Hacker News Reader

Comment by joegaudet | Hacker News Reader

I couldn't agree more with this guy, as former film maker, enthusiast, I've found the 3D movies to be a range of uncomfortable to distracting. Most importantly 3D is used to distract from the fact that the stories are 1D and disinteresting. Avatar... terrible movie.

You know what the best form of immersion is, a compelling story, and characters that make me care about them. The movies that I love have filled that role without the use of fancy 3D cameras, and giant blue cats.

If you were even to look at films in the same genre, 2001 : a space odyssey would be a perfect example. It used special effects to convey a sense of futurism, and to keep you locked in the world Kubrick created, but they weren't the center piece, the center piece was always the story (as an aside, I think the effects of 2001 still look more photo real than avatar).

As always my 0.02 dollars.

View on HN

I love that you referred to one of the most famous critics of our time as "this guy". The internet has enabled so many people to voice their opinions, that well known folk sometimes become just another guy.

Yet another thing to love about the internet: it helps you realise that Roger Ebert is, in some ways, just a person putting his thoughts out there, like the rest of us.

Sure, those thoughts are pretty awesome...

Heheh in fairness to me, I do know who Ebert is, I was tired and had a few beers... :P

I'm perfectly sober and never heard of him. Sorry for being part of the unwashed masses.

Just imagine a movie, where 3D is not used as a distraction, but in harmony with the movie; and where the story is complex and beautiful.

The only question is, which movie will it be.

> "...which movie will it be."

Not which movie, but how to create such a movie. How would 3D effects harmonize with a movie? How would 3D add to the "complex and beautiful" story?

After solving how, we can answer "which".

I haven't actually ever seen a 3-D movie.

That said, I do think detective stories or other slow-pace movies could genuinely benefit from 3D. The first few would be hopelessly distracting, but eventually people might come to accept the concept, and then you'd be near equal ground with the protagonist. A room full of distractions, some of which the characters draw your attention to; A man on his deathbed, occupying only a corner of the bed and unable to reach the water clearly under a meter away; A couple wandering the streets at night, afraid of thugs until they dodge into a warm and sheltering tavern. I think these kinds of movies could genuinely benefit from a more immersive environment ...eventually.

edit: more likely, by the time people can make such movies, the technology will be commonplace enough that no one will notice, except maybe to complain about how they didn't take proper advantage of it.

There's essentially three questions: can it be done, how can it be done, and which movie will do it.

The solution to all three questions is exactly what's happening: throw as many parallel filmmakers at the problem as we can spare and wait to get the answers. (Of course, the question "can it be done" is undecidable.)

It's impossible. If you notice the 3D it's distracting, if you don't there's no real point having it there.

The thing is, conventional 2D movies already have most of the 3D cues we need - blurring, parallax, etc.

We don't need sound, because we have intertitles. And we don't need color, because we have enough shades of gray to represent color "well enough."

Adding these elements would be far too distracting. And if we weren't distracted by sound and color, then what's the point in having them there?

Artists should work in the most limiting possible way -- in a way that everyone is already accustomed to. Otherwise, they're cheap, tawdry sensationalists. Down with change! Down with innovation!

Wait... what?

Something in here is certainly cheap, tawdry and sensationalist.

You're not comparing like with like.

NO COLOR vs COLOR isn't the same as "n 3D cues" vs "n+1 3D cues".

A better analogy would be

"All colors apart from a particular shade of purple" vs "all colors".

Of course the current systems are rubbish, so you're getting an extra 3D visual cue at the expense of clarity sharpness brightness. And headaches thrown in to boot.

We're just talking degrees of (what we perceive as) realism. The fact that the technology hasn't caught up yet is no reason to dismiss the entire idea.

Think about Technicolor, for instance. Unrealistic, and to some, headache-inducing. But it was an early step toward what we have today.

These days, most films are shot in color, and in a fairly naturalistic way that people don't generally notice. But that certainly doesn't mean there's "no point in having it there." It's just a greater level of immersion, which helps draw people even further into what actually matters (for most films): the story, the characters, etc.

Maybe I'm biased. I wear glasses and have a 'bad' eye and a 'good' one. Also I can't see those stereoscopic pictures etc. It's lost on me unless it's made really obvious, which is what they've done in the movies I've seen in 3D - which ruins it.

How about "Coraline"?

And "How to Train your Dragon"?

Pixar worked hard to make sure their use of 3D cinematography in UP was properly integrated throughout their creative process so that it would be something that added to the movie experience and not a gimmick.

And when I saw it in 3D, I got so caught up in the movie that I completely forgot about the 3D-ness of it. Watching it again later in 2D, it really wasn't a significantly different movie.

The only movie I've ever seen where 3D added something to the experience was an IMAX documentary about fish played in a ten-storey high screen. Combine the three-dimensionality with the peripheral-view-filling nature of the IMAX screen and you really have something. I think it might work better for documentaries than for narratives, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com