PDA

View Full Version : Is it bad that a 3D animator doesn't like 3D movies?



Dexter2999
04-14-2009, 12:13 AM
I just saw MONSTER VS. ALIENS. Not a bad movie. But I came to a realization it watching it...or I should say trying to watch it. I don't like 3D movies.

A string of 3D gags to to exploit the medium appears to be a given. Innevittably these will translate poorly to 2D viewing at home. Those are expected and somewhat tolerable. The part that I found most troubling is in fact the 3D details in other shots where the 3D isn't the point.

I found myself repeatedly distracted by details and ignoring the main story line by 3D fringe details. This isn't the first time I had this problem. Same thing happened with MEET THE ROBINSONS in 3D but I chalked it up to alcohol.

It wasn't the alcohol.

3D is great for the sake of 3D but not for real story telling (at least not yet). It is still a gimmik and not a real storytelling tool. I am repeatedly pulled out of the story to focus on some errant detail or site gag. The glasses distort the coloring and also catch some irritating casual reflections.

The part that disturbs me the most? Every major computer animation studio has announced that all future productions will be 3D.

In short, I'm screwed.


Am I alone in this?

I remember when TRANSFORMERS and SPIDERMAN 2 and 3 came out I complained out the speed and blur of the effects shots and I have been reading that more and more of late in other posters. So, anyone else share a distaste for 3D viewing as a storytelling vehicle?

DiedonD
04-14-2009, 12:24 AM
Well, I dont like it when its way too photorealistic like a Beowolf for instance!

And, when theyre like toys, flexible and moving about nicely, I get that eary feeling of suddenly toys becoming alive and on their own!!

So since they cant escape from either beeing toys, or trying to mimic reality, then I find it a bit difficult from start to enjoy it!

But then what they do is a Toys Story! Surely even you may have liked that one? If they will look like toys, then mindaswell toyem!

But just as you think that theyll never be more than toys moving about and are thus set for toy related movies, they go ahead and make Incredibles!

So, sometimes it gets good and sometimes it doesnt for me. But out here, the majority of non 3D vieweres seem to have accepted it alot better than I. Im more of a 2D cartoon movie. Thus I like celshaded see!

And its always about the majority so....

Dexter2999
04-14-2009, 12:35 AM
I'm not saying I don't like any movie done with computer animation. Even though those are modeled and made as 3D animations, they are viewed in 2D.

It is the 3D viewing that makes me crazy.

DiedonD
04-14-2009, 12:40 AM
I'm not saying I don't like any movie done with computer animation. Even though those are modeled and made as 3D animations, they are viewed in 2D.

It is the 3D viewing that makes me crazy.

Eh?

Theres an inconsistency on those lines Dex!

If the viewing though made in 3D is only viewable in 2D on the screen, then how can you view it in 3D, that it makes you crazy afterwards?

Unless you mean, like a 3D person, with an eye of critique maybe?

Dexter2999
04-14-2009, 12:43 AM
If you are watching a normal projection. You are watching a 2D image. If you wear either the polarized glasses or the Red Lens/ Green Lens glasses you are feeding separate images to each eye which your brain interprets as a 3D image. It appears to float in space somewhat and have a real tangible depth because each eye is getting an image that is offset just like your natural vision in real life.

DiedonD
04-14-2009, 12:50 AM
Gee I never resorted to those means of viewing! But since Im alaredy somewhat without ease in watching it as it is, watching it in 3D like that, might make me go crazy aswell like you!

I dont know, they dont sell those glasses here!

cresshead
04-14-2009, 01:17 AM
dex is refering to stereoscopic projection at the cinema...i too have yet to get just what this is actually good for and think we'll have to wait till james cameron's film is here before we see smeone actually use this to good effect and not just 'effect'

DiedonD
04-14-2009, 01:40 AM
Pretty bad that the effect in its good form cant be experienced with a DVD watched in TV!

But Dex, I have a solution! Just remove those glasses and view it in the 2D form!! :hey: :D:thumbsup::dance::cool:

Dexter2999
04-14-2009, 01:46 AM
Actually, without the glasses the image is blurry because it is two images overlapped. One image for each eye. The glasses filter out the opposing image so each eye sees only the image intended.

