry (because you're not looking at zero-time, you're looking at all the combined motion that took place in that 1/24 second) but when it plays in real time it is perfectly sharp. Cameras could record more FPS, but other than making extremely fast moving scenes look sharper when you pause your player, it really wouldn't affect too much. AFAIK, the only real reason to shoot at a high FPS is when you want to do slow motion: by capturing more information in the same amount of time, you can expand the duration to show the bullet passing through the playing card, etc.
Most progressive scan displays (LCD, Plasma) update at 60 FPS (we call them hertz though), so your DVD player is creating duplicate frames for 24 or 30 fps material already. A few LCD manufacturers have touted 120 hz sets to have a bigger number in marketing but those extra frames don't actually accomplish anything. Videogames look better with more FPS but that's because each frame a videogame renders is discrete, zero time, existing in a universe of its own, rather than 1/24 or 1/30 of a second worth of blended motion (or temporal anti-aliasing).
So in sum, I don't think the extra 60 FPS had anything to do with the 3D that wowed you and was largely incidental to the experience, but that's only my guess.
I saw "Beowulf" on DVD, in 2D, and noticed a ton of moments where 3D should have been there. It was disappointing to see a lot of spears and corpses being thrown at the screen, and knowing that they were supposed to be coming at me, but they weren't.
I'm curious about MaxiVision. How would the video release of a MaxiVision movie look? How does the 48 FPS work? Are the 48 frames shown at a constant rate? Wouldn't that look more like a video stuck between 30 and 60 FPS?
Ebert: It looks like an unbelievably clear movie with the illusion of depth, and no artifacting. When it pans across a picket fence, you can see every picket. Only costs $12,000 a booth to upgrade existing projectors, as opposed to $150,000 digital video installations. My original article is online here.
I enjoyed U2 3D. It was a more naturalistic 3D than the typical cardboard cutout kind we're used to. I want to see all movies this way if possible.
If you talk to most stereo photographers and cinematographers, they'd agree with you: the 3-D world belongs behind the screen. And in most 3-D movies it stays back there most of the time. But you remember the obnoxious screen piercings more, which is probably why they feel compelled to use them even though they risk violating the viewing frustum and collapsing the entire effect.
Used properly, of course, 3-D is more realistic that 2-D. How can it not be? A mirror is much less useful in 2-D than 3, to cite just one common experience. The question is whether 3-D, like color and sound, can be used to tell stories better- or tell better stories.
I think both are possible- and likely- as more 3-D movies are made and viewed. Especially if filmmakers can learn from others' experiences instead of starting again every decade. I welcome it and am excited by the possibilities.
Roger, the system used at the various Disneyland parks for their Star Tours ride is not Trumbull's Showscan--it is an inferior system. Fortunately, it will be replaced within the next few years ... unfortunately the new system will be in 3D!
Hey, Roger:
I don't know if you saw this, but it turns out that "Fly Me To The Moon," was the very last original movie to receive a "balcony review" by Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips on this weekend's "At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper."
(I say "original movie" in terms of "a new movie opening in theaters and getting its first review." And it was the "last movie" to be reviewed, not counting Roeper & Phillips' weekly video picks, and the "Best Movies of the Summer Rehash" show that will be broadcast next weekend.)
It's just too bad that the show must end its current format after 22 years. I will miss the balcony reviews of new movies. The "balcony" was always such a great place to talk about movies.
I know the older reviews are still available on video on the Internet, and I hope they will stay there. But still, each time I watch a new movie in the theaters, I will think of how you, Richard, and the late great Gene Siskel might have praised or trashed this new movie from your lofty perches in the balcony.
It seems inappropriate that the show should end with a review for a clunker of a movie like "Fly Me To The Moon." But then I guess it would be too much to hope for that the Hollywood studios would release an "instant classic" movie on the order of "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane" in mid-August.
If I had my choice for how the "balcony show" should end, I would have Richard Roeper do a half-hour retrospective of "Best Reviews" done by you, Richard, and Gene Siskel in the last 22 years. And Richard would close the last show with, "And so, finally, after 22 years, the balcony is closed. Good night, my friends. I'll see you at the movies."
Ebert just has it out for 3-D, and it has always been a pet peeve of his, and I've always had the same reaction to his (admittedly wonderful) rants: "yeah,3-D ain't much, and it never works as well as it should, but I don't want it BANISHED, because perhaps they'll eventually nail it, and for the right kind of movie it'll always seem a cool idea"...
And I'd say they DID nail it (even if they're turning their back on the technology used): My screening of POLAR EXPRESS in 3-D IMAX four years ago was one of the great theatrical film experiences of my life. The movie itself is generally underrated without throwing the 3-D factor in (critics but pro and amateur put too much focus on the waxy look of the characters, too little focus on, uh, eveything else in the movie! It's a very common thing: "Well, we can all agree that the animation is a little off, so let's just be happy to focus on that, friends and neighbors, so then we can all be one happy family of malcontents... nevermind whatever else Zemeckis pulled off there that works, we can't muddy the waters with ambiguity! We have to either love it or hate it, and we hate it!")... but I've noticed that, even watching it on Blu-ray, the experience doesn't compare to that 3-D screening. I really thought I was looking at the future of movies.
Was discussing this not too long ago. Few directors understand the purpose of 3D other than to use it as a gimmick.
After watching The Conformist today, and now reading this entry, I question what a director such as Bertolucci would do with 3D. Avoid it? Or, in my opinion, use it to create a more immersive environment where more than single objects pop out at you but rather the entire environment including the lighting.
By the way, have you ever seen an old 3D Camera? It basically looks like a series of flat objects layered, as if you saw a bunch of cardboard cutouts. It is as ineffective as most of the movies.
I agree with others. Beowulf in 3D was enjoyable, especially the dragon scene. It made that scene better. But in order for 3D to truly be effective I won't see spears chucked over my fellow moviegoers heads. I won't see the moviegoers at all. And I'll probably get a headache from watching the screen wrapped around my head (like old virtual reality games).
I enjoy 3-D. Sometimes it fun to get lost in a movie that including you in the action. Dodging and moving out of the way of stuff flying at ya.
Beowulf in 3-D was done perfectly. The atmosphere had an amazing depth which helped to set the tone of the world very nicely.
We're closer to 48 fps at home than you may think!
Traditional home televisions and projectors ran at 60 Hz, which seemed good since nearly everything used NTSC video at 30 fps (evenly divisible). However, since films are 24 fps, they had to be telecined to 30 fps, which ruined the quality of motion.
When Blu-ray and HD DVD were announced, they both offered 24 fps capability for the first time, a bold move since HD displays were still 60Hz.
Slowly this has changed, and now HD displays commonly accept multiple rates, including 96Hz (evenly divisible by 24). But as you may of already realized, 96Hz is also divisible by 48. Not only that, but the Blu-ray encoding schemes accept 48 fps, and the discs have the capacity to store it. Videophiles are split on whether current Blu-ray players could output it. Even if not, seeing that Blu-ray player specifications are already on their "third generation", it could easily be made part of a future generation.
The only 3D I would ever recommend is live theatre. Of that - the best 'gotcha' comes in the finale of Sondheim’s musical 'Assassins'. Trust me when I say it's more than a little bit unnerving having a stage full of guns pointed directly in your face - even if you manage to convince yourself they're all unloaded.
I second (or third) the praise for U2-3D. When the camera sits behind the band and looks out across the sea of people stretching off into the distance I understood for the first time why Bono's ego is the way it is. If that was what you saw every time you went to work you might get a swollen head yourself!
On 60fps film projecting, the image might be wondrous but the silver (and countless other chemicals) and gallons of water used to create each print, the fuel used to transport the (probably 60kg) boxes, thousands of times over, all over the world - it's killing the planet and digital is the only sustainable way to see films on the giant screen.
Roger,
I edited the 8th edition of the American Cinematographer Manual for Steve Poster when he was President of the ASC. I also worked for Doug Trumbull back in the 80s managing his effects facility during Blade Runner and also trying to get people to embrace Showscan.
I also, for some inexplicable reason, was the only person that knew where to find the Blade Runner VFX final composites so they could be seen again for the first time since 1982. These were incorporated into last year's "Final Cut" release of that film.
I so applaud your comments about 3-D!
