Whether you adore 3D or want it to go away forever, I'm sure we can all agree that the theatrical experience is something that's incredibly special and communal in the best of ways - and for a lot of us right now, it's very very missed. Stay safe out there, folks - wash your hands an extra few times, don't fight over toilet paper, and we can all get through this together. Also, if you can, try and support your local independent theaters - gift cards, merch, some are even hosting virtual screenings - it all helps during tough times like these!
Also, don’t assume the virus can’t hurt you because you’re young and healthy. The virus can do serious damage to our lungs. With even young patients losing 20-30% of their lung function after recovering.
Do you think watching movies in the theater will have the same fate as 3d? I feel like your same arguments could be made for watching movies there versus at home or another small screen. Ultimately both 3d and watching at a theater will come down to profit margins of both things. And with movie screens becoming bigger and bigger, the real estate costs, and therefore rent costs rise. It's foreseeable in the future that watching moves at a cinema will be more of a niche audience. I don't see as many big corporate theaters lasting if the Corona Virus breakout lasts for months since they operate based on raw profit compared to independent theaters which have smaller margins, but don't mind because they started that small business for the sake of being a theater owner.
I really enjoyed the 3D format when I first saw "Avatar" (which, by today's standards, is...okay), and my favorite 3D films are Life of Pi, Tron Legacy, The Avengers, Prometheus, and, my favorite of the 5, "Gravity".
Not that it's a perfect film, but I always enjoyed how Tron: Legacy kept itself in 2D for the beginning of the film, only jumping into 3D once Sam entered the computer. I don't personally like 3D that much, but I think having some sort of purpose behind its usage, such as Tron did, would go a long way to making it mean more to people.
In Gravity, the 3D added something to the way the story was told and experienced. The problem with 3D in general is that it adds nothing narratively. Gravity is the exception that proves the rule.
I saw gravity with my grandma, she kept saying the projector was off and the3D wasn’t working. 45 minutes in we realized she was wearing her sunglasses
My 2 cents on the matter: 1. I wear glasses. I don't like wearing another pair of glasses to see a movie. 2. 3D movies are more expensive. going to the theatre is costs a lot already. I'd rather spend the extra few bucks on a snack than on a feature I'm going to ignore after 15 mins.
I agree. My dad would probably rather see everything in 3D, but after a whole movie it make my eyes sore from wearing two glasses, and it just makes me feel dizzy. But we just have to watch the polar express in 3D every year🙄
I remember seeing Chicken Little in 3D. The glasses we were given looked just like the ones he wore in the movie; I thought it was so cool at the time.
This is the first I've heard of Katzenberg's excuses for the failure of 3D. Especially funny hearing them on the heels of his excuses for why Quibi is failing. "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."
I feel like there’s this huge disconnect between what the industry thinks its audience wants, and what we actually want. They keep trying to sell me this “cinema experience,” when really I just go to the movies to see a movie. To me, the magic of cinema doesn’t come from the theater; it doesn’t come from the dark room and the big screen, the ear-splitting speakers, the 3D glasses, or the seats that rumble. It comes from impeccable writing, heartfelt acting, beautiful cinematography, and everything else that comes from the film itself. If you want me to pay a premium to sit in the theater, invest in the films. Show me original, compelling stories that I can’t see anywhere else.
I disagree a bit, I feel that a lot of movies really do benefit from the cinema experience of heightened sound quality. Take the movie Dunkirk for example, that movie is one I just would not care for to watch at home, as great as it is. It needs the picture and sound quality of a theater to get to its full potential.
@@augustuslodholz5453 I do agree that some films can be enhanced in a theater environment, but for me it's not to that fantastical extent that the industry seems to imagine. I almost have to laugh at the ads for D-BOX seats telling me to "LIVE THE ACTION" and feel like I'm in the movie. They want to create this alternative reality/escapism fantasy land where the barrier between film and viewer sort of melts away, and I'm just not into that.
@Patrick Mack Unfortunately, people really do just mindlessly go to films because it has characters they recognize. As much as we want film to be about the art of it, I think it's still primarily a profit-driven enterprise. Disney will always make the next Marvel movie because Disney knows that enough people will pay to see it to make it profitable. Who needs critical acclaim and a dinky statuette when you can just keep milking the cash cow?
If everything you said about the “cinema experience” is irrelevant to you, then everything you listed as “the magic of cinema” can be enjoyed in your own home. That’s why they’re trying so hard. Everything you care about films will be the same in theaters and on Netflix.
The moment I fell in love with the possibilities of 3D was seeing The Lion King rereleased converted to the format. The idea of giving depth to 2D hand-drawn animation is so beautiful to me. I hope 3D can find its place in the world. I desperately want to find way I could work in 3D, because as an animator myself, I want to be able to share what I felt watching The Lion King 3D with others.
In defence of James Cameron, the 3D effects of Avatar were mind blowing at the time and I’m sure would be the same top notch with the upcoming sequels. Others, well they just jumped on the bandwagon. I still hope that 3D will die out as I hate wearing those glasses. I do have a soft spot for 4D with those moving chairs & all that stuff, but that is limited to watching Spider-Man movie, it was basically a perfect fit for the tech.
Agreed. Although the story may have been nothing special, I don't think I'll ever forget the experience of seeing Avatar's alien wildlife in 3D for the first time. Everything felt huge.
If *anything* can be justifiably accused of being a gimmick, it's 4D. I tried a couple of movies in DBox, which is the moving seats, and found it nothing but distracting. The added horror of water being sprayed in your face, or fart smells assaulting you, I have only endured in amusement parks. At least with 3D, the film's creator (presumably) has some control over the 3D effect. I wonder who is responsible for programming the "extras" in a 4D extravaganza?
This was a really well done video, thanks for making it so informative and entertaining. I used to work at StereoD, the company that worked on the Titanic 3D post-conversion (among many others), and that you showed in a brief shot when talking about conversion. I would have liked more of a conversation about WHY recent 3D films that worked, worked, and what was positive about a 3D experience. The argument felt one-sided. It's been my experience that good 3D movies absolutely added to positive goodwill around 3D for audiences. I also believe that many of the reasons 3D failed is because of how major movie studios SOLD the idea to audiences, how they failed to market it, how they failed to market 3D televisions, and how they all abandoned that 3D home market for the gimmick of 4K as soon as 3DTVs didn't sell as much as companies expected them to. Good 3D adds immersion, adds depth, enhances good acting, enhances breathtaking visuals, and overall makes certain movies even more special. If you ever decide to revisit this topic in the future, consider talking to folks who worked on the 3D side of the industry. Thanks! = )
Hey, I gotta say --- as someone who saw _Class of the Titans_ in 3D, I absolutely swore off ever seeing another post-converted film again. I would actually check online before going to one to find out if it was native 3D or post-converted. So, for a while at least, it pained me to have to admit that the very *_best_* live-action 3D I have ever seen, was post-converted _Titanic!_ Totally astounding! Second best may be post-converted _Jurassic Park!_ Truly amazing! If you personally had any part in the _Titanic_ conversion, my congratulations, and thanks!