To watch the movie in 2D, I think you would have to wear glasses that have the same filter on both eyes so both eyes see the same image and therefore flatten out.


Or wear an eyepatch under the glasses

CGI Addict
04-14-2009, 01:47 AM
Same here. The only animated flick that looked reasonably good was Disney's "meet the Robinson's". I just like watching animated stuff without the glasses. Some of the gimmicky stuff just gets in the way. My kids feel the same way.

TimothyB
04-14-2009, 02:22 AM
I didn't notice too many gags in Monsters VS. Aliens, only a few. I think lately a lot of 3D films are reducing the amount of gags. Or more, not make a movie for 3D, but just also make a 3D version of it at the same time. Monsters had a few gags, but it was a film that hoped to increase 3D viewing. But maybe Avatar will be that sort of film.

Here's an interesting quote from an article:
''We didn't want it to be cheesy,'' says Monsters vs. Aliens co-director Conrad Vernon. ''We want you to feel more like you are in the movie, rather than watching 3-D."

When I watch 3D films, only seen two, the MvsA and Coraline. I like how it gives depth to the picture (looking through a window), where it seems natural. Though, when they attempt floating out of the screen, it's more of a distraction.

Also, I watched Monsters VS Aliens with True-D, The lenses are large, clear (no color tint) only a slight dark shade.

Edit, they might actually have a color tint. They give blue shade as I look at my monitor, but the same color in each lens. Rotate them 90 degrees I see it turn yellowish.

And Whoa, look through them the wrong way, perfectly level, my LCD picture becomes near black, but I see every particle of dust on them, pure white if you have no other lights on. Rotate them it becomes clear again. Fun.

Anyway, I meant to say some theaters use TrueD where the color is not as messed up, unlike that intru3D glasses at a different theater when I saw Coraline.

Here's the article I got the quote from: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20266638,00.html

I heard Chicken Little was in 3D, Bolt was too, but when you watch those at home they stand on their own with no out of place gags.

StOuen
04-14-2009, 02:37 AM
Well one thing I know is that I still am in awe of lets say the opening sequence (and the rest) of Star Wars A New Hope which was done with real handcrafted models and great camera direction whereas the CG spaceships leave me cold. And... The Skeleton sequence in Jason and the Argonauts by RH still gives me goose bumps.

biliousfrog
04-14-2009, 02:50 AM
From the title I thought that you were referring to 3d in general, I haven't seen any stereoscopic films as I wear glasses anyway and I don't want to look like Big Jim Martin (http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/jim-martin.jpg).

I don't watch 3d films because they're 3d, I just watch films that appeal to me. The majority of 3d films I avoid because they're usually extremely predictable and lack any real content.

toby
04-14-2009, 03:17 AM
Monster House was great in 3d - no gags, I own it on bluray and it never occurs to me "oh this part was for 3d effect". I don't remember MvA being gimmicky... 3d-wise anyway. It's much better than it used to be, I remember Jaws 3D; long shots of nothing happening just so you could marvel at what was poking out at you :rolleyes:

If it's used to improve the look, it's no worse than replacing 2d animation with 3d animation ( which some people still think is a gimmick ) or global illumination for that matter. But basically the studios are trying to keep people coming to the theatres, by offering something you can't get anywhere else yet.

Anyway, all of these movies will be completely viewable in 2d, there's too many non-3d theatres for them to ignore.

shrox
04-14-2009, 05:17 AM
I don't care for most of the CG animated movies in general, it seems character design has gone out the window, most all have buggy eyes and wildly disproportionate bodies. About the last good CG movie in my opinion was The Incredibles, although Monster House was good too.

I am working on a live action 3D movie right now, and yes, there is some "coming at ya" stuff in it. And just, some is CGed, please forgive me...

Jockomo
04-14-2009, 07:56 AM
Dex I am totally with you on this. It baffles me why Hollywood is suddenly jumping all over stereoscopic movies. (Although Toby makes a good point in that maybe it's the last thing theaters think they can do that you can't do in your living room.)