Best regards,
Rob Hummel
Some years ago I saw the 3-D version of Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder". I hadn't known it was done in 3-D. But a Berkeley movie house owner paid for a new print so he could show it during a limited engagement. The 3-D wasn't needed but it was good and unlike any other 3-D treatment I've seen. I hadn't noticed how the actors moved behind lamps and such around the apartment -- that was Hitchcock's 3-D use, and it was very good.
Other than that the 3 Stooges in 3-D worked the best of the "poke things at the audience" style, but even the Stooges couldn't make that work right; it was a bit too much like SCTV's Dr. Tongue in 3-D spoof.
As ever, Roger, I think you're dead right here. 3-D is an insultingly stupid marketing gimmick and nothing more. It reminds me of William Castle's cheap promotional tricks, but without any of the low grade charm and imagination Castle's ideas had.
On a side note, my mother told me that when she was a little girl the 3-D craze of the fifties passed her by since, as a baby an accident cost her one of her eyes. The fact that clear binocular vision is required to experience 3-D's slim kicks is another thing that has since bothered me about the process. As if it weren't stupid and pointless enough out of the gate. Jeffrey Katzenberg's obsession with 3-D is all I need to remind me of the artlessness of it all.
I actually think the new RealD process is excellent, or at least can be, if used correctly. By far the best 3D I have ever seen is at Disney World, in Mickey's Philharmagic. There is a scene where Ariel reaches out over the audience that is just amazing, as is the scene of Peter Pan standing on Big Ben. I usually see the film at least five times when I visit. But then, Disney doesn't stop at 3D, and adds effects like smell o'vision and spraying water. This is just a ten minute showcase, which doesn't really answer the question about whether 3D works for full length narrative films. Roger, if you haven't seen "Nightmare Before Christmas" in 3D you really owe it to yourself to so. I have traveled an hour and half for the last two years to see it, and it has become sort of a holiday tradition. The film hasn't been changed at all, in terms of having stuff shoot out of the screen, but the depth perception of the image is just amazing. The fact is that the film was shot on three dimensional sets, and the original presentation flattened them out. The 3D remaster, overseen by Tim Burton, is the way the film was meant to be seen. I generally agree with Roger about digital projection, but the Disney 3D (or Real D, same thing) isn't bad.
I have seen 3D done, perhaps not right but respectably for its age in the consumer nation of mass production. Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas, it was not written for 3D and therefore had nothing "pop" out of the screen. It was more like watching actors on a stage. It was beautiful and entrancing. I was pulled deeper into the movie than I ever have been. That is how it should be done.
I think the main problem, in a sense, is that 2D is perfect, particularly in theaters, because it's like looking through a window. When something runs through the window, our view is obscured, and we are distracted. If 3D is to become usable, it neeeds to sto appearing in theaters designed for 2D, and find another setup. I don't know what this setup is, but there must be one.
PS: I've remembered an example of great 3D: TERMINATOR 2D 3D: BATTLE ACROSS TIME. It's a ride in Universal Studios, FL, and it it FLAWLESS. It synchronizes live action with 3D so that real people ride directly into the screen. The secret? Mist and laser lights effectively remove the "window", and the wall around it.
Also, maybe some 3D should be subtler- for example, if someone was sitting at a table oncscreen, their arms should be folded on the theater screen. And maybe we need holograms. Maybe we need a special committee to go to work, examine the possibilties for Hollywood, and bla bla bla...
Point is, Terminator worked. The cardboard red-and-glasses do not. A final note: Funnily enough, this new red-and-blue movie outdates the comment made by Roger Ebert about SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL being the last red-and-blue film. Weird.
Dear Roger,
I believe I can address your question why HD approximates film instead of using 60 fps, and the answer is two-fold:
1) There are, in fact, a number of HD formats that use 60 fps -- however, 60 fps is a rate that's fairly uncommon outside areas that do not use NTSC. Film on the other hand, is known and used worldwide and the 24 fps rate of film is far more widespread than either of the two dominant video standards (60 fps NTSC and 50 fps PAL).
2) The choice of rates is actually fundamentally irrelevant. In post and broadcast engineering, perceptual correctness is generally considered more critical than technical correctness -- if it LOOKS right, it IS right -- so provided the perceptual quality of something is considered acceptable at a lower frame rate or bit depth, that is sufficient rationale to leave well enough alone.
There are additional technical complexities that factor into the decision, such as the acquisition and distribution mechanisms, available computational horsepower, interstitial and final output devices, etc., but bottom line is that 60 fps doesn't provide anything more for the viewer than the lower rates, and they are easier to implement.
It's a little shameful that an industry panel couldn't answer this question competently, though.
A 3D movie is bad when a bad 3D movie has been created. A 3D movie is good when a good 3D movie is created. I think it is possible to make a good movie with spacial characteristics that go beyond our current 2D format. U23D is a great spacial experience that proves the point.
The problem with 3D movie making today maybe that they are made by people who have dedicated there creative lives to the art of cinematography which is the art of taking a disorganized spacial world and distilling it down (expertly) into a two dimensional moving picture experience. They have become so good at it that 2D movies are a fantastically enjoyable way to experience a story.
Stereography is the art of taking a disorganized spacial world and translating it into a theatrical, creative space without ever going through a 'flat picture' process. The end result is not a moving picture show but a moving spacial show. People who might be good at this are possibly not the people currently making movies. Maybe a stage director or a sculptor like Catherine Owens who directed U23D with 3ality. Our problem is that painters are being asked to make great sculpture. I am not saying you can't do both but being an expert in one does not make you an expert in the other without incredible effort to understand the medium for its own unique abilities.
Technically there are few limitations for spacial movie making today. Now the creators are the ones that need to show what they can do with the media. The best spacial movies we have seen so far are clearly a long way from being the best they can become...you would think.
Modern Times - Charlie Chaplin...
..is a fascinating movie to watch, with this discussion in mind, as it represents the use of sound at the same stage we are today with 3D. The movie is created mainly in the style of a 'silent movie'. Chaplin performs without speech pantomiming his emotions. His words are conveyed through title cards while the sound track plays the music. Then unexpectedly we get 'sound effects' that seem out of context with the movies style. Chaplin turns on a radio and we hear the sound from the speaker. He turns it on and off several times playing with the volume to maximize the audio effect. Next we see the boss of the futuristic factory speaking to the workers through a video screen. His words are heard in synchronization with the moving picture. Its a technological wonder with gimmicky appeal.
I am sure everyone had a strong opinion about sound back then. I am glad we got over it and went on to make movies that don't have "In Stereophonic Sound" on the poster. Spacial movies in the future will also separate themselves from todays cinematographical ideas. If they don't there wont be any.
I am encouraged by the efforts we are seeing today to understand the new medias possibilities. I talk to many artists at a variety of studios about creating stereoscopic stories. Universally the intention is to produce a more engaging, connected, visceral, tangible, effecting story experience. Everyone watching should expect mistakes as we struggle to find our way to this undeniably rewarding experience.
If, like me, you are lucky enough to spend many hours looking at or creating spacial content you will no doubt share my sense of loss every time I go to a regular 2D movie theater and watch a moving picture show that fights valiantly to represent depth on the flat screen, something that comes so naturally when a story is created in space.
Phil McNally (I work at Dreamworks Animation as the Global stereoscopic Supervisor - this comment is my personal opinion)
I have a very split opinion of 3D. While I understand the argument that it has been used in a gimmicky way and it is nothing more than a "bells ans whistles" way to bring a few more audience members in, I have seen some remarkable 3D in the past two years.
I have not seen RealD 3D so my observation is completely biased toward IMAX. I Manage an IMAX theater. Needless to say, I see more IMAX 3D features thanother formats.
To me, 3D is awesome. But, it does have to be utilized properly. An example of a slight gaffe in recent 3D production was in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. They had the right ambition to run 3D during the climax but the mistake was made when they created a finale that included rapid sideways movement and all that sand in a vortex. it made you move your head side to side and looking at different angles through polarized lenses created a mild vertigo and ruined it for me slightly. That being said, the 3D shot in the same feature but used in general motion and during scenes that were not loaded with action helped enhance the illusion.
