The Like/Hate Thread

[Super Buu]

He's dusting of all the movies to put in the 3D, which include the almost 40 year old one.

And please, at least they're sci-fi films. 3D will at least seem okay.

Fucking James Cameron is re-releasing Titanic in 3D.

I'll see it, but still. Titanic. In 3D.

"I don't like this but I will still pay to watch it" dude explain D=

[Jarka]

Dude resting your elbow on my desk: get that shit out of here we only have about twelve inches of personal space and you are INVADING MINE.

I hate you, elbow dude.

[Rafael]

Just put food there. Or stab him.

[Vad]

Sorry what? I was distracted by your signature, Belle.

[Mr. Zhu]

Dude resting your elbow on my desk: get that shit out of here we only have about twelve inches of personal space and you are INVADING MINE.

I hate you, elbow dude.

Passive aggressive actions work very well in these situations.

[Belle Hibiki]

Sorry what? I was distracted by your signature, Belle.

distracted by how hideous it is, I'm sure

[Piper Juunanagou]

"I don't like this but I will still pay to watch it" dude explain D=

I hate James Cameron.

I never said I hate Titanic. Titanic is amazing.

Joe, you can go die now, btdubs.

[Anzekay]

Fuck 3D movies. It's a stupid gimmick that I wish would die already.

[Piper Juunanagou]

It's only a gimmick when a 2D movie is converted into 3D after it's completed to jack up the price of tickets. (like the most recent Resident Evil film, Priest, or 80% of most 3D releases).

When 3D is used as a tool in the process of making the film, it more than often makes the movie a much better experience. This is especially the case with animated features.

[Jarka]

I always feel sad when people say 3D is a gimmick.

It can be gimmicky, yes. When it is done in post-processing, yes, it looks like shit and lowers the quality.

When it is done right, it can be absolutely breathtaking. If I had the money, I would purchase a 3D television just so I can experience Up, How to Train Your Dragon, Legends of the Guardian, and Avatar to their fullest - with the added benefit to gaming, probably the easiest conversion to 3D vision ever.

A film ought to be made with the intent for it to use 3D, not added as an aftereffect. The same way that adding color to a black and white image usually comes off as tacky (unless put in some very capable hands). To achieve the effect, it is best to take a full color image and desaturate it. Post-process compared to process.

With the films I mentioned before (and any CGI film, for that matter), depth was considered with the other elements of the aesthetics. CGI films are easily able to add and manipulate a second camera (used to a phenomenal, deeply moving effect in Up, where the depressing scenes within the house in the beginning reduced the depth to give it a more claustrophobic effect). Avatar was also filmed with cameras designed to imitate our perspective.

Post-processing 3D basically sends the film to an Asian workshop (I believe most of them are in South Korea, but don't quote me on that), where they literally cut the figures out and put them in photoshop layers. It's basically a shadowbox collage, which is why it looks dorky, tacky, and shitty.

Just because something has the capacity to be crap, just because 80% of its usage is crap, does not mean it is inherently crap.

Also, a great deal of the crappy 3D movies have nothing to do with the 3D with why they are crap. They are crap with a shoeshine, which still results in crap.

I would love to see some acclaimed director like Matrin Scorsese create a 3D film... see if they can get certified fresh and a 4/4 from Ebert. OH SHI-.

/rant

[John Doe]

How to Train Your Dragon gave me a digital boner.

I agree with Jarka.

[Belle Hibiki]

Coraline's 3D felt well used.

Loved that fucking movie. It was like a modern version of a Grimm fairy tale.

[Kaden]

I can't see 3D.

EDIT: I will say, though, that 3D, as it exists now, can't really be anything more than a gimmick in gaming. At most it can enhance the visuals, but, really, that is just one very small part of what a game is. Would a game like Mass Effect or Bioshock be a completely different experience with 3D? No. They would look better, but they are compelling experiences because they tie together all the elements of what a game is to create an incredible interactive experience. 3D is not interactive right now and, in my opinion, the use of it dilutes what a good game is about.

And no, I'm not saying a game can't be good and have 3D. I'm saying 3D does nothing to enhance the gaming experience. It just looks pretty. Or... I assume it does for the people who can see it.

[Belle Hibiki]

Like: http://youtu.be/rHG-JO8gIGk

[Jarka]

And no, I'm not saying a game can't be good and have 3D. I'm saying 3D does nothing to enhance the gaming experience. It just looks pretty. Or... I assume it does for the people who can see it.

3D has not done anything to enhance the gaming experience... YET. 3D TVs have not become enough of a presence for the major game design companies to really push the usage of depth. As I mentioned, my personal favorite use of 3D is to enhance emotional quality. Most games as a storytelling medium just aren't there yet.

What if Skyrim took a page from HTTYD. The scenery was already breathtaking at points, imagine an added sense of expansive depth. Or, a game like Bioshock with 3D enhancements like in Up.

You're right that using 3D in games currently is pretty much just a prettifier. It could be so much more, though.

[Pinky]

3D is a gimmick.

it will be replaced with holographic projections in the near future. actually, a lot of things will be replaced with holograms

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/surf...space/7553

edit: imagine this stuff intergrated with tech like xbox kinect... *drool*

[Anzekay]

My problem with 3D in movies is that you can pretty much count on one hand the number of movies that not only were designed to have 3D from the get-go, but also had 3D effects that were worthwhile and added anything positive to the movie at all. That's less than 20%, as far as I can tell.

In every other instance, be it stupid post-processing or a movie designed to have 3D that just executed it poorly, it's merely a marketing ploy to get people to go see the movie in 3D and pay that extra surcharge and the movie makes more money, or it's an excuse to re-release an old movie with added 3D to get people to go see it again and make even more extra money!