@@viddork I didn't, but I *did* work on Jurassic Park a little bit, and that job also took around nine months and was overseen by Spielberg himself. I didn't work on the new one this year, but I believe the same process happened for Jaws, and I went to go see it in theaters last year, and it was amazing. Good 3D conversion can sometimes be better than 'natively-shot' 3D, it just depends on how it's utilized. Thanks!
People in a few years: I can't believe filmmakers got rid of a whole dimension because it was too gimmicky. Times have been hard since all films have been shown without the z-axis.
I felt the same way about early "VR" that I did about 3D in movies and TVs. They were both gimmicks that were tried multiple times but always failed but THEN someone said "Why don't you put your chocolate in my peanut butter" and VR is pretty damned snazzy and is made so by 3D tech.
Just found your channel and this video, so late to this discussion, but I adore 3D in subtle areas. Done right (minus the obvious "this is for 3d coolness" shots) it leaves a marked impression. I still vividly remember my first new 3d movie in theaters. When it snowed in the Christmas Carol, it was so real it brought me to tears. I've seen this story every year by others, but the 3D theater experience brought new life to it. Still I admit 3D has it's place. I actually bought a 3D LG tv around that time. It was great, and I was stunned to not being able to find a replacement when it quit, I didn't have this experience at home. This leads me to the conclusion that 3D is a piece of the immersive puzzle theatres need to distinguish themselves from the at home experience. A screen bigger than your field of vision, surround sound, a comfortable recliner and select 3D still bring me in to see movies.
Thankyou so much for the time and effort you put into this video man. Absolutely adore the attention to detail you had with all of the animations and graphics linking back to the time and era of 3D glasses. NAILED IT SON! 👊
@@omi_god Of course. But if I understand this video correctly, they don't enjoy it anymore and they don't want to pay for it either. Maybe their taste has come back to the good old "great script, great cinematography and great acting" lol
I used to work in Stereoscopics (Post Conversion) And at 9:46 is where I used to work! I'm starting to get flashbacks now of 10 hour days and 2 month crunch times.
One of my favorite parts of owning a VR headset is finally being able to sit down and check out all the 3D movies I missed when it was popular because when Avatar came out I was only 9 years old. So a lot of it passed me by. And honestly one of my favorite 3D movies that I recommend everybody to check out if they want to get a sense for what 3D is like is actually a post conversion, and a legacy post conversion at that. One 3D movie that I recommend everybody should go see is the conversion of Disney's Renaissance classic Beauty and the Beast, not the live-action one but the original animated movie. They did such a good job with that conversion and you might think watching a 2d animated movie in 3D is weird but you get used to it pretty quickly. A lot of distance establishing shots like the zoom in and zoom out of a castle in the opening prologue to the movie and the minor details like giving all the characters depth on their faces with things like their noses is really well done. And the famous ballroom scene looks stunning in 3D imo. If you ever get the chance to it is definitely worth checking it out. And honestly, I personally believe that when trying a new piece of technology with movies, it's best to try something that you're familiar with and I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with Beauty and the Beast
This is the same conversation I have with everybody... 3D should be used as a tool for the cinema experience. The director should make this decision based on creativity. It is the same with how the sound will be produced, exactly the same. Avatar is awesome in 3D! However, if you want to watch it 2D, mono sound on a small iPhone, then that is your decision. Nobody is taking away the personal choice of the viewer. I think that is always the point here. People just hate to wear glasses. Real-life is in 3D and nobody complains about that, right? But speaking of choice, 3D should not be taken away from those who appreciate it and enjoy it. It was brought to the home theater screen for a few years and now it is taken away. Not fair to me! But here is the real problem: 3D was marketed as a "mainstream" product. It should never have been done that way. It's like the industry never learns their lessons... You know how there are only 1 or 2 screens playing 3D in any given theater? Yeah, well that is how it should always be. It is a "niche" product. It is one of those things that very few people appreciate. So it should be marketed as that type of product. The expectation was unrealistic so, of course, it seemed to fail. But it didn't actually fail. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. It made people happy, very few people. Hey, I hate smoking, but I never go out and say "hey, stop making cigarettes" just because I don't like it. Nothing should be taken away from people who enjoy it! That is my whole point here. Keep 3D alive and well!!
@@free_spirit1 don't pass on your low standards to me. If its a product I want, then I am allowed an opinion. So again, I will say, if I hate cigarettes then why would I say to stop making them? Its none of my business if someone else likes to smoke. It doesn't affect my life. A product should be marketed to the right market. It is obvious they had no idea who their market was. The marketing department completely misjudged the people.
3D doesn't seem so much about taste or preference rather than possibilities. Some movies work in 3D because they can give something people enjoy, works for the way it's shot or written or whatever, but it's used as a tool to express something rather than a gimmick where it does nothing more than make a tube come out of the screen. Yes, 3D is a niche, and yes, it's worth keeping for that amount of movies that can make it work into them. Trying to sell it to everything moving in a screen was a mistake.
I never got motion sickness, I just always felt that anything that was not meant to “jump out at you” was always a bit more blurry than usual. I would just rather have a clear image than some silly gimmick.
Glad to see the Creature From The Black Lagoon pop up in your montage. It was the first 3D film I saw. Fell in love--not with the 3D, but with the film. CFTBL still makes my top 10 list on a regular basis.
I just remembered that Kevin Murphy (of mst3k fame) wrote a great essay on the modern rise of 3d in his book "A Year at the Movies." This was back in the early 00's, but I think he pretty much nailed how it turned out today.
Great vid, as usual! Also, I dont know if you're aware of this, but Ralph Bakshi's email newsletter just sent out your video you made about him from a couple years back, so congrats on that too!
I love 3D. Maybe it's because I've only seen movies that were actually shot in 3D, but I think it makes everything much more immersive. The glasses are only a slight inconvenience, even when doubled up because I already wear glasses. It's one of the few things I actually like about going to the cinema, compared to watching a movie at home.
I took my kids to watch Megamind in 3d, they kept taking off the 3d glasses. That says it all, the emperor has no clothes. VR is supposed to be the new next 3d that has come and gone again and again.
I think as directors and cinematographers, we fail to utilise the opportunity 3D presents. Rather than have things "come out" of the screen at you, I believe 3D is most effective when used to depict depth and scale. I work at a cinema and I was blown away when I had ti check the cinema for Everest (2015) -- you get a scale of the place that you just cant in a 2D image where the (in this case) mountains are sandwiched together. I had the same experience when I saw the post converted Terminator 2. Theres a shot where Arnold is standing in front of a wide window with blinds and a truck moves past in the background. The interaction between close-up, mid-ground, and background in the shot was incredible. It gave me a new appreciation to the shot I would have otherwise not considered. I wonder what our attitudes as audience members would be if companies had stop trying to sell us something and just concentrated on exploring the new(ish) medium. If we had just appreciated the conventions of film language - which audiences are already familiar with - rather than trying to be innovators, what kind of stories we could be telling with such great technology.