Any animated feature shot in 3D will do better, I think, than live action. This is due to the 3D rendering and DMR. The filmmakers can manipulate the images and scenes easier to accomodate the 3D element. Beowulf was very good in the imagery department in its use of 3D. I Watched it about 5 times when we showed it. I had to. The first couple of times I saw it I found myself watching the background and marvelling at the excellent depth of field used in the camera shots. When I later bought it on DVD I watched it once and it had lost its luster. To me the ONLY way to see that film was in IMAX 3D.
U23D was, by far, the best use of 3D I have seen. It was exactly what the definition of total immersion is supposed to be. Every camera angle, every fade was made with 3D in mind. It literally brought you into the concert. And the soundtrack was great too.
It's easy to say that running 48fps or even scarier, 60fps, would be great. but there are significant logistical considerations that people who don't work in the trenches of this industry cannot comprehend, or would not understand. First being, in terms of IMAX, The Dark Knight, at 2 hours and 47 minutes (24 fps), literally runs to the end of our platters. The print weighs over 1000 pounds (compared to 35mm which weighs about 60-70 pounds) if you did 48fps on IMAX the maximum run time you'd have is about 90 minutes, to the end of the platter. Probably less. Anyone who has been accustom to seeing 35mm run would freak out if they saw how fast a platter driving a 24fps IMAX print took off at, to double that would be unbelievably scary. 60fps would be under an hour and i wouldn't want to be in the projection booth when the print started. aside from that there would definitely be chaos incarnate to have one frame off sync on anything that big. I have seen 3D out of sync by 1 or 2 frames and it is dizzying. It perfectly replicates intoxication.
In terms of cost. The cost to develop 70mm for 48fps would be extreme. At 24fps, with the information given to me, the cost to replace a print of 24fps 70mm film is upwards of $150k to double that would be a burden. Especially with more and more IMAX locations popping up.
On a different note. Not many companies are able, or willing, to pay decent salaries to their projectionists, even companies that have IMAX booths, so the result of that is 18-20 something's who do things the way kids that age do, in a hurried fashion. You can't afford to have that happen in a regular IMAX setting, let alone one moving 2-2.5 times faster. One misstep could not only be very costly but extremely dangerous.
I actually look forward to the Digital IMAX systems. They will save huge money and not lose clarity. They would also be able to reproduce faster frame rates for HD imagery if they are shot using high speed digital cameras. I think the 3D will improve and all will be well.
I, personally, will miss building prints, handling the film, and all of the other things that come along with a lifetime of projection time. But that's they way things change. And it has been coming for a while now. So we should embrace it.
I liked "The Birds" in 3-d at Universal Studios many years ago when i was a kid, but I don't remember them showing the whole film in 3-d though--just one scene with birds flying at the you.
I found it a little fascinating about the eye evolving thing. The theory I know about eye evolution is that the eyes were the first thing to form and it evolved--being the most sensitive to light--away from light because light was harmful.
So, I also agree that "intelligent design" is flawed because the only thing i really know about it--or want to know--is that God created everything just as it is. But just look around at us. We have different skin colors, the Europeans have long, skinny, noses with a pointy curve (which is to warm the air they breathe) and African Americans--I guess, the adverse concerning air temperature etc. The point being that it is obvious that we have adapted to the environment, so, it is not much of a stretch to suggest that over millions of years of natural selection we all looked profoundly different than we do now. Given how little I know about "intelligent design", it seems racist to think that the way we look now is the way it always was and will be--that study just released indicated that in 2042 whites will no longer be the majority in the United States--less than a hundred years later after the civil rights movement whites are not going to be the majority. The civil rights has got nothing on nature.
What's funny about the Beowulf thing is that I actually saw it in 2-D, and completely forgot it was supposed to be in 3-D. But I up until that point I was pulling out my hair at why everything in the movie was flying at the damn screen. Even when two people were just talking one of them had to toss something at the screen. Then my friend reminded me it was to be seen in 3-D and these grating moments were just part of the gimmick. So it's funny that not only do 3-D movies blow, but they make the 2-D versions suck almost as badly.
The best 3-D film I have seen is IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, which is right behind THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS as the best "alien invasion" film of the fifties. There are some gimmicky scenes, but Jack Arnold used 3-d beautifully in capturing the desert environment, and the use of alien POV shots.
Roger gets the first half of the evolution of vision correct, but depth perception did not evolve on the savannah, but earlier in our primate ancestry, when we were still living in trees and it proved effective in navigating our way through that environment. Additionally, predatory animals on that same savannah have more effective depth perception than prey animals, as it is an essential tool for their survival. A prey animal would need only vision effective enough notice the movement of a potential predator to survive.
It would also be more precise to say, instead of evolving away from the perception of more light and motion, we moved towards the perception of more gradations of light and motion (including color). This not only led us to the ability to watch a film (remember that a movie is just a series of successive image gradations being shown rapidly which the brain is able to process as complex movement), but to understand a film as well, since the evolution of a perceptual system able to take in large and complex sensory outputs necessitated the evolution of cognitive structures able to effectively process them.
Well, Roger, you could've have just said: "I don't like 3-D movies, so there, don't ask me to review them anymore and I won't."
However, being the astute and knowledable observer that you are, it seemed only natural that you would give pearls to a subject that doesn't require them.
I'm always impressed by your insights. No matter how important or unimportant. We're all very grateful for that. I hope you keep on writing.
Well, here's what happened to poor Garfield and Jon:
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/1985/ga850914.gif
Talkies? Just a gimmick. It will never last.
Color? What for? Black and white is just fine for the majority of filmgoers.
Television? who wants to sit and look at a box anyway?
The point is every new technology has its naysayers, and this is no exception. A lot of this sounds just a bit snobbish.
Interesting article... but isn't 3-D the point for some films? Why remake JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH unless you're going to make it in 3-D? I went to see it, not to see if Pat Boone was going to have a cameo or somebody was going to eat a duck, but to see things thrown out of the screen at me. I got my money's worth there, let me tell you. CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and HOUSE OF WAX are two pretty good movies by themselves, but when I saw them in 3-D I expected them not to be better, but to have fish and melted wax end up in my lap. 3-D is cheezy in and of itself, so cheezy movies work better.
This is about as ridiculous as your views on interactive media as cinematic or artistic experience.
As with any new form, 3d will take awhile to grapple with, and must be experimented with to find what works best.
You need to quit being so conservative and at least try to entertain the possibility of the new aesthetics these technologies will enable, instead of just damning them before they even have a chance to show their potential.
Or is stereo sound too much for you too?
Hi Roger, yes I agree with you completely about the 3-D experience, not very good or comfortable. I have been working for years on 48-frame technology in both 65/70, Super Dimension-70 and now digital, DMX! Jims evaluation of the benifits of 48-frame methods and results are accurate. We have several venues in LA (Egyptian to name one)that are used to showcase film vs digital employing the heigher frame rate and the image on the screen is incredable. It is like looking out a window, 3-D in reverse, and the effect is stunning. Also, it is now possible to take a 24-frame film and upconvert it to 48-frames emulating the higher frame rate value added experience. Dr.Dick Vetter one of our associates who developed D-150 and worked at Fox on Todd-AO is a true believer of SDS-70 and digital cinama DMX 48-frames over 24fps or 30fps!The digital projection at 48-frames actually emulates the look of 70mm with a sharp bright and large (50-80ft) picture. Regards, Robert Weisgerber
Ebert: I can't wait to see it! Dr. Vetter was a guest at Ebertfest and spoke after the screening of a stunning print of "Patton" in D-150. It was dramatic how the perfect focus extended to every inch of the frame.
Glad to see another 3-D non-believer. However, I have to disagree on the IMAX goggles. While they did produce a far superior image to the red/blue disposal specs, they also produced one of the worst headaches I have ever had in my life ... almost at migraine intensity, to tell you the truth. I had to take the goggles off 15-20 minutes into the feature (an educational film at a Denver museum) and sit back and rest for a while.
I loved Monster House in 3D and don't think it works as well in 2D. The house's teeth were much scarier in 3D--they actually looked sharp--and the leaves blowing around (and at) the audience in the opening credits really set the tone. Which makes me wonder: Are horror movies better at using 3D than other genres?
I was at the computer animation convention Siggraph recently and watched a clip from Kung Fu Panda in 3D--the scene where the villain breaks out of prison. (The speaker discussed the procedure for changing the 2D movie into 3D--they basically had to reanimate most, if not all of, the original 2D movie to have it make sense in 3D.) We went to see the whole thing last night in 2D, and there was no comparison. We're now dying to see the whole thing in 3D.