There is a new technology called v3 or something that basically wobbles the lense so it looks like there is more depth information. The only problem is that it looks like the camera is on a trampoline. It seems some high end productions are jumping on this bandwagon, which I find funny because these guys are degrading their footage just to get that look.

AdamAvenali
04-14-2009, 08:28 AM
it's really hit or miss with me. i didnt enjoy monsters vs. aliens in 3d as much as i thought i would, but on the other hand, i really enjoyed coraline in 3d.

jasonwestmas
04-14-2009, 08:33 AM
Umm if you aren't excited about eye popping effects then blame the writers. Without good writing and story boarding you aren't going to be excited to watch the film unless you are watching it to learn about a certain kind of effect.

jasonwestmas
04-14-2009, 08:36 AM
I just saw MONSTER VS. ALIENS. Not a bad movie. But I came to a realization it watching it...or I should say trying to watch it. I don't like 3D movies.

A string of 3D gags to to exploit the medium appears to be a given. Innevittably these will translate poorly to 2D viewing at home. Those are expected and somewhat tolerable. The part that I found most troubling is in fact the 3D details in other shots where the 3D isn't the point.

I found myself repeatedly distracted by details and ignoring the main story line by 3D fringe details. This isn't the first time I had this problem. Same thing happened with MEET THE ROBINSONS in 3D but I chalked it up to alcohol.

It wasn't the alcohol.

3D is great for the sake of 3D but not for real story telling (at least not yet). It is still a gimmik and not a real storytelling tool. I am repeatedly pulled out of the story to focus on some errant detail or site gag. The glasses distort the coloring and also catch some irritating casual reflections.

The part that disturbs me the most? Every major computer animation studio has announced that all future productions will be 3D.

In short, I'm screwed.


Am I alone in this?

I remember when TRANSFORMERS and SPIDERMAN 2 and 3 came out I complained out the speed and blur of the effects shots and I have been reading that more and more of late in other posters. So, anyone else share a distaste for 3D viewing as a storytelling vehicle?

Good *story-boarding* in this case would help you enjoy the film. I think that is the problem. It could be that the story boarding was forced into that 3-D mold to show off unnecessary detailing.

Nicolas Jordan
04-14-2009, 08:48 AM
I have a hard time sitting through most 3D animated movies. My wife likes them but I usually don't make it to the end without losing interest. There are a few that I find pretty enough to enjoy even the visuals so those sometimes keep my interest. For the most part 3D movies are getting very repetitive and more unoriginal all the time. Not many 3D movies have the classic Disney classical feel to them that they could have. I enjoy movies like Corpse Bride that use stop motion with a dash of 3D where it's needed. I am looking forward to the 2nd Dark Crystal movie and have high expectations for it.

3DGFXStudios
04-14-2009, 09:08 AM
I don't like watching 3D movies I like to make them. (parts of it ;))

shrox
04-14-2009, 09:11 AM
I don't like watching 3D movies I like to make them. (parts of it ;))

You sound like me, I don't play video games, I make them.

radams
04-14-2009, 09:19 AM
it's really hit or miss with me. i didnt enjoy monsters vs. aliens in 3d as much as i thought i would, but on the other hand, i really enjoyed coraline in 3d.

I would agree, Coraline's 3D was to help define the environment, and action rather than coming at you.....

The only thing that I didn't like...was that it just felt more like seperate layers moving around...like seeing a compositor's layers but in 3D space...

Thou I enjoyed the artistry and stylization of the movie.

Cheers,

jasonwestmas
04-14-2009, 10:00 AM
I would agree, Coraline's 3D was to help define the environment, and action rather than coming at you.....

The only thing that I didn't like...was that it just felt more like seperate layers moving around...like seeing a compositor's layers but in 3D space...

Thou I enjoyed the artistry and stylization of the movie.

Cheers,

There's a lot of truth to that. There is something to be said about animation that makes you want to look more closely and find out what is going on verses an animation scene that pushes everything in your face almost insulting your intelligence. Coroline does a great job and creating interest with not just the story but also the camera work and details!