Excellent video, many thanks for this. Ultimately I think you're correct in that the heart of the problem is that a huge majority of people just aren't interested in (and, dare I say, don't appreciate) 3D. Other factors contributing to its demise: Light loss, colour loss, weak 3D, bad conversions, poor native, pesky glasses, higher prices... But seeing a well shot/converted 3D film well presented is, for me, vastly preferable in 3D to 2D. Good to see those clips of old Kermode. As much as I like him, he spent so much effort on being negative about 3D and, from many of his reviews, it was obvious how clueless he was about it (I'm not convinced he has fully functioning binocular vision). He was also one of those critics whose snobbery was apparent in that he would be much more likely to begrudgingly accept 3D if the film was made by a highly regarded film maker (eg Gravity, Cave of Forgotten Dreams) even if the 3D in those films wasn't as good as in others. Interesting that you mention the colourisation of They Shall Not Grow Old - but didn't mention its 3D conversion (which is unavailable on Blu-ray and was generally overlooked). I'm pretty positive the revival of 3D will not begin with Avatar 2, but I hope I'm still around when the inevitable next wave does come along. Anyway, great balanced look at 3D movies, thanks (and stay safe etc).
Surprisingly, 3D movies are still relevant within the VR community. Bigscreen, a virtual movie theater application where you can watch stuff with others, offers 3D functionality for BluRay 3D movies and other 3D content. And the entirely digital aspect of it (the theater is already being rendered twice, once for each eye, in VR, so the left/right sides are split for each eye) makes for a much cleaner 3D effect. Amongst Bigscreen viewers, 3D movies are still fairly popular. And Bigscreen has even recently launched their own paid virtual movie showings, often showing movies in 3D. Of course, 2D content is still popular as well, but it shows that there's still a market for VR movies.
3D is a tool, not a gimmick, but studios keep treating it in a gimmicky way, and it really pisses me off, as I love it when I see a really well done film in 3D. Another problem is that filmakers need to film it for 3D as well. There are different techniques needed, just like there are different techniques needed for filming in B&W and colour. Just like you can't take any colour film and put a black and white filter over it, you can't take a 2D film and just post convert it, even if the post conversaion is done well because it wasn't filmed with 3D in mind. Not every film needs to be in 3D, or will even benefit from it, but studios never learn, and they see a really popular film that had some novel element, and they think that audiences liked that film just for that element, and then they (poorly) make every film like that.
What about VR narrative experiences? Some kind of medium between movies and video games. We may get to see quality VR headsets at an affordable price in the future. That'd be interesting. As always, great work and wonderful animations.
However much I love my VR headset I’m skeptical it’ll ever break into the mainstream. As a technology it’s too socially isolating. It’s difficult to market the idea of disconnecting completely from the world to people. I see AR glasses and contact lenses being the bigger breakthrough that ends up revolutionizing everything. VR is just the current step towards that.
It works well for nature documentaries and films with an alternative art style (Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox), and okay for most CGI animated films. That might be enough to keep it at least somewhat relevant for a while.
American moviegoers are probably not aware of something that ruins the 3D effect in many other countries: Subtitles. They float in the foreground and at the same time you are trying to watch what's happening behind them. It's like reading texts in your phone while driving.
Well, _any_ time you have subtitles, they're going to block what's behind them, even in 2D. But, I can do you one better (or, rather, worse) than that --- since 3D Blurays are essentially no longer marketed in North America, I often have to get mine from a company in Malaysia, or somewhere around there. Unfortunately, they _don't_ float the subtitles in front of the picture. Instead, they position them in the same place on the screen for both images, so the subtitles appear to be right on the screen. So, if something appears to be in front of the screen, the subtitles punch right into them, seeming to be both in front of them by occlusion, and yet simultaneously behind them by depth perception. That's like writing texts while piloting a helicopter. (Actually, it's more like patting your head and rubbing a circle on your stomach at the same time - while walking a tightrope!)
3D Should be called ''Stereo'' i.e. what it really is. 3D should mostly refer to 3D animated objects, or 3D rendered images (i.e. animation, visual effects, which comprise of 3D geometry). The title confused me!!
The last time I saw a 3D movie was accidentally getting a showing for Spider-Man No Way Home in 3D. Didn’t realize it until the “put your glasses on” screen came up. Half the theater ran out to grab glasses, maybe somebody at the theater messed up. But I honestly don’t remember any memorable 3D effects. This video was good at reminding me that 3D has been sticking around longer this time. There’s usually 2 or 3 showings of popular movies in 3D that I make sure to avoid, but every theater has their own multiple showing types: XD, Dolby, 3D, etc. it’s hard to just pick the regular showing anymore.
I honestly didn't know that in people got dizzy from it until I went to the internet. To me, it was just another evolution of the cinematic experience and the annoying part only being that the glasses can be uncomfortable. Half the time, I don't even realise the film I'm watching is in 3D
What 3D cinema has brought to us though was the iconic cinema look of a person with a blue and red glasses and a bucket of popcorn, staring at a screen
I won’t forget watching Avatar in 3D. It’s just not the same experience in 2D. Other movies I enjoyed a lot in 3D were Gravity, all the Avengers movies, Ready Player One and the recent Star Wars trilogy. I love 3D and I really hate it that I can’t buy a TV with 3D anymore, making my 3D blu-rays unwatchable when I buy a new TV.
I love 3D to this day. Its a shame that my Sony 4K 3D took a dump (although I do still have it and want to get it fixed). But, IMHO, Dr. Strange is THE best 3D experience to date.
Were you able to see A Long Day’s Journey Into Night in 3D? That to me was one of the more fascinating uses of it, especially since you can't argue any commercial appeal with it. Purely artistic choice that I really loved.
Nostalgia occurs approximately every 25-30 years. Marketers lover that, thousands more young adults who have no clue what 3D is. But it strain the heck out of my eyes...
Hugo. Almost nobody saw it the way I did. Giant XD screen. I was in the best seats with one friend. Almost no one else was in the theater. That film was shot with 3D in mind. It's mind blowingly beautiful and elegant. It's the full realization of integrating the tool artistically into the medium to enhance the narrative. It was one of the top 10 greatest theater going experiences of my life. And I doubt I will ever get it again. It wasn't popular enough to have a rerelease in 3D. Even when Scorsese dies they'll show other films from his filmography. The film without 3D is still good. But it's like the Wizard of Oz without color. You just miss the whole experience. The fact it is about a love of the history of cinema, and also built with the "new" 3d technology worked on so many meta levels. If I ever met Scorsese, it's the film I would talk to him about.
3D usually faces its head when Hollywood is competing with something. in the 50s, it was TV in the 80s it was home video, in the 2010s pirating and streaming. Its also ironic that Hollywood resists adapting and diversifying their business. They fought tooth and nail against TV in the 50s, but nowadays every studio has a Television department. They war against streaming will result in something along the lines of what Disney is trying out with Disney+, and interestingly it happens to be occurring right around the time 3D is dying out. 3D will probably work itself out when the technology is right. It needs to not require glasses and it needs to not cost extra for viewers to see it. In fact, ticket prices need to be reduced drastically, I attribute high ticket prices to the decline in cinema-going audiences. For the brief time that MoviePass was around, movie attendances went up. People love going to the theaters, they just hate paying ridiculous prices for it. Digital is making films less expensive to produce and yet Hollywood still spends the same budgets on them. Hollywood needs to become less frivolous with how they budget things.