I completely agree with you on 3-D. It ONLY works if it's about adding depth into the image, and not things jumping out at you, which is cool for like thirty seconds but cannot sustain interest for a feature. Furthermore, I would submit that animation is the only REALLY effective use of the technique. Live-action films thrive on cuts, and every time a 3-D film cuts, your eye has to re-orient itself to the new depth of field. 3-D films REQUIRE long takes. The IMAX 3-D finale of Harry Potter last year was befuddling because half the time my eye didn't know where to be looking amidst these quick cuts. I know they plan to do the same with Half-Blood Prince, but I plan to skip it. Now, I saw "Meet the Robinsons" in 3-D and that almost completely worked. Most of it was not jump out at you stuff, but about images receding. It looked good. The new Disney logo looks fabulous this way. But otherwise, whenever they "dimensionalize" films, they don't look realistic; they look like moving shadowboxes where everybody is a cut-out piece of paper.
Oh, and "Fly Me to the Moon" is flat out lying in their ad campaign, claiming to be the first animated movie made for 3-D. Walt Disney made two 3-D shorts called "Adventures in Music" as well as a Chip and Dale in the 1950s.
I can't believe no one has mentioned the old joke, which my father told me about in relation to the first spate of 3d movies in the 1950s: "Have you heard they now have a 4D movie? It's 3D with a plot." Every 3D movie I've ever seen seems to get so caught up in the technical aspects that they forget to make the movie worth watching in the first place.
I am physically unable to watch a film with the old 3D process. I have one functioning eye and it kills the supposed effect. What I see is just a flat slightly blurry image tinted in which ever colour is over the left lens of the glasses, all it does for me is clear up the triple picture.
I've seen only two 3D features in my life in the old process, "Jaws 3D" and a ten minutes 3D sequence in one of the "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies. Plus, I actually saw a 1953 Three Stooges short called "Spooks!" that was originally in 3D - with Moe's eye-poke coming right at you! - (please don't judge my cinematic taste by those films). To me, they looked blurry.
I was delighted with the Real-D process because I could experience it for the first time. The great thing is that the films were "Beowulf" and "The Polar Express". These films were beautiful and the 3D didn't distract because it didn't call attention to itself.
The fact that the digital 3D stereoscopic projection technology does not require two projectors means it does not require fully functioning vision in both eyes and I could enjoy the process for the first time. Now if they could create a process by which we wouldn't have to wear those dopey glass, I'd be a happy man.
You really need to separate between 'bad' stereo 3D and 'good' stereo 3D. Right now your blog post, and most of the negative comments here, are slamming the entire stereo medium just because it hasn't been used effectively. If everybody released movies with bad or distracting soundtracks, would you slam audio as having been a waste of time? If movies had an explosion every 5 seconds (I know, some do ;), would you say sound was only good as a gimmick?
Stereo 3D is a medium that needs to be used seamlessly. Studios are still seeing it as something they have to 'sell' the audience, when in fact all that does is disrupt the experience. All the other aspects of a movie (sound mixes, camera motion, lighting etc.) are expertly seamless - and so a viewer can surrender to them and get lost in the story. Stereo 3D generally isn't yet (for technical, artistic and political reasons) - when films finally get it to this point, 3D will enhance the story, and be as beautiful, as all the other aspects of a good film.
Hollywood sticks with 24FPS for one main reason - it is what people are used to, and therefore, it is what appears "right." It was the same with art. Look at medieval painting. Once upon a time, babies bodies were painted with adult-like proportions. Faces were stylized. That was what looked "right" at that time. It is the power of convention.
I recently saw an IMAX film about Jane Goodall. There was an aerial shot near the beginning of the film of the jungle canopy. It looked 3-D, but we weren't wearing any special goggles.
So called 2-D film is actually three-dimensional already. Shadows, light, lines and framing all combine to create the illusion of depth. A wider projection enhances this effect (70mm or IMAX) because it closely approximates our eyes' own wide field of view).
3-D is just another silly gimmick, and is a shoddy substitute for good storytelling and good photography (videography, whatever).
Please allow me to clear up some misconceptions about 3-D which have been repeated so often they are now accepted as fact.
There were 50 movies made during the Golden Age of 3-D, from 1952 to 1955. All of them were originally shown in the superior, dual-strip Polaroid format: two 35mm prints were projected onto a silver screen in precise synchronization and were viewed through Polaroid glasses. (This process dates back to the 1939 New York World's Fair.) The inferior red/blue anaglyph versions of some films (Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Maze, Robot Monster, etc.) were not created until the 1970's for re-issue purposes. The advantage to anaglyph 3-D is that it can be shown on one projector on a standard screen. Unfortunately, the quality of the stereoscopic image is severely diminished.
I love the notion that these were low budget, "cheesy" exploitation movies with no name casts. Here's a partial list of some big stars that appeared in front of the 3-D camera: John Wayne, Rita Hayworth, Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Bob Fosse, Robert Mitchum, Linda Darnell, Jack Palance, Edward G. Robinson, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Jane Russell, Ray Milland, Grace Kelly, Victor Mature, Robert Stack, Jose Ferrer, Vincent Price, Joan Fontaine, Phil Silvers, Randolph Scott, Charles Bronson, Karl Malden, Ernest Borgnine, Rhonda Fleming, Robert Ryan, Lee Marvin, Virginia Mayo, Lee J. Cobb, Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Rock Hudson, etc. Not a shabby list of talent there!
Great directors and cinematographers worked on these films, including John Alton, Raoul Walsh, Douglas Sirk, Roy Baker, George Sidney, William Cameron Menzies. Jack Arnold, Budd Boetticher, Charles Roscher, Hal Wallis and many more. For the most part, they respected the "stereo window" and did not resort to gimmicks in order to enhance the process.
The only studio guilty of excessive exploitation would have been Columbia, and more specifically the William Castle/Sam Katzman productions. But for every film that was guilty of throwing an over abundance of objects at the camera (Fort Ti, Charge at Feather River, Man in the Dark, Spooks) there were many, many others which utilized great restraint in their use of the process. Check out the superb cinematography on Hondo, Second Chance, I the Jury, Inferno, Miss Sadie Thompson, Taza-Son of Cochise and The Glass Web for some excellent examples of the dimensional process.
The often cited paddle ball sequence in House of Wax was there for a very specific reason: that sequence was immediately following the intermission point. Director Andre deToth felt the barker was an effective way to bring the audience back into the story. In fact, in the following scene Vincent Price comments, "we won't need him once we're established." How true!
The overuse of gimmicks became commonplace in the 1970's and 1980's with movies such as Comin' at Ya, Treasure of the Four Crowns, Friday the 13th 3-D and Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. There was also a great deal of eyestrain in these single-strip titles. For the most part, the features from the 1950's were very well photographed.
Finally, I'll point out that most of the features from the 1950's were originally shown in widescreen, ranging in aspect ratios from 1.66 to 2.1. They were photographed with widescreen in mind, although they were also protected for 1.37. After the summer of 1953, most major theaters ran them in their proper widescreen versions.
For an excellent overview of the process, check out http://centraltheater.blogspot.com/2007/03/whos-trashing-3-d-or-3-d-whats-it-to-me.html
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to set the record straight.
Bob Furmanek
Vice President
3-D Film Preservation Fund
What's 3D??? I have not seen Bob's SDS-70 process yet, but Showscan in particular, and 70mm in general are the best processes for giving a believeable 3D effect in a movie. I have seen the 3D film "Captain EO" in twin 70mm, and must admit it was really excellent. But I think 3D is only good for short subject movies or education. It just gets irritating wearing glasses after 20 minutes no matter how good the effect is. I don't believe in 3D for feature films. Forget about 3D. Go see some 70mm films instead. Until May next year, we have at least five 70mm film festivals in Europe, where you can enjoy the "illusion of reality". 70mm film is very, very good - almost like the real world. Come and see it before it's too late. Cheers Thomas, editor, www.in70mm.com
Schedule: http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing
A good movie is a good movie whether in 2D or 3. A bad movie can't be saved by a gimmick.
But if you ask if I ever saw a movie that could have been better in 3D.... how about Finding Nemo? I imagine the filmmakers spent months concocting ways to place their characters in relative space in the water. Their solutions were genius, but the compromises in staging must have been myriad. A 3D version would more closely approximate the experience one has when snorkeling or diving and increase the already considerable beauty of this animated classic.