But that's not the thing about 3D that irritates me the most; it's that 3D is so often used as some sort of catch-all addition to try and make a movie better or more appealing, and actual quality film-making is left at the wayside in exchange. Money is put towards adding these stupid 3D effects when they could instead be used on just making the movie better in general.

The same idea applies to CGI used in live-action movies these days. I studied this a lot last year in all my film and TV classes at uni, but it was brought fresh into my mind this week when I watched those Red Letter reviews of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Time and time again they sacrificed good direction, screen writing and all sorts of other things that actually make films good, just so that they could add all these flashy CG effects to make the movie look cool. In the end they had a lame, cool-looking movie that was so shallow a bird wouldn't bath in it.

So yes, to me 3D in almost every case is a gimmick. It's something that is used to try and make a movie more appealing, almost always in exchange for actually making the movie decent to begin with. Every time I see some shit movie with 3D some part of my screams out that the money spent on all that 3D tech should have been given to some budding screenwriter or director or whoever who is itching to make a movie that is actually good.

/end rant

[Jonathan Meer]

My problem with 3D in movies is that you can pretty much count on one hand the number of movies that not only were designed to have 3D from the get-go, but also had 3D effects that were worthwhile and added anything positive to the movie at all. That's less than 20%, as far as I can tell.

In every other instance, be it stupid post-processing or a movie designed to have 3D that just executed it poorly, it's merely a marketing ploy to get people to go see the movie in 3D and pay that extra surcharge and the movie makes more money, or it's an excuse to re-release an old movie with added 3D to get people to go see it again and make even more extra money!

Sounds like you have a problem with a specific type of 3D, rather than 3D itself. You even admit that there are uses of 3D that are worthwhile, and add positive things to a movie.

But that's not the thing about 3D that irritates me the most; it's that 3D is so often used as some sort of catch-all addition to try and make a movie better or more appealing, and actual quality film-making is left at the wayside in exchange. Money is put towards adding these stupid 3D effects when they could instead be used on just making the movie better in general.

Except you don't improve the quality of the creative aspects of a film by throwing money at them.

I imagine the same argument you've made here was made eight or nine decades ago with the advent of non-silent films.

The same idea applies to CGI used in live-action movies these days. I studied this a lot last year in all my film and TV classes at uni, but it was brought fresh into my mind this week when I watched those Red Letter reviews of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Time and time again they sacrificed good direction, screen writing and all sorts of other things that actually make films good, just so that they could add all these flashy CG effects to make the movie look cool. In the end they had a lame, cool-looking movie that was so shallow a bird wouldn't bath in it.

They didn't sacrifice those things. It's not as though you can either have good direction/screen-writing/etc OR cgi. You can have good direction/screen-writing/etc WITH cgi.

It may be used by many as a crutch, but that's only a reason to criticize those that use it as a crutch, and not a reason to criticize cgi.

[Anzekay]

Sounds like you have a problem with a specific type of 3D, rather than 3D itself. You even admit that there are uses of 3D that are worthwhile, and add positive things to a movie.



Except you don't improve the quality of the creative aspects of a film by throwing money at them.

I imagine the same argument you've made here was made eight or nine decades ago with the advent of non-silent films.



They didn't sacrifice those things. It's not as though you can either have good direction/screen-writing/etc OR cgi. You can have good direction/screen-writing/etc WITH cgi.

It may be used by many as a crutch, but that's only a reason to criticize those that use it as a crutch, and not a reason to criticize cgi.

I have a problem with how 3D is used in almost every case, yes, and the root of that problem is with the general perception of 3D and the gimmicky nature of it- that you can add it to something and it instantly becomes more appealing to the mass market.

Alright, fine that was a little bit of hyperbole. Make it "money, time, effort etc". All those things that are put towards adding the 3D could be put to other uses, all of which will undoubtably have a better effect on the quality of a film than adding 3D would. Of course, it wont increase the profits...

You're commenting on a specific example (the Star Wars PT). In that specific example they sacrificied good production (and pre-production) quality for CGI. Over and over and over again. Just watch some of the making of videos and you'll see examples of this happening in the production process.

I don't recall actually criticizing CGI. That would be pretty funny though, if I were to, since I'm studying animation and all. In fact, I'm pretty sure that what you quoted was me criticizing the use of CGI in a paticular set of films, rather than CGI itself...

[Pinky]

I have a problem with how 3D is used in almost every case, yes, and the root of that problem is with the general perception of 3D and the gimmicky nature of it- that you can add it to something and it instantly becomes more appealing to the mass market.

Alright, fine that was a little bit of hyperbole. Make it "money, time, effort etc". All those things that are put towards adding the 3D could be put to other uses, all of which will undoubtably have a better effect on the quality of a film than adding 3D would. Of course, it wont increase the profits...

You're commenting on a specific example (the Star Wars PT). In that specific example they sacrificied good production (and pre-production) quality for CGI. Over and over and over again. Just watch some of the making of videos and you'll see examples of this happening in the production process.

I don't recall actually criticizing CGI. That would be pretty funny though, if I were to, since I'm studying animation and all. In fact, I'm pretty sure that what you quoted was me criticizing the use of CGI in a paticular set of films, rather than CGI itself...

the new SW movies were the first movies of their kind. of course there is a learning curve to all new things, that doesn't make it wrong or bad. it's amazing that lucas was able to spearhead the film industry into a paradigm shift by combining complete digital film with extensive use of digital effects. it's been a little more than ten years since episode1 and things are not just better, it's getting better at an accelerating rate.

the same can be said of 3D technology. sure, it's a gimmick and is often poorly used today. by definition of it being new tech, the industry doesn't have many people who know what to do with it. what's really crazy is that things are changing so fast these days, 3D is going to be obsolete before the end of the decade.