You realize movies are expensive to make right? Not every movie mind you, but most blockbusters are. The high ticket prices are because half of it goes to the theater owner (which is currently being fucked because all theaters are closed) and half goes to the studio, which then has to pay all their employees (including the movie stars which usually have a contract that allows them right to a small percentage of the box office) and pay preliminary costs for their next big production, and the circle continues. Usually a movie has to make 4 times it's budget to be profitable, that's because the studio only gets half the money (as stated before) and the movie's budget doesn't include advertising costs which usually are the same amount of money they spent on the movie. So movies cost twice as much to "make" (production and advertising) as people think they do and studios only get half the money people think they do. Movies are not easy money like people think, a lot of productions fail, and when they do it's usually by a huge amount, meaning the studio just lost millions of dollars and there's no way of recovering that until the next big release. Which also explains why Disney is in such a dire financial situation right now, yeah, I know, how can Disney of all studios be in trouble? Let me explain They just spent a huge amount of money buying fox, a debt that they still haven't payed, and their primary source of money (movies) was taken away. That explains why most execs (including Bob Iger himself) are taking huge cuts to their salaries just so the situation doesn't get any worse. They're in serious risk of having their shareholders selling their shares to another company (a lot of rumors are saying Apple is interested), and that's something they defiantly don't want.
I think a big thing that I've noticed with people I bring to 3D movies, is attention. It takes a lot, and I mean a LOT, more effort to watch a 3D movie. Its such a minutely subjective thing, color sure people see colors differently than each other but know the concept well enough to communicate through it. Seeing 3D, actually seeing in stereoscopy is actually really difficult for some people. Sure people can tell when something is in front of something else, or how shadows and light are affected in 3D space, but very few people I talk to actually understand how seeing 2 pictures can create a 3D image. So when you watch a 3D movie you have to focus a lot of attention on what is and isn't 3D for it to matter. The change is so minute sure for someone like me that loves it and would rather go blind in both eyes than ever just one, I can see the differences and rewatch the same 3D movie over and over. A regular person gets the same information from the 2D picture. This was actually the first issue I noticed with Avatar my bio-Mom got huge headaches from it, because Avatar isn't designed super well for 3D. It puts too many scenes out of focus and expects you to know where to look when that scene changes. So if you're looking in the background during one scene, it could cut to the next and suddenly that part of the screen is super close and out of focus, unless you know that the cut is coming and preemptively focus on the next focal point, it does hurt your eyes and you're playing catchup the whole time. Animated movies are really great for this, because unless they actively take parts out of focus, things tend to stay in a fantastically super-focus state, so you can look where you want I think the only thing that could cement 3D into theaters like widescreen and color did, would be glasses-less and seamless 3D. aAphysically impossible feat. It would have to just exist as our real vision does, so people who can't see it never notice, people who get headaches from the change of focus can focus where they like, and only the people really looking for it notice, but beyond creating holographic plays I don't know a way that technology could ever handle all the possible interpretations of 3D
I think you overlooked the fact that, in most normal cinemas, the 3D picture is so dark. As little as 4 foot lamberts compared to the industry 2D standard of 14 fL.
The first time I was exposed to 3D was Monster Vs. Aliens when someone was hitting a paddle ball towards the screen, and I vividly remember the paddle ball popping out of the scream.
Any part of a movie which has no function except attract the audience becomes a gimmick: nudity, music, visual effects, etc. But 3D can be used as narrative tool, like in the chinese film 'Long's day journey into night". Great video, thanx!!!
For me the problem is the crazy cost. People were willing to pay more when they hadn't seen it before but now still some theaters' costs for 3D is almost double for a movie coupled with the fact that an average person doesn't know the difference between captured 3D and post converted 3D, the result is a product that is way too expensive that everyone's seen awful post converted versions of.
I used to hate watching 3D because there was no 2D option at the time I wanted. It's way better when all the start times are 2D. It might be less innovative but leads to an overall better viewing experience. Cheaper price, don't have to wear uncomfortable glasses, doesn't wear your eyes down, doesn't distract you with something coming at you. I have only seen like 2 films that were really used 3D effectively, but even then, it didn't add that much to my experience. It wasn't a must see thing. Just a little different but not necessarily better. At the end of the day, no glasses or moving chair and water spraying at you is better. Just sit still and watch a nice wide-screen movie with a nice sound system. It's everything you need without what you don't need.
3D CAN work well - very well, even - if it's in just the right kind of movie. This might be a double whammy of people calling me a tasteless goon, but I still remember just how much I enjoyed seeing Prometheus in 3D IMAX. It's not a great movie, but its strong suit was spectacle over anything else, and 3D can be really good for those kinds of movies. The flying scenes over the planet conveyed a powerful sense of motion, and oh my god the scene with Shaw inside the medical pod felt so much more claustrophobic and frightening than it ever has on any 2D rewatch.
I remember back in the 1980s when a couple of local TV stations aired 3-D movies from the 50's and you had to buy the paper glasses at gas stations. It seemed like a gimmick, but one that added a lot of charm to the movies. It's a fun way to kill a couple of hours, but I wouldn't have wanted to watch every movie like that.
My Experience. I went to watch Thor Ragnarok but it wasn't available in the regular theatre due to technical difficulties, So I went to a much smaller but still 3D screen. Watched it, enjoyed it and came home. The next day since my friend wanted to watch the film we went to the regular theatre with bigger screen and sat in the middle close to the screen. Now, it's not the biggest screen in the world(since I live in a small city) but it's a wall-to-wall spread screen. And to watch 3D in that big screen was a complete different experience for me since I was watching the same film. Now that I think about it, I agree with Mark that the effect wears out in 1st 5 min coz in the film when thor arrives and titles comes at the screen. It adds nothing to the experience. Also, I've noticed that just for the marketing the 3D films have a totally different opening sequence just for the 3D experience. Like why do you need opening credits coming outta screen in furious 7, or why open a film with an action sequence when the stort could've just worked fine(thor ragnarok is an exception). I don't hate 3D but I'd still like it to be an option.
Agree 100% that They Shall Not Grow Old was a perfectly appropriate use of both colorization and 3D. But colorizing It's A Wonderful Life is a travesty and it hurt me to see even a glimpse of that here, even if only for illustrative purposes. Keep up the great work!
Great work as usual but I'm honestly surprised you didn't spotlight the price issue more often in modern 3D especially is America's constantly troubled economy and well before the Corona virus hit our shores.
Woah, I just noticed that the multiplex you reference in this video looks awfully familiar. Every time I visited my parents I made sure to stop in for a $4.99 matinee. Long live Tinseltown!
I would argue, VR finally brings true stereoscopic video, but no uses a stereoscopic camera. They just use a 360 or 180 video and offset the eyes by a couple degrees, and that creates a really bad FOV for the viewer.