Jerry: It's funny you mention that, because a disproportinate number of directors of 3-D films were blind in one eye: Andre DeToth, Raoul Walsh, and Herbert Strock were all unable to see their own films in the 3-D versions. On the excellent featurette to IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, renowned movie memorabilia curator Bob Burns notes that the films's Xenomorphs, being cyclopean creatures, can't see their own movie either.
Have we not given up on the notion that technological innovation "will not work"?
I thought the last decade had silenced all the naysayers who poo poo innovation because they don't understand it. In 1980, would you have imagined a pc at home, or on you lap, or in your hand, or in your phone? Guess what, in the future, your pc WILL be a chip the size of a grain of rice in embedded in you. Why? Because we can. How about live TV in the palm of your hand? How about a curtain that is an LED screen? How about paint that has pixels in it so you can spray a wall or any object and make it a TV? It is all here.
In the last century, we have heard things like "How will the audience understand anything with all these voices over each other" (sound) Remember, audiences ran out of the theatre screaming when they saw the Lumiere brothers' train come into the station! Audiences and filmmakers will adapt to 3D the way they did to sound and color and surround sound, and now IMAX. The days of dissing technology because “I don’t like it” and “I don’t understand it” are way behind us. And guess what, technology waits for no one. Embrace it or be left behind. It is your choice. It was not long ago that filmmakers said that movies would NEVER be shot on video. Well how about a hard drive? How about a memory stick and emailed to the theatre? How about an HD QuickTime? If you want to know the future of 3D filmmaking, don't ask anyone over 30. Ask the children.
Many inventions seem great when they come out (and many seem ridiculous) but sadly, only the well financed will survive. 3D is now well financed. Samsung, Apple, Nokia, NHK, ALL the film studios and many other giants are well invested in it. It is not going away. Look to Japan for the technological future where you can see 3D TV being broadcast right now.
3D IS the future of all visual content. It will be in the cinema, it will be on your TV, in your video games and on your PC. It will be on you phone, your fridge, all billboard advertising... glasses, and soon no glasses. It will because it can. Filmmakers can still shoot film, - heck, they can still shoot black and white, super 8, pixel vision, whatever they want - but shooting in 2D or "flat" will be your grandchildren's creative filmmaking choice.
U23D proved that seeing a concert in 3D could be better that seeing it live. Once we see live sports in 3D (and they are testing it now) 2D will be over. Not every 2D film is good. Not every 3D film will be good, but eventually, 3D films will be story driven, visceral, immersive experiences. Isn't that what movies are supposed to be?
Roger, last week I bought a video camera for my 11-year-old nephew. That day was a monumental realization for me as a filmmaker. His FIRST camera is a "drag and drop" DVD camcorder. Not only will he not know what film is (he will never edit on a Steinbeck) he will never know what videotape in! He has skipped film AND videotape.
His children will skip 2D.
I have a visual defect that only allows me to see real-life in 2D. The only way I can see in 3D is at a 3D movie or stereoscopic (or "Magic Eye") pictures.
Needless to say, I love 3D movies. I thought 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' was a hoot in 3D - I can't imagine it being half the fun in 2D (and remember, to me, 2D is MORE realistic).
I have a pair a LCD glasses for my home TV, and a selection of 3D movies at home. I wish more of the 'Golden Age' of 3D movies were available in field sequential versions (and I hate horror, so that does lessen my selection quite a bit).
So will the New Wave of 3D movies get me into the theater? You bet your sweet bippy. Especially the Pixar ones - Pixar is about the only thing that gets me into the theater these days anyway, so Pixar in 3D would be a fantasy come true.
Movies I would love to see in 3D - "Finding Nemo" and "Wings of Desire" especially. Can you imagine the flying sequences in 3D, in the hands of a master like Wim Wenders? THAT would be worth driving the hour and a half to the nearest 3D theater!
I also do 3D photography, and everyone who sees my pictures agrees that 3D is far more engaging - instead of just glancing at a photo, 3D invites you to study it, become absorbed in it. A GOOD 3D movie can, and should, do the same.
I'm not a fan of 3-D, and the reason behind it is rather individual. One of my eyes has 20/20 vision, the other 20/60. When I watch 3-D movies, I can never successfully see the 3-D effects. My success with movies and disposable glasses has been nil. I've had mild success at a theme park (Universal Studio's Terminator attraction), but even then I could not see all of the effects. Having seen a multitude of 3-D movies without the distraction of the effects, they're usually comical in their forced efforts to throw things at the screen to break the visual plane. I can't say they're all terrible, but most of them have been subpar. I've since learned to avoid the 3-D film and stick with the vetted technology.
The "optimal" rate for a videogame to run is at 60 frames per second, otherwise gamers whine about performance and immersion. Has Roger inadvertently endorsed an aspect of videogame culture to be put forward into film? Maybe not, but as it is my longstanding belief that the videogame industry will heavily influence the film industry in the upcoming years (think of how we, today, have incredibly talented filmmakers from the so-called MTV generation), that little tidbit jumped at me.
The frame rate issue plays in with Mr. Furmanek's post. He mentions the dual 35mm images projected synchronously. With a frame rate of 48 (double 24) you can use half for one eye and half for the other and still reach 24 per eye/per sec. Its my understanding that this is how the polarized 3D works.
The Cinema in the future:
The screen will have so much light that the projected Sun can really shine inside blinding us. It can create such a perfect low light that a star can really twinkle, that there are hidden layers of information appearing as our eyes settle in darkness. That its frame-rate is so high that any movement can be seamless. That the screen will occupy all your vision, even from above and our sides in a gigantic hologram illusion. Our heads can bounce and it indeed changes the perspective naturally. And no glasses.
It will not be a film. It may be done without a camera as we know it. But it will be Cinema.
Possible? Yes. Probable? Definitively. How long? 20~30 years from now. Cinema is, and always has been, a technological art. 3D for now is just an element of this neverending evolution. 3D may not reach the James Cameron dream of a lucid dream. But is a step forward.
Thank you, Roger, for your provocative comments about stereoscopic cinema. It's also great to see so much commentary about 3D movies. Stereoscopic imaging is now becoming commonplace in all forms of visual culture including, and especially, in cinema where it is just beginning to advance (once again) as a storytelling art.
The great filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein, in his last essay, expressed the inexorable nature of this advance when he wrote: "To doubt that stereoscopic cinema has its to-morrow is as naive as doubting whether there will be to-morrows at all."
After viewing stereoscopic films at the Moscow Stereokino in the 1940s, Eisenstein's biographer Ivor Montague observed that the "attempt to tell a story or convey an emotion, utilising the full keyboard of possible dramatic effects in composition and editing proper to stereoscopy, must at the present stage of developments be like the efforts of a novice." He added, however, that "one's fingers itch to mould and sculpt in this new medium. What a fascinating task it must be to explore its ranges. All that has been contrived in it so far is no more than lisping baby-language, compared to the roaring eloquence or pregnant whisper it may one day add to our vocabulary."
I know nothing about film, but as far as framerates in digital video go, the bandwidth issue is a red herring. "We're using it all to improve spatial dimensions" implies that increasing height & width is far more effective than increasing framerate. Sure, it is if you're going through frame by frame, but who does that? What matters is the total information our brain processes, & two pictures taken in quick succession provide more information than one image with double the detail (see below); speaking in sensible realms, of course. By the time you're up into the hundreds of FPS, the situation is quite reversed. Anyway, the logical upshot of this is that a 1080p24 movie is quite comparable to a 720p60 movie in terms of detail, as long as you don't pause it. This prevents the crap you see when watching high-speed motion at 24 FPS, while still looking as good. In short, resolution is what matters, & resolution is a function of height, width, & framerate: movies are already 3D :P
Obviously a stationary shot gains nothing from higher framerates but loses out with smaller dimensions. Never fear, though, as modern video formats can handle variable framerates. I'm not sure if they can do variable dimensions, but the point is unimportant as modern container formats can handle placing one video stream immediately after another. If there was anybody with both intelligence & pluck in the upper reaches of the movie industry, Blu-Ray & digital theatres would be taking advantage of this. Resolution changes on display hardware might take a while, but any player worth sneezing at, software or hardware, can scale the video to the screen's optimum dimensions & framerate.
