STEADY LEAK: 3-DUDE

Indeed!  And there have already been plenty of movies to prove it.  Coraline was phenomenal in 3D; say what you will about the story but if nothing else Avatar was gorgeous; I didn't see it but I hear that Piranha was a great demo for the tech.  Yeah it's being misused like a motherfuck the majority of the time and that's irritating as ass, but it's certainly as valuable as any other tool in a serious artists' box.

And just imagining Enter the Void in 3D kinda blew my mind - now I HAVE to see it like that.

Ya.  My issue with it is most of the 3-D movies I see simply don't look 3-D.  I pay an extra 5 bucks to wear the glasses just so the film isn't blurry (Thor was like that).  Occasionally I get the opposite- things are SO 3-D that it looks completely unnatural (Sanctum).  

But every once in a while it works.  Avatar, Drive Angry, Toy Story 3 (well, pretty much all things Pixar), and, surprisingly, Pirates 4 were all enhanced by the technology.

The Big Lebowski is my favorite film... and, yes- I think if it was painstakingly and meticulously done, by the bros. Coen, it could be worth a 3-D conversion.  But I think I'm justified in fearing it would be slapped together by some studio hack to save money.

Lebowski might've worked if it was SHOT in 3D. Conversions suck.

If Kubrick were still alive and overlooking it(har!), I could see the Shining working. As is, no thanks.

Overall we'll have to agree to disagree. I actually do feel it's the same as colorizing black and white films. It's different if the original filmmakers are overseeing/endorsing it.

Contrary to how underwhelming I've found the 3D in each and every 3D movie I've watched, I'm still open to the possibility of it eventually winning me over.

But the pro 3D film makers should make up their minds. Either it is a fundamental addition to the film making lexicon, in which case they should figure out ways to use 3D to do things not possible with 2D. Or it is a gimmick to lure people away from their HD srceens, in which case I'll continue ignoring it.   

3D is as much a filmmaking tool as CGI. As in, yeah, seems cool, but it's never once turned a good movie into a great movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

But the pro 3D film makers should make up their minds. Either it is a fundamental addition to the film making lexicon, in which case they should figure out ways to use 3D to do things not possible with 2D. Or it is a gimmick to lure people away from their HD srceens, in which case I'll continue ignoring it.   

You're right.  The most interesting thing 3-D has done thus far is to "add depth" to films, which is... cool (I guess), but not enough to justify 3-D-ing every other movie that's released.

It's basically a new tech (or, a new version of an old tech), and as with any new technology, it's going to take years to unlock its potential.  But the only way to do so is for directors and cinematographers to spend some serious "lab time" testing it out and experimenting on new ways to use it.  And, really, who has the time or money for that kind of thing?  Stuff like Piranha and Drive Angry are seen by many as movies that show off 3-D's potential... but, in the long run, both of those movies really only gave us the best version of what 3-D was already doing since the 50's.  

So what ARE some ways 3-D can break the mold and give us something new?  I ain't no artist, so I really don't know.  What I do know is IF the technology is here to stay (and revenues would argue that it is), we probably won't see any next-level stuff for a few years.  Once filmmakers start thinking in 3-D, and the tech gets more mainstream (read: cheaper), then we'll start to see some true diamonds in the rough.  I'd love to see 3-D that's great, but for now we're stuck with the good (Avatar's lush, layered backgrounds), the bad (Alice In Wonderland, which looked 2-D, even with the glasses on), and the ugly (Clash Of The Titans, which just warped everything into a headache-inducing mess).