I wonder what the demographic numbers are on 3D booms. I was 12-14 during the early 2010s 3D resurgence and if memory serves most of the movies I saw with my friends during that time were in 3D, while most of the movies I saw with family were 2D. Plus, there was a brief trend of popping the lenses out of Real-D glasses and wearing them. So I wonder how much of it was, as many things are, a teenager driven trend.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Whether you adore 3D or want it to go away forever, I'm sure we can all agree that the theatrical experience is something that's incredibly special and communal in the best of ways - and for a lot of us right now, it's very very missed. Stay safe out there, folks - wash your hands an extra few times, don't fight over toilet paper, and we can all get through this together. Also, if you can, try and support your local independent theaters - gift cards, merch, some are even hosting virtual screenings - it all helps during tough times like these!
Also, don’t assume the virus can’t hurt you because you’re young and healthy. The virus can do serious damage to our lungs. With even young patients losing 20-30% of their lung function after recovering.
Do you think watching movies in the theater will have the same fate as 3d? I feel like your same arguments could be made for watching movies there versus at home or another small screen. Ultimately both 3d and watching at a theater will come down to profit margins of both things. And with movie screens becoming bigger and bigger, the real estate costs, and therefore rent costs rise. It's foreseeable in the future that watching moves at a cinema will be more of a niche audience. I don't see as many big corporate theaters lasting if the Corona Virus breakout lasts for months since they operate based on raw profit compared to independent theaters which have smaller margins, but don't mind because they started that small business for the sake of being a theater owner.
I'd like to hear your opinion on the high frame rate gimmick
I really enjoyed the 3D format when I first saw "Avatar" (which, by today's standards, is...okay), and my favorite 3D films are Life of Pi, Tron Legacy, The Avengers, Prometheus, and, my favorite of the 5, "Gravity".
@@powerbeam08 Avatar is the worst stereoscopic movie ever produced...
Not that it's a perfect film, but I always enjoyed how Tron: Legacy kept itself in 2D for the beginning of the film, only jumping into 3D once Sam entered the computer. I don't personally like 3D that much, but I think having some sort of purpose behind its usage, such as Tron did, would go a long way to making it mean more to people.
The second movie I watched in 3D was Abraham Lincoln vampire hunter. The cinema in my town doesn't play 3D anymore
This is an example of how 3D can be used as a tool in the movie rather than a gimmick.
Mike O'Brien Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over did this first whenever they enter the game haha
Jacob MacDonagh Also, Shark-Boy and Lava-Girl whenever they’re in the dreamworld.
Like how we now start The Wizard of Oz in black and white and get colorized in Oz.
I'll never forget seeing Gravity in 3d. In my opinion, that is definitely one of the most appropriate and intelligent uses of 3d in contemporary film
In Gravity, the 3D added something to the way the story was told and experienced. The problem with 3D in general is that it adds nothing narratively. Gravity is the exception that proves the rule.
It is the only movie that I would rather see in 3D. The scale of the environment plays well in 3D.
I haven't watched Gravity yet, but Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams might be another one to add to the list
Yeah, I usually could take it or leave it but that’s an exception
I saw gravity with my grandma, she kept saying the projector was off and the3D wasn’t working. 45 minutes in we realized she was wearing her sunglasses
the editing and all the retro styling of this video is incredible. you're a crazy man! so good.
My 2 cents on the matter:
1. I wear glasses. I don't like wearing another pair of glasses to see a movie.
2. 3D movies are more expensive. going to the theatre is costs a lot already. I'd rather spend the extra few bucks on a snack than on a feature I'm going to ignore after 15 mins.
Yes to all that you say.
And the 3D makes it hard to focus on the details in the movie. Hard to look around the room when a hand or branch is blocking your view
I have clip-on 3D glasses for my own glasses. I buy them for 1 buck, and they last about a year.
Next you'll be saying you don't want to wear two covid masks.
I agree. My dad would probably rather see everything in 3D, but after a whole movie it make my eyes sore from wearing two glasses, and it just makes me feel dizzy. But we just have to watch the polar express in 3D every year🙄
I remember seeing Chicken Little in 3D. The glasses we were given looked just like the ones he wore in the movie; I thought it was so cool at the time.
For my money you've got the best entertainment video essay/documentary presentation currently out there. It's so cool, it's almost distracting.
3D in Spider-Man into the Spiderverse was a crazy awesome experience. Really made it come to life for me.
This is the first I've heard of Katzenberg's excuses for the failure of 3D. Especially funny hearing them on the heels of his excuses for why Quibi is failing. "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."
I feel like there’s this huge disconnect between what the industry thinks its audience wants, and what we actually want. They keep trying to sell me this “cinema experience,” when really I just go to the movies to see a movie. To me, the magic of cinema doesn’t come from the theater; it doesn’t come from the dark room and the big screen, the ear-splitting speakers, the 3D glasses, or the seats that rumble. It comes from impeccable writing, heartfelt acting, beautiful cinematography, and everything else that comes from the film itself. If you want me to pay a premium to sit in the theater, invest in the films. Show me original, compelling stories that I can’t see anywhere else.
I disagree a bit, I feel that a lot of movies really do benefit from the cinema experience of heightened sound quality. Take the movie Dunkirk for example, that movie is one I just would not care for to watch at home, as great as it is. It needs the picture and sound quality of a theater to get to its full potential.
@@augustuslodholz5453 I do agree that some films can be enhanced in a theater environment, but for me it's not to that fantastical extent that the industry seems to imagine. I almost have to laugh at the ads for D-BOX seats telling me to "LIVE THE ACTION" and feel like I'm in the movie. They want to create this alternative reality/escapism fantasy land where the barrier between film and viewer sort of melts away, and I'm just not into that.
@Patrick Mack Unfortunately, people really do just mindlessly go to films because it has characters they recognize. As much as we want film to be about the art of it, I think it's still primarily a profit-driven enterprise. Disney will always make the next Marvel movie because Disney knows that enough people will pay to see it to make it profitable. Who needs critical acclaim and a dinky statuette when you can just keep milking the cash cow?
Bryan Keidel yeah that I agree with, I’d rather watch a good film at home then a meh one in theaters.
If everything you said about the “cinema experience” is irrelevant to you, then everything you listed as “the magic of cinema” can be enjoyed in your own home. That’s why they’re trying so hard.
Everything you care about films will be the same in theaters and on Netflix.
The moment I fell in love with the possibilities of 3D was seeing The Lion King rereleased converted to the format. The idea of giving depth to 2D hand-drawn animation is so beautiful to me. I hope 3D can find its place in the world. I desperately want to find way I could work in 3D, because as an animator myself, I want to be able to share what I felt watching The Lion King 3D with others.
2050: Cinemas begin offering 5d experiences of films, by giving the audience psychedelics before they watch
In defence of James Cameron, the 3D effects of Avatar were mind blowing at the time and I’m sure would be the same top notch with the upcoming sequels. Others, well they just jumped on the bandwagon. I still hope that 3D will die out as I hate wearing those glasses. I do have a soft spot for 4D with those moving chairs & all that stuff, but that is limited to watching Spider-Man movie, it was basically a perfect fit for the tech.