I'm guessing the reason we still use such low framerates is related to film & inertia, but as I stated above, I don't really have a clue. Hopefully I've shed some light on the digital side of the equation, though.
Thomas D., don't confuse gaming frame rates with film frame rates. A film usually captures motion blur (as the camera lens is open for a significant period of time) - this gives our brains information about the motion that occurred _between_ frames.
Games generally don't have motion blur, each frame is perfectly in focus - that's why games need much higher frame rates to convey smooth motion.
Games often mimic motion blur. This generation's big "in thing" is bloom lighting and is sometimes overused to compensate for things like motion blur, though I won't be surprised if we see that implemented in the near future.
Hi Roger; I browsed some comments and responses above but didn't see this question asked yet: what do you think about James Cameron's upcoming film "Avatar" (I believe his goal is to have it screened only in 3-D)? There are rumours that this film will "transform the industry," etc., not just with its special effects, but with its integration of 3-D. Are you still skeptical of a filmmaker like Cameron using this technology, or do you think he may have a chance at legitimizing 3-D film - at least more so than in recent times?
Ebert: Cameron wouldn't do it if he didn't think it could be done.
"Games often mimic motion blur. This generation's big "in thing" is bloom lighting and is sometimes overused to compensate for things like motion blur, though I won't be surprised if we see that implemented in the near future."
Each generation of video games has their own gimmicky features that are painfully overused.
Back in the days of Quake it was colored lighting. Levels would be like walking through a disco with walls of green, red, and yellow flashing everywhere.
Colored lighting wasn't used because it enhanced the visuals or atmosphere, but because it could be used. New video cards unlocked graphical features that developers felt compelled to show off.
Today, as you said, it's bloom, most notably "high definition lighting". Apparently that means everything has to be overexposed, washed out, and devoid of every color except white and brown.
As developers learn how to create more realistic images the bloom will be toned down to acceptable levels, characters and environments will have a less plastic saran wrap look, and graphics will become more refined.
That day can't come soon enough.
Like 3D movies, video games tend to include features that are only useful in showing off whatever the latest technology can do, not because it betters your understanding of the story.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I have been holding off on posting on your blog as I really didn't see the point in attempting to set you straight as you clearly are very involved with the industry for a very long time and certainly entitled to your learned opinion.
However, I now find myself needing to reply to your post as there are many readers of my 3D focused website that are either confused by what you have said - or they want my opinion of your comments.
So, at the behest of my readers, here is my retort.
Your opinion is basking in the glow of nostalgia Mr. Ebert. Yes I have a vested interest in 3D, but I can base my opinions on fact and not fiction.
You stated: "There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money's worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience. Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we're seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion."
NOT if used correctly and for that purpose! JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH is a family thrill ride and nothing more - it was MADE to have things coming at you - including the gravity influenced saliva of Brendan Fraser. James Cameron's AVATAR will be using 3D correctly and actually bringing the audience INTO the movie. Do not lump all 3D films into the category Mr. Ebert - you are sadly mistaken.
You stated: "There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground."
I find this paragraph to be far beneath you. In real life we do see in 3D OBVIOUSLY because we have 2 eyes. And yes we DO see things leaping at us: How on earth did you play catch with a baseball? It is called depth perception or Stereopsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereopsis) - it is that little thing that pilots must have in order to be licensed. And in a well made movie you will not have objects slowing down to augment a 3D effect unless it was intended to be part of the movie (like for example the bullet time effect in THE MATRIX). 3D is not realistic? This is an ignorant statement - we are obviously seeing in three dimensions as we have two eyes. It is as realistic as when I shut off my alarm clock in the morning without having to slap around my nightstand trying to find it in space.
You followed that nugget with "But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie."
Huh? I mean... WHAT? Yes, of course objects get larger and then when it gets close enough we detect depth. Why are you constantly referencing fast moving cars and cannonballs? Think about what really can be captured in a movie like catching a baseball as a kid from your father for example. I really dislike arguments from people that insist on either black or white. There is plenty of gray area in life! The baseball leaves your dad's hand and starts to get larger - you see the movement and the growth in size means it is coming towards you. Great, you position yourself. It is not until the ball gets close enough that your two eyes register two different images of the ball (depends on the distance of your eyes from each other). Your brain is then able to use your god given depth perception from TWO eyes to very accurately pinpoint where to catch the ball. It takes practice too. Not practice watching a ball get larger. Come on. HAND-EYE COORDINATION that is trained through depth perception. Honestly, are we back in school here?
You stated: "In my review of the 3-D "Journey to the Center of the Earth," I wrote that I wished I had seen it in 2-D: "Since there's that part of me with a certain weakness for movies like this, it's possible I would have liked it more. It would have looked brighter and clearer, and the photography wouldn't have been cluttered up with all the leaping and gnashing of teeth." "Journey" will be released on 2-D on DVD, and I am actually planning to watch it that way, to see the movie inside the distracting technique. I expect to feel considerably more affection for it."
That T-Rex sequence was one of the most entertaining and spell-binding bits of cinema I have seen in a long time. My opinion of course. So if you rather enjoy watching a T-Rex in 2D I would suggest Jurassic Park more so than JOURNEY. I have said it before, JOURNEY was meant to be a 3D thrill ride, nothing more. I won't waste your time trying desperately to dissect the "movie inside", whatever the heck that means. There is nothing else. It is a 3D family thrill ride! I can't believe I am saying this to the preeminent movie critic of our time, but you DO PREPARE yourself before a movie right? I mean, you don't walk into a horror movie expecting anything else but right? More than anything else I have commented on here - that is what I am most curious about from you Mr. Ebert.
You stated: "Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake."
Absolutely 100% yes - and in fact RAIDERS would have been better yes. Especially the boulder scene. You have an uncanny knack for picking the exact right cinematic sequences that SHOULD be in 3D! And you comparison of 3D to the undead creatures of lore is unremarkable. A childish attempt to wrap up your butchery with something akin to a grin. Sorry. Didn't work. Modern 3D is a completely different beast compared to 20th century 3D and YOU KNOW IT. It amazes me that an educated man in your position would froth forth such bile.
Here is MY OPINION Mr. Ebert. It is you that is obsolete. Ewww, I can hear the gasps of the readers now! Jim Dorey dares to insult Roger Ebert! Whatever. I think you have had your day and your relevance is slowly eroding. I appreciate all you have done to date, really I have and I have watched many episodes of your work.
Yes, maybe I am miffed at having to post on your site. But really Mr. Ebert, open your EYES. Both of them. THE WORLD IS NO LONGER FLAT my good man and your opinion is growing obsolete. It is time to listen to the Galileo's of the world. Like Jim Cameron or Jeff Katzenberg. You said it yourself - Cameron wouldn't be trying to make AVATAR if he didn't think he could do it. My money is on Cameron, not you Mr. Ebert.
For your readers information, I am the creator and editor of www.MarketSaw.com which is dedicated to 3D movies and technology.
-Jim Dorey
Ebert: Thanks! I would like to believe I have an open mind, as I did when praising "Polar Express" and "Beowulf." I can very much see the effectiveness of using 3-D to provide depth instead attacking the foreground, and I am anticipating "Avatar" as much as any movie coming out--except for a few, of course.
I'm a computer vision researcher with an interest in both stereo 3D photography and in full 3D photography. I also have both an avid interest in the cinema and in video games. I don't think 3D will ever become truly mainstream for the cinema.
Cinema is an art form based on observing objects from a distance in a non-interactive format. If anything gets close enough to the user to interact with, it is frustrating to not be able to do so, and the illusion is broken. If the object is far enough that you could not interact with it, 3D isn't a very big win. (In the limit as objects get far away from the viewer, they might as well be projected in 2D)
For video games it is an entirely different matter. 3D makes a lot more sense in contexts where the whole point is to interact with the environment. If a lot of annoying objects are getting thrown at you in a game, you will likely have some say in the matter. With motion sensing controllers, users already have the ability to give 3D input to their virtual worlds; it will be a very natural psychological extension to actually see the world in 3D.
The incremental cost of going to 3D will be much smaller for the makers of content, since most game content is 3D in nature from the start. The rendering hardware less than doubles in cost; you just have to render the scene from two very slightly different angles. For video games the jump to 3D is so easy that there are some video cards that can render the scene in 3D whether the original game was designed for it or not.