AdamAvenali
04-14-2009, 10:11 AM
i definitely agree. coraline's 3d seemed to make it feel more like a stop motion stage rather than other films that just gratuitously throw a ball at your face for no reason.

littlewaves
04-14-2009, 11:15 AM
I saw Beowulf at an imax in 3D with glasses. It just gave me a headache. Background characters walking through your head can really distract you from the story I find!

Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I find the whole thing a little bit gimmicky. I don't even like surround sound. Hearing water dripping or other background ambient noises coming from behind me in the cinema just breaks down the so-called "fourth wall".

For things like those ocean movies where they take you underwater I can see that immersing yourself in the action has a purpose but for conventional drama I think it just gets distracting.

Just one guy's opinion of course. I dread the day when we have to sit in the middle of the action of every movie at the cinema.

Then again apparently when colour film came in they thought it would never take off because people would find it too real. Probably people felt the same way about the early "talkies"

akademus
04-14-2009, 11:22 AM
Becoming more and more of character animator, I started watching Disney classics over again and I must say I enjoy them.

The whole essence of movies is story that's been told. Good technique can improve the movie with a good story, but no technique can make a good movie out of bad story.

I do just that, I watch them as movies, not cartoons or animations.

For example, Happy Feet had crappy and predictable story and it was bad movie for me regardless of all the stuff they threw in.

I never watched Transformers as it is waste of time for me watching stuff transform from cars to robots for the hour or so.

I liked Surfs Up for some unknown reason, probably my love for beaches and worry free life came in to play.

It's only about personal taste. You can't like all animated movies and I think you can be an animator even if you don't like animated features. There is a whole world of animations beside. Art movies, shorts, commercials...

adamredwoods
04-14-2009, 11:24 AM
My thought son 3D movies:

It's all about the stories (script). The same as any other movie ever made.
3D glasses won't change people's attitudes about it.

So what Dexter said about not liking MONSTERS vs ALIENS or MEET THE ROBINSONS, I'd have to say it's more the poor screenwriting than the studio trying to get 3D "in your face" (pun intended).

Coraline was great, because it was SUCH A GREAT STORY, that I rarely noticed the 3D effects.

Dexter2999
04-14-2009, 01:37 PM
Well, to try to narrow down my particular issue with stereoscopic movies, in the instances of MONSTERS VS ALIENS and MEET THE ROBINSONS it was that the 3D composition was distracting to the storytelling.

In a tracking shot, my eyes are tracking all the new little pieces that are floating through the shot rather than being trained on the main characters. Now this could also happen to a lesser extent in a 2D movie where there are interesting things going on in the background like in MIB or in HELLBOY II. So this problem isn't just a stereoscopic problem but I think it does highlight it.

In shots where they cut back and forth, the sudden change of 3D area can be abrasive. The problem doesn't exist in 2D as much or in real life because your point of focus or depth of field is directed naturally. But 3D stereoscopic environments make that lamp or fence post or whatever background object jump right out at you when your attention should be on the character. It is almost like having another character distract you by holding up bunny ears or making faces behind the character speaking.

Here, I thought of an example of distracting action in a 3D animated move shown in 2D. Anyone else here watch FINAL FANTASY? The hair animation was amazing when it came out. The way it flowed and moved. The problem? Was that it NEVER STOPPED MOVING. It was moving like it was in the wind when they were inside a lab. It got to be annoying and distracting especially when the dialog wasn't strong enough to hold your attention. It just turned into "blah blah blah", while my eyes went to the hair and I was thinking "very pretty....where is that wind coming from?"

And the polarized lenses are a huge inprovement over the red/green glasses but the blue color tint isn't something I see myself wanting to tolerate for very long.

3D is a fun thing. It's like an amusement park ride. But I think as a storytelling vehicle it is about as practical and appropriate as "bullet time", it might have it's places but those places are few and far between.

BeeVee
04-14-2009, 01:59 PM
The reason I saw given by an MPAA spokesman is that you cannot duplicate the effect on disc so it remains a cinema experience to give the ailing film industry something to fight back against piracy rather than ever-more draconian DRM.