Agreed. Although the story may have been nothing special, I don't think I'll ever forget the experience of seeing Avatar's alien wildlife in 3D for the first time. Everything felt huge.
My best 3D film watching: Avatar
My worst? The Last Airbender😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😔
I saw Avatar in 3D and I wasn’t impressed. Despicable Me had better 3D
@@Poever right? Oh god, I thought I was stupid. Even the latest minions the rise of gru's intro scene was very good.
If *anything* can be justifiably accused of being a gimmick, it's 4D. I tried a couple of movies in DBox, which is the moving seats, and found it nothing but distracting. The added horror of water being sprayed in your face, or fart smells assaulting you, I have only endured in amusement parks. At least with 3D, the film's creator (presumably) has some control over the 3D effect. I wonder who is responsible for programming the "extras" in a 4D extravaganza?
This was a really well done video, thanks for making it so informative and entertaining.
I used to work at StereoD, the company that worked on the Titanic 3D post-conversion (among many others), and that you showed in a brief shot when talking about conversion.
I would have liked more of a conversation about WHY recent 3D films that worked, worked, and what was positive about a 3D experience. The argument felt one-sided. It's been my experience that good 3D movies absolutely added to positive goodwill around 3D for audiences. I also believe that many of the reasons 3D failed is because of how major movie studios SOLD the idea to audiences, how they failed to market it, how they failed to market 3D televisions, and how they all abandoned that 3D home market for the gimmick of 4K as soon as 3DTVs didn't sell as much as companies expected them to.
Good 3D adds immersion, adds depth, enhances good acting, enhances breathtaking visuals, and overall makes certain movies even more special. If you ever decide to revisit this topic in the future, consider talking to folks who worked on the 3D side of the industry. Thanks! = )
Hey, I gotta say --- as someone who saw _Class of the Titans_ in 3D, I absolutely swore off ever seeing another post-converted film again. I would actually check online before going to one to find out if it was native 3D or post-converted. So, for a while at least, it pained me to have to admit that the very *_best_* live-action 3D I have ever seen, was post-converted _Titanic!_ Totally astounding! Second best may be post-converted _Jurassic Park!_ Truly amazing! If you personally had any part in the _Titanic_ conversion, my congratulations, and thanks!
@@viddork I didn't, but I *did* work on Jurassic Park a little bit, and that job also took around nine months and was overseen by Spielberg himself. I didn't work on the new one this year, but I believe the same process happened for Jaws, and I went to go see it in theaters last year, and it was amazing. Good 3D conversion can sometimes be better than 'natively-shot' 3D, it just depends on how it's utilized. Thanks!
People in a few years: I can't believe filmmakers got rid of a whole dimension because it was too gimmicky. Times have been hard since all films have been shown without the z-axis.
You see books with more shit? No? Fuck off
@@SuperRat420 literally YES. Paperbacks, picture books, ebooks, online chapter-by-chapter release graphic novel adaptations, fucking audiobooks.
I felt the same way about early "VR" that I did about 3D in movies and TVs. They were both gimmicks that were tried multiple times but always failed but THEN someone said "Why don't you put your chocolate in my peanut butter" and VR is pretty damned snazzy and is made so by 3D tech.
James Cameron’s ‘Smurfs’
I love 3D! Especially in movie theatres! So sad the way it went away... Hopefully, the next wave has 3D without glasses...
Just found your channel and this video, so late to this discussion, but I adore 3D in subtle areas. Done right (minus the obvious "this is for 3d coolness" shots) it leaves a marked impression. I still vividly remember my first new 3d movie in theaters. When it snowed in the Christmas Carol, it was so real it brought me to tears. I've seen this story every year by others, but the 3D theater experience brought new life to it. Still I admit 3D has it's place. I actually bought a 3D LG tv around that time. It was great, and I was stunned to not being able to find a replacement when it quit, I didn't have this experience at home. This leads me to the conclusion that 3D is a piece of the immersive puzzle theatres need to distinguish themselves from the at home experience. A screen bigger than your field of vision, surround sound, a comfortable recliner and select 3D still bring me in to see movies.
your videos are criminally underwatched. i dont understand how something so good is so obscure. youtube algorithm sucks. keep it up!
Loved seeing the Mark compilation at the end. Expertly done
Thankyou so much for the time and effort you put into this video man. Absolutely adore the attention to detail you had with all of the animations and graphics linking back to the time and era of 3D glasses. NAILED IT SON! 👊
In other words: Say goodbye to yoyo scenes that doesn't serve the plot.
@@omi_god Of course. But if I understand this video correctly, they don't enjoy it anymore and they don't want to pay for it either. Maybe their taste has come back to the good old "great script, great cinematography and great acting" lol
I used to work in Stereoscopics (Post Conversion) And at 9:46 is where I used to work! I'm starting to get flashbacks now of 10 hour days and 2 month crunch times.
One of my favorite parts of owning a VR headset is finally being able to sit down and check out all the 3D movies I missed when it was popular because when Avatar came out I was only 9 years old. So a lot of it passed me by. And honestly one of my favorite 3D movies that I recommend everybody to check out if they want to get a sense for what 3D is like is actually a post conversion, and a legacy post conversion at that. One 3D movie that I recommend everybody should go see is the conversion of Disney's Renaissance classic Beauty and the Beast, not the live-action one but the original animated movie. They did such a good job with that conversion and you might think watching a 2d animated movie in 3D is weird but you get used to it pretty quickly. A lot of distance establishing shots like the zoom in and zoom out of a castle in the opening prologue to the movie and the minor details like giving all the characters depth on their faces with things like their noses is really well done. And the famous ballroom scene looks stunning in 3D imo. If you ever get the chance to it is definitely worth checking it out. And honestly, I personally believe that when trying a new piece of technology with movies, it's best to try something that you're familiar with and I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with Beauty and the Beast
This is incredibly well made and concise. You deserve regular views high into the millions. Keep it up!
This is the same conversation I have with everybody...
3D should be used as a tool for the cinema experience. The director should make this decision based on creativity. It is the same with how the sound will be produced, exactly the same. Avatar is awesome in 3D! However, if you want to watch it 2D, mono sound on a small iPhone, then that is your decision. Nobody is taking away the personal choice of the viewer. I think that is always the point here. People just hate to wear glasses. Real-life is in 3D and nobody complains about that, right?
But speaking of choice, 3D should not be taken away from those who appreciate it and enjoy it. It was brought to the home theater screen for a few years and now it is taken away. Not fair to me!
But here is the real problem: 3D was marketed as a "mainstream" product. It should never have been done that way. It's like the industry never learns their lessons... You know how there are only 1 or 2 screens playing 3D in any given theater? Yeah, well that is how it should always be. It is a "niche" product. It is one of those things that very few people appreciate. So it should be marketed as that type of product. The expectation was unrealistic so, of course, it seemed to fail. But it didn't actually fail. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. It made people happy, very few people.
Hey, I hate smoking, but I never go out and say "hey, stop making cigarettes" just because I don't like it. Nothing should be taken away from people who enjoy it! That is my whole point here.
Keep 3D alive and well!!