The optics for the scene can be optimized for the user, which will reduce eyestrain. There are limits to how well this can be done in a cinema environment. Your eyes are only about 2.5" apart. When you consider that this 2.5" tolerance is enough to create a stereoscopic 3D effect, it is a wonder that 3D works at all in theaters given how far apart users sit from the actual viewpoint of the 3D camera. In a videogame, the scene can be rendered from viewpoints that are actually appropriate for the locations of your eyeballs. Spatially accurate motion sensitive controllers are currently debuting on video game consoles, and this same technology can eventually be used to sense head position.
My hunch is that some day nearly all video games will be 3D, and nearly all movies will still be 2D. Then again, who knows? Perhaps we will see a genre of 3D content that is completely non-interactive aside from the user getting to choose their viewpoint. Would you consider such a medium to more capable of supporting your personal definition of art, Mr. Ebert? Within cinema, how much the director/cinematographer/cameraman tries to constrain the viewer's gaze is already a matter of great artistic import. Are the wider, higher resolution screens you advocate in any way analogous to my hypothesized view independent 3D movies? Is the inability of the viewer to look down actresses' dresses instead of paying attention to the plot an artistic asset or a hindrance of cinema as we know it?
Sorry for the long, rambling post; I have a lot of pent up thoughts about the relationship between art, interactivity, and 3D, and reading that you actually read comments on your blog was too tempting to pass up.
I belive thah Mr. Jim Dorey just can't understand what Mr. Ebert is saying here. Movies in 3D COULD be something good, and they probably will be some day, but they just are not NOW.
If we can only think of four movies which used 3D without letting 3D stand in the way of enjoying the actual movie, that really says something.
The world is not flat, it is in 3D, but our technology is still just not good enough to show it in a 3D in a good way.
However, as sure as we can say that we are not going to use oil for energy forever, we can say that we are not going to watch movies in 2D forever.
The future is coming, like it always did. And, I think that place of 3D movies will be in that (near) future, but for now 3D is just beeing tested. Like the color in movies was. And the sound in movies before.
And, after we get the technology right, we will need some time before our directors get used to this new technology and learn how to use it properly.
I have read somewhere something interesting about begining of the color in movies. Somebody said that in the begining people were going to the color movies just to be amazed by color itself. And after some time, they become demanding about color movies, like they were demanding about black and white movies before.
We can enjoy this new IMAX and other technology for it's effect, but we will slowly begin to need more out of this movies, not just the things jumping out at us.
And people like Mr. Ebert just got there first. And then they told to the world. After all, isn't that their job?
Srdjan Popovic
In all my years of movie watching, the best 3D effect I've seen is still the old Fleischer Studio's Popeye cartoons. In glorious 2D.
Dear Roger,
I hope this message finds you as the beginning date for this blog is growing old. I apologize in advance for all the parenthetical remarks. Ok, now for the good stuff.
ALERT! ALERT! DISNEY 3D IS THE REAL DEAL! – Roger Ebert changes D- to A+
Tonight in the name of family bonding, I took my wife and stepson to see Nightmare Before Christmas 3D at the Tivoli Theater in Downers Grove. Please let me sidetrack by saying this was my first time to the Tivoli and what a nice theater. (view photos here - http://www.classiccinemas.com/history/tivoli.asp) This is the first theater experience in a while that did not leave me dreaming of my plasma and blu-ray player. I especially enjoyed the opportunity of showing my stepson the live organist.
Back to business –I first knew this adventure into 3D might have a fighting chance when I received my glasses. They were solid black frames with CLEAR lenses. That’s right, no more flimsy cardboard with one red window and one blue window. Granted the ticket price was two dollars higher because of the glasses, but hey, who complains about the increased price of an IMAX show?
Two of the previews shown before the movie (ya know, opposed to the previews shown after the movie) were in 3D. They were for the upcoming movies Coraline, and Bolt. Wow, do they show how impressive 3D can be. I will admit they did have one or two “spear” parts, but I do believe that these two previews, standing on their own, are enough that we should now burn any wooden stakes we may have collected. (how’s that for an awkward sentence).
Now, let’s move on to the main feature. Roger, you will be happy to know that NBC3D shows us the technology with a “Spear” moment (which is actually really cool) only once and it is right before the actual movie begins. From then on, for the most part, the 3D magic is used subtly. The effect mostly just adds depth and body to the picture (sometimes just depth to the bodies in the picture, jk.). Images appear textured and layered, giving me a similar awe as when I view a good blu-ray (i.e. Apocalypto, or Incredible Hulk). Most notably for me was a very short scene involving a police car being driven. It truly seemed touchable. I did notice a few spots where the picture seemed fuzzy from the 3D, the most evident being the large moon, but these were few and far between. I can honestly say the 3D did not distract you from the film and did not detract from it, it only purely enhanced and enriched it. As I believe it is only being shown for another day or two, I urge you, with the same conviction I urge people my age (24) to see Lawrence of Arabia, to try and make a showing. If my testimony is not enough, let me end with the best part. As we left the theater my ten year old stepson said to me, “Wow, the glasses actually worked this time” (we had the misfortune of seeing sharkboy and lavagirl 3D). I believe when my stepson gets older he will be able to remember that moment as the time when 3D began its comeback.
P.S. As my recent wiki search has provided, apparently, “Disney 3d” is not a brand new technology and has been floating around the last couple years…here’s to it finding its walking legs.
If only Russ Meyer had used 3D in SuperVixens or Mondo Topless.....
The world as we know it would be a very different place.
BOLT in 3D sucked! The 3D glasses were cheap and made the movie fuzzy. My grand daughter wouldn't wear the glasses. Made the movie hard to watch. What a waste of $60 bucks for 3 people for one movie! I loved Beowulf in 3D! The glasses were better quality. They were like a hard plastic lens while the Bolt glasses had some cheap plastic film for the lens. Made a HUGE difference. I won't waste my money on another 3D movie if this is the future. Btw, both pairs of glasses were made by "REAL D".
I have a little problem with those against 3d. I like 3d and have always gone to see 3d since jaws 3d every chance I get, even if the movie isn't that great (or usually at disney world or Imax). They now actually have a small portion of movies in 3d if you want to see it that way. Now on the net I see comments that movies should only be in 2d. Well thankyou very much to those people. For the last fifty years 100 % of the movies have been in 2d and that is it. Now those of us who like it are told, no, that movies can only be released in one format, not both. Well thank you guys for being so generous, I don't see why having a second choice is so bad. Jeez, we even half to pay an extra $2.00 for it, you all don't. Oh well.
I have a little problem with those against 3d. I like 3d and have always gone to see 3d since jaws 3d every chance I get, even if the movie isn't that great (or usually at disney world or Imax). They now actually have a small portion of movies in 3d if you want to see it that way. Now on the net I see comments that movies should only be in 2d. Well thankyou very much to those people. For the last fifty years 100 % of the movies have been in 2d and that is it. Now those of us who like it are told, no, that movies can only be released in one format, not both. Well thank you guys for being so generous, I don't see why having a second choice is so bad. Jeez, we even half to pay an extra $2.00 for it, you all don't. Oh well.
Roger, I have an axe to grind with 3-D technology myself after being dragged along to suffer through My Bloody Valentine 3-D. A film whose 3-D was so overhyped that the trailers and TV ads featured cheesy, mock audience reaction shots. Part of the hype surrounded the "new" 3-D processing system of "Real D" a system apparently so superior to the previous format that it added $3 to the already sky high price of admission.
First of all, new and revolutionary or not, the 3-D still sucked. It made the image look blurred, murky, and washed out, even objects or people that were in the foreground. So theaters now charge $12 admission for a process that actually makes the experience even worse. And just like all 3-D movies that actually include "3-D" in the title, it was an empty and gimmicky experience. Instead of legitimate scares, or shameless shocker moments, it resorted to playing sudden loud "banging" noises on the soundtrack when people appeared onscreen and chucking pick-axes, guns, bullets, blood, limbs, and just about any imaginable object at the screen.
What amazed me the most about MBV 3-D was that as gimmicky as the 3-D was, it completely failed to cover up the movie's complete lack of a sense of fun or entertainment. With such a ridiculous concept as a 3-D remake of a slasher film, you might expect a modern day Castle experience or a full length feature Grindhouse trailer. But no, the film was aggressively unpleasant, hateful, cynical, and shockingly dull all the way through. As I understand, the film was not screened for critics. So you never had to see it. You were lucky.