B

Red_Oddity
04-14-2009, 04:04 PM
I hate stereoscopic movies, try watching one with subtitles, the subtitles don't follow the focus of the camera, so your eyes are continuously switching focus from image to subtitle...i never understand who the f*cktards are that come up with these stupid ideas, these things are for 5 minute amusement park rides, not for feature length movies.
You don't see someone make a movie about a amusement park ride, so why make a movie an amusement park ride. Savvy?

Also, the MPAA should stop blaming every box office failure on piracy.
I'm sorry, did i say that out loud, i meant to say, yes, bad bad pirates, it's all your fault that The adventures of Pluto Nash, Stealth, Alexander or Windtalkers made the studios loose over a 100 million per movie, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact they are complete and utter garbage.

toby
04-14-2009, 04:19 PM
Just one guy's opinion of course. I dread the day when we have to sit in the middle of the action of every movie at the cinema.

Then again apparently when colour film came in they thought it would never take off because people would find it too real. Probably people felt the same way about the early "talkies"
That's a good point, how much realism is too much? If they totally surround you in visuals, sounds and smells, how much attention will you have left over for the plot and characters? I guess it's a balncing act, in addition to marketing gimmick. I'm sure the directors and cinematographers want to use 3d to enhance the story while the bean-counters want to smear your face in it. I'm also sure it's used as compensation for bad stories, which hollywood always has anyway. They'd rather push 3d in your face than take a chance that one segment of the population won't pay to see the film.

The reason I saw given by an MPAA spokesman is that you cannot duplicate the effect on disc so it remains a cinema experience to give the ailing film industry something to fight back against piracy rather than ever-more draconian DRM.

B
I've heard that 3d will be coming to Blu-Ray, and that it could even be used with standard lcd's. I bet it'll be some cheap form of 3d though -

BeeVee
04-14-2009, 04:31 PM
You don't see someone make a movie about a amusement park ride, so why make a movie an amusement park ride. Savvy?


Umm, Pirates of the Caribbean? ;)

B

IMI
04-14-2009, 04:45 PM
Last 3D movie I saw made me sick. I can't even remember what it was now though, as it was one of those midnight movies I went to with some friends after drinking at the bar all night.
Hmmm... maybe it wasn't the 3D glasses that made me sick. :D


Anyhow, I vote "no" on the proposition to continue making 3D movies....
Wait, why isn't there a poll in this thread? How can there not be a poll? That's just not right.

erikals
04-14-2009, 06:27 PM
i agree, making 3D these days still has the problem where you tend to look at certain things and it just doesn't look right, maybe the color is off, too saturated, too realistic compared to the first shot, etc...

an almost simillar problem is Imax, where the viewer often is distracted because of the 3D effect, or pourly planned 3D effect.

so i agree, 3D movies still has a long way to go.
the red line is often missing...

that rearly happens to a 2D cartoon, and in a film it is close to impossible.

shrox
04-15-2009, 07:53 AM
...I never watched Transformers as it is waste of time for me watching stuff transform from cars to robots for the hour or so...


I wouldn't say watching the Transformers movie is a waste of time, how about how the asphalt breaks up when the walk? Or the seamless way they fit into the filmed portion? Or the collapse of the buildings they smash into? I enjoyed the movie, and the way the effects fit into the real world pretty much amazed me.

The cartoons were bad, and still are. 10 frames a second is hard to look at.

I think the reason 3D movies are popular now is because people are now used to wearing things on the heads, like IPods, headphones, earbuds, bluetooth's, sunglasses, etc. Up until this generation, most people just wouldn't wear stuff like that, now they will. It is paving the way for the Borg!

IMI
04-15-2009, 09:07 AM
It is paving the way for the Borg!

Not the Borg. Not exactly. They call it The Singularity. (http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity).

Hmmm.... the collective... the singularity... nah, just coincidence. ;)

jasonwestmas
04-15-2009, 11:30 AM
Stop getting all philosophical guys, I might have to contribute more to this thread then.

erikals
04-15-2009, 01:54 PM
Singularity...a club for single people...