That's not how this works! We as a hivemind collectively decided that 3D am bad, you're not allowed your personal opinion.
@@free_spirit1 don't pass on your low standards to me. If its a product I want, then I am allowed an opinion.
So again, I will say, if I hate cigarettes then why would I say to stop making them? Its none of my business if someone else likes to smoke. It doesn't affect my life. A product should be marketed to the right market. It is obvious they had no idea who their market was. The marketing department completely misjudged the people.
@@davestreicher I'm in total agreement with you. My comment is meant to be sarcastic.
3D doesn't seem so much about taste or preference rather than possibilities. Some movies work in 3D because they can give something people enjoy, works for the way it's shot or written or whatever, but it's used as a tool to express something rather than a gimmick where it does nothing more than make a tube come out of the screen.
Yes, 3D is a niche, and yes, it's worth keeping for that amount of movies that can make it work into them. Trying to sell it to everything moving in a screen was a mistake.
It's probably just the cost that drove down interest. Covid just killed it more.
I'd love it if more Horror was in 3D.
I never got motion sickness, I just always felt that anything that was not meant to “jump out at you” was always a bit more blurry than usual. I would just rather have a clear image than some silly gimmick.
They Shall Not Grow Old was not only colourised, it was also converted to 3D.
Glad to see the Creature From The Black Lagoon pop up in your montage. It was the first 3D film I saw. Fell in love--not with the 3D, but with the film. CFTBL still makes my top 10 list on a regular basis.
The visuals in this video are awe inspiring. I love the style from start to finish. Post, modern, retro. It's truly excellent.
I just remembered that Kevin Murphy (of mst3k fame) wrote a great essay on the modern rise of 3d in his book "A Year at the Movies." This was back in the early 00's, but I think he pretty much nailed how it turned out today.
I love Kermode. And I really really love how you have perfected your animation.
Great vid, as usual! Also, I dont know if you're aware of this, but Ralph Bakshi's email newsletter just sent out your video you made about him from a couple years back, so congrats on that too!
Wow, that opening really makes me nostalgic for movie theaters. 😪
Fantastic motion graphics, and excellent use of Kermode at the end. Surprised you never mentioned the discomfort of the glasses though!
I love 3D. Maybe it's because I've only seen movies that were actually shot in 3D, but I think it makes everything much more immersive. The glasses are only a slight inconvenience, even when doubled up because I already wear glasses. It's one of the few things I actually like about going to the cinema, compared to watching a movie at home.
Video Game boy
I❤3D.
P.S. For the last 2 years, almost every time me my and family would see a movie in theaters, we would see it in 3D.
I took my kids to watch Megamind in 3d, they kept taking off the 3d glasses. That says it all, the emperor has no clothes. VR is supposed to be the new next 3d that has come and gone again and again.
I think as directors and cinematographers, we fail to utilise the opportunity 3D presents. Rather than have things "come out" of the screen at you, I believe 3D is most effective when used to depict depth and scale. I work at a cinema and I was blown away when I had ti check the cinema for Everest (2015) -- you get a scale of the place that you just cant in a 2D image where the (in this case) mountains are sandwiched together.
I had the same experience when I saw the post converted Terminator 2. Theres a shot where Arnold is standing in front of a wide window with blinds and a truck moves past in the background. The interaction between close-up, mid-ground, and background in the shot was incredible. It gave me a new appreciation to the shot I would have otherwise not considered.
I wonder what our attitudes as audience members would be if companies had stop trying to sell us something and just concentrated on exploring the new(ish) medium. If we had just appreciated the conventions of film language - which audiences are already familiar with - rather than trying to be innovators, what kind of stories we could be telling with such great technology.
Maybe my favorite channel on the ‘Tube. Consistently stellar, inspiring work.
Great video! Love the comparison to colorization.
Excellent video, many thanks for this. Ultimately I think you're correct in that the heart of the problem is that a huge majority of people just aren't interested in (and, dare I say, don't appreciate) 3D.
Other factors contributing to its demise: Light loss, colour loss, weak 3D, bad conversions, poor native, pesky glasses, higher prices... But seeing a well shot/converted 3D film well presented is, for me, vastly preferable in 3D to 2D.
Good to see those clips of old Kermode. As much as I like him, he spent so much effort on being negative about 3D and, from many of his reviews, it was obvious how clueless he was about it (I'm not convinced he has fully functioning binocular vision). He was also one of those critics whose snobbery was apparent in that he would be much more likely to begrudgingly accept 3D if the film was made by a highly regarded film maker (eg Gravity, Cave of Forgotten Dreams) even if the 3D in those films wasn't as good as in others.
Interesting that you mention the colourisation of They Shall Not Grow Old - but didn't mention its 3D conversion (which is unavailable on Blu-ray and was generally overlooked).
I'm pretty positive the revival of 3D will not begin with Avatar 2, but I hope I'm still around when the inevitable next wave does come along. Anyway, great balanced look at 3D movies, thanks (and stay safe etc).
Great video I’m hoping to delve further in to the history of 3D in a thesis for my film masters. This is a really nice starting point
i appreciate the amount of effort in research you put in your videos. keep it up!
Surprisingly, 3D movies are still relevant within the VR community. Bigscreen, a virtual movie theater application where you can watch stuff with others, offers 3D functionality for BluRay 3D movies and other 3D content. And the entirely digital aspect of it (the theater is already being rendered twice, once for each eye, in VR, so the left/right sides are split for each eye) makes for a much cleaner 3D effect. Amongst Bigscreen viewers, 3D movies are still fairly popular. And Bigscreen has even recently launched their own paid virtual movie showings, often showing movies in 3D. Of course, 2D content is still popular as well, but it shows that there's still a market for VR movies.
‘2020 isnt shaping up to be any better’ how right you were
3D is a tool, not a gimmick, but studios keep treating it in a gimmicky way, and it really pisses me off, as I love it when I see a really well done film in 3D. Another problem is that filmakers need to film it for 3D as well. There are different techniques needed, just like there are different techniques needed for filming in B&W and colour. Just like you can't take any colour film and put a black and white filter over it, you can't take a 2D film and just post convert it, even if the post conversaion is done well because it wasn't filmed with 3D in mind.
Not every film needs to be in 3D, or will even benefit from it, but studios never learn, and they see a really popular film that had some novel element, and they think that audiences liked that film just for that element, and then they (poorly) make every film like that.
Brilliant essay, and your graphics are Insanely good as well! Kudos!
This channel is so goddamn good. That's all I wanna say.
Dude the amount of effort put into this video is insane, very underated I'm genuinely surprised how little reaction this has
What about VR narrative experiences? Some kind of medium between movies and video games. We may get to see quality VR headsets at an affordable price in the future. That'd be interesting.
As always, great work and wonderful animations.
However much I love my VR headset I’m skeptical it’ll ever break into the mainstream. As a technology it’s too socially isolating. It’s difficult to market the idea of disconnecting completely from the world to people.
I see AR glasses and contact lenses being the bigger breakthrough that ends up revolutionizing everything. VR is just the current step towards that.