The most infuriating thing about My Bloody Valentine is the hype machine behind it. The idea of selling a mirthless film with typically lousy 3-D and demanding even more money for it is exploitation of an unforgivable kind. 3-D slasher films were a bad idea in the '80s and have proven to be an even worse idea today. I recall you and Gene Siskel once deploring those '80s films saying that "3-D was big in the 1950's and then mercifully disappeared before resurfacing in a series of murky, unfocused, boring, technically hapless movies that had the audience desperately struggling to see what was on the screen."
We've come a long way, haven't we.
Mr. Ebert,
I seem to recall there being a blog post entitled "Tru3D: Too Good to be True" on this site. However, when I search for it, there are no results with that title (this page seems to be the closest).
Has this post vanished into thin air?
Thank you for reading.
Ebert: Good gravy! It has disappeared. I will find and reinstate it.
Here's the Katzenberg transcript.
i watched the avatar day 3D trailer in real d and it wasn't stuff coming at you, it just looked like you were looking into a 3 dimensional space. i think 3D is used as a gimmick but it does make seeing a film an expirience, but the films that i have seen in it (bolt, G-force) was mainly things flying at you
Roger,
I'm a student at Warwick University in England, and I'm currently writing a dissertation on the reasons for 3D's current resurgence in popularity. I'm shying away from the question of whether a 3D-specific grammar has evolved yet (my suspicion, based on having viewed as many 3D films as I can, is that filmmakers are developing guidelines for effective 3D all the time, but it's still very early days yet). Indeed, I'm actually trying to get a short 3D film off the ground - my intention with it is to explore the marrative and thematic potential of 3D as opposed to the aesthetic and spectacular.
What is encouraging about the recent crop of 3D films is the restraint with which the directors and cinematographers are conducting themselves, particularly with regards to the stuff-in-your-face gimmick of old (I say gimmick, although it's far from a useless and hackneyed technique in certain situations). Take Coraline, Henry Selick's stop-motion story of a girl who has access to an exciting parallel world. In her own world, life is boring and plain, which is reflected in the fact that the 3D is almost imperceptible (watching it again as I type, I have to keep removing my glasses to make sure the tell-tale red and green outlines are present). Moving into the alternate universe, however, the 3D is heightened, giving remarkable depth to the same environments, differentiating them in a way that is both clear and subtle - Coraline herself finds this world much more exciting and, crucially, involving. The film's form is following, reflecting, elaborating on and giving cogency to its content, something which 2D cinematography has been doing for years - it is the bonus of 3D that allows further fusion between the thematic and visual. Indeed, the transition from the ordinary to the parallel world is accomplished with the visual extension of a tunnel, beginning at the screen and ending up in the distance, extending our conceptualisation of the film's application of 3D with it. It's a simple application of 3D, but it's very, very effective.
More broadly, look at Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Up. Both have been successful at the box office, and the latter was the toast of Cannes while the former has received positive reviews on the whole. Both are films in which stuff-in-your-face is far less important than immersion into the scene. Up is at first a film in which the ground is far, far away, and then becomes a fantastically immersive trek through a dense jungle. Journey to the Center of the Earth is a film about potholing! The emphasis is on creating visuals that extend into the screen and draw the viewer in, treating the frame like a window. I defy you to claim that for whatever scepticism you took into these films, you failed to find yourself sucked in at least briefly by the solidity of the worlds portrayed.
I'd even make a case for films such as The Final Destination, in which 3D is used for unashamedly in-your-face effects to create adrenaline-fuelled action sequences. The opening Nascar sequence, for instance, is symptomatic of the entire film, in that thematically and narratively it offers very little, if anything, but in aesthetic terms it is hugely immersive and adds to the film's over-the-top aesthetic. Crucially, it is also used in a very self-aware way - nowhere is this more evident than in the 3D film the characters see within The Final Destination itself. Not only are the 3D effects in-your-face but so is the boldness with which the director is creating them, giving the audience what they want and knowing it. The self-awareness helps to ease this, making certain shots funny because of their blatant over-the-top nature. It's not always a bad thing - films are allowed to tickle one's less sophisticated side too.
There are all sorts of reasons 3D is popular right now. The threat of piracy is one, home cinemas and videogaming are others, not to mention the modern robustness and capabilities of 3D technology. It's not my opinion that all films should be in 3D, far from it. Nor is it my opinion that all films should be shot digitally or even in colour. But 3D is at a point, technologically speaking, where effective results can be achieved with relative ease - it is simply a case (and this goes for HD, colour, everything) of the creative talent being able to use the available tools well. In the right hands, 3D is a valuable addition to the filmmaker's toolkit and one worth experimenting with.
Ebert: You make a good case. Ever seen a 2-D film and wished it was in 3-D?
"Whoever it is who reads these responses instead of Roger Ebert: You make a good case. Ever seen a 2-D film and wished it was in 3-D?"
No, I can't think of a time that's happened. Try this: Have you ever seen a black-and-white film and wished it had been in colour?
It's a difficult argument to win with, that one. If 2D deserves to be given a higher status than 3D, surely black-and-white deserves higher status than colour - by the same token, it's a technological advancement that took time to exhibit its value as a cinematic tool. Granted, 3D's been going for a long time (in 1891, WKL Dickson wrote a letter detailing Thomas Edison's ambition that his Kinetograph would deliver moving stereoscopic images), so it's perhaps fair that pressure should be put on it for not having 'proven itself' yet. I believe this lack of proof, as it were, is due to the technology in a big way: 3D was dogged for years by poor technology (particularly dual projectors that wouldn't synchronise properly and anaglyphic, rather than polarised 3D) that gave people headaches and turned them off it. Today these problems have been eliminated, which leaves the field much more open to experimentation and developments in the application of 3D.
To compare with colour again: colour was used in just as gimmicky a way as 3D for its early years. People tried to develop methods to create it, including painting directly onto frames for detail, and tinting entire prints for simple uniform colour (and of course, tinting found a certain level of popularity for many years, in a variety of areas, from big-budget films to German Expressionist films) - but the technology was far from impressive and so the chances of its being used, and therefore the rate at which people became more sophisticated at applying it, were low. As the technology improved, so did its uptake, and quickly the grammatical rules governing conventional film were adapted and amended to accommodate it.
This is what's held 3D back for so long, and now that the technology has improved so much, we're seeing it taken up massively, and slowly we're seeing filmmakers begin to understand its properties and limitations, and generate guidelines for its use.
Just as colour took its time to establish itself as a cinematic tool that had advantages in terms of narrative and thematic elaboration, we are seeing 3D do the same. I find it difficult to imagine a day when 3D is as standard a feature of films as colour, but I think it's far less difficult to imagine it being critically accepted in the same way. It's just taking time, and rightly so.
Or, to put it another way: you, Mr Ebert (and not the person who'll read this on his behalf), wrote in May 2003: "... [I] remain unconvinced that 3-D is necessary in cinematic storytelling. It is a mistake when the medium distracts from the message." I believe you're correct. 3D is not necessary. Just as colour, widescreen and stereo/surround sound are unnecessary. But they envelop, immerse and convince audiences of the worlds they are being asked to believe in. Would the world of Star Wars be so convincing without colour and widescreen? Would Saving Private Ryan have the impact it does without surround sound? Absolutely not. We're seen 3D begin to develop that sort of relationship with films it's being used in. It's just taking time.
I look forward to your response... 'Mr Ebert' ;-)
Ebert: No one reads them but me, "Michael."
Touché, Mystery Ebert.
Ebert: Do they still teach English literature at Warwick as if it is beautiful and interesting, or have English studies been hammered down with Theory?
I can't say I really know, as I'm actually a Film With Television student. I've only had one English module there, in my first year (Modes of Reading). As I recall it was relatively theory-based, being designed to introduce first-years to methods of degree-level literary criticism. I can't speak for the rest of the department, however.
Fortunately, the Film department manages to take films apart without diminishing or ignoring their artistic beauty. Most of our lecturers seem more excited by the films we watch than we are... well, perhaps that's not so surprising, but they do generally communicate an enthusiasm for the work that's infectious.