Thats just a video game
@@TheLingo56 *Laughs in Internet*
8:03 Chicken Little (2005), Meet the Robinsons (2007), Monster House (2006), and Nightmare 3D (2006) all came out in the later half of the 2000s.
It works well for nature documentaries and films with an alternative art style (Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox), and okay for most CGI animated films. That might be enough to keep it at least somewhat relevant for a while.
American moviegoers are probably not aware of something that ruins the 3D effect in many other countries: Subtitles. They float in the foreground and at the same time you are trying to watch what's happening behind them. It's like reading texts in your phone while driving.
Well, _any_ time you have subtitles, they're going to block what's behind them, even in 2D.
But, I can do you one better (or, rather, worse) than that --- since 3D Blurays are essentially no longer marketed in North America, I often have to get mine from a company in Malaysia, or somewhere around there. Unfortunately, they _don't_ float the subtitles in front of the picture. Instead, they position them in the same place on the screen for both images, so the subtitles appear to be right on the screen. So, if something appears to be in front of the screen, the subtitles punch right into them, seeming to be both in front of them by occlusion, and yet simultaneously behind them by depth perception. That's like writing texts while piloting a helicopter. (Actually, it's more like patting your head and rubbing a circle on your stomach at the same time - while walking a tightrope!)
All you videos are incredible insightful and simply amazing
Congrats to hitting 200k subs royal ocean
3D Should be called ''Stereo'' i.e. what it really is. 3D should mostly refer to 3D animated objects, or 3D rendered images (i.e. animation, visual effects, which comprise of 3D geometry). The title confused me!!
The last time I saw a 3D movie was accidentally getting a showing for Spider-Man No Way Home in 3D. Didn’t realize it until the “put your glasses on” screen came up. Half the theater ran out to grab glasses, maybe somebody at the theater messed up. But I honestly don’t remember any memorable 3D effects.
This video was good at reminding me that 3D has been sticking around longer this time. There’s usually 2 or 3 showings of popular movies in 3D that I make sure to avoid, but every theater has their own multiple showing types: XD, Dolby, 3D, etc. it’s hard to just pick the regular showing anymore.
Love your film essays! Sharing on The Awesomer later today.
"2020 isn't shaping up to be any better" boy you weren't kidding
Dredd was the only movie I thought was worth seeing in 3D around the time this craze was happening.
Amazing design and sound editing! Keep it going :)
- Do you wanna watch Le Mépris.
- Yeah sure!!! But let's watch it in 3D
"The conversion process is complete pants."
best quote of the video
I honestly didn't know that in people got dizzy from it until I went to the internet. To me, it was just another evolution of the cinematic experience and the annoying part only being that the glasses can be uncomfortable. Half the time, I don't even realise the film I'm watching is in 3D
What 3D cinema has brought to us though was the iconic cinema look of a person with a blue and red glasses and a bucket of popcorn, staring at a screen
I won’t forget watching Avatar in 3D. It’s just not the same experience in 2D. Other movies I enjoyed a lot in 3D were Gravity, all the Avengers movies, Ready Player One and the recent Star Wars trilogy. I love 3D and I really hate it that I can’t buy a TV with 3D anymore, making my 3D blu-rays unwatchable when I buy a new TV.
Gravity IS actually worth seeing in 3D.
I love 3D to this day. Its a shame that my Sony 4K 3D took a dump (although I do still have it and want to get it fixed). But, IMHO, Dr. Strange is THE best 3D experience to date.
Were you able to see A Long Day’s Journey Into Night in 3D? That to me was one of the more fascinating uses of it, especially since you can't argue any commercial appeal with it. Purely artistic choice that I really loved.
Nostalgia occurs approximately every 25-30 years. Marketers lover that, thousands more young adults who have no clue what 3D is.
But it strain the heck out of my eyes...
Hugo.
Almost nobody saw it the way I did. Giant XD screen. I was in the best seats with one friend. Almost no one else was in the theater. That film was shot with 3D in mind. It's mind blowingly beautiful and elegant. It's the full realization of integrating the tool artistically into the medium to enhance the narrative. It was one of the top 10 greatest theater going experiences of my life. And I doubt I will ever get it again. It wasn't popular enough to have a rerelease in 3D. Even when Scorsese dies they'll show other films from his filmography. The film without 3D is still good. But it's like the Wizard of Oz without color. You just miss the whole experience. The fact it is about a love of the history of cinema, and also built with the "new" 3d technology worked on so many meta levels. If I ever met Scorsese, it's the film I would talk to him about.
Honestly when I was a kid I remember seeing some movies in 3D but sadly didn’t experience that much films back in 2010
3D was only incredible in Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse. I can't think of any other way to see that movie. It was unforgettable.
Jaws 3-D is the Andrei Rublev of bad 3D movies
3D usually faces its head when Hollywood is competing with something. in the 50s, it was TV in the 80s it was home video, in the 2010s pirating and streaming.
Its also ironic that Hollywood resists adapting and diversifying their business. They fought tooth and nail against TV in the 50s, but nowadays every studio has a Television department. They war against streaming will result in something along the lines of what Disney is trying out with Disney+, and interestingly it happens to be occurring right around the time 3D is dying out.
3D will probably work itself out when the technology is right. It needs to not require glasses and it needs to not cost extra for viewers to see it.
In fact, ticket prices need to be reduced drastically, I attribute high ticket prices to the decline in cinema-going audiences. For the brief time that MoviePass was around, movie attendances went up. People love going to the theaters, they just hate paying ridiculous prices for it. Digital is making films less expensive to produce and yet Hollywood still spends the same budgets on them. Hollywood needs to become less frivolous with how they budget things.
You realize movies are expensive to make right? Not every movie mind you, but most blockbusters are.
The high ticket prices are because half of it goes to the theater owner (which is currently being fucked because all theaters are closed) and half goes to the studio, which then has to pay all their employees (including the movie stars which usually have a contract that allows them right to a small percentage of the box office) and pay preliminary costs for their next big production, and the circle continues.
Usually a movie has to make 4 times it's budget to be profitable, that's because the studio only gets half the money (as stated before) and the movie's budget doesn't include advertising costs which usually are the same amount of money they spent on the movie.
So movies cost twice as much to "make" (production and advertising) as people think they do and studios only get half the money people think they do. Movies are not easy money like people think, a lot of productions fail, and when they do it's usually by a huge amount, meaning the studio just lost millions of dollars and there's no way of recovering that until the next big release.
Which also explains why Disney is in such a dire financial situation right now, yeah, I know, how can Disney of all studios be in trouble? Let me explain
They just spent a huge amount of money buying fox, a debt that they still haven't payed, and their primary source of money (movies) was taken away. That explains why most execs (including Bob Iger himself) are taking huge cuts to their salaries just so the situation doesn't get any worse. They're in serious risk of having their shareholders selling their shares to another company (a lot of rumors are saying Apple is interested), and that's something they defiantly don't want.
4:20 is that the same story as The Shadow and the Darkness?
And now we have 3D movies in VR 😄 I'm in the process of backing up all my 3D blurays to digital. Already collected over 20 movies
Forward 2000 years in the future: Casablanca in a Holodeck (or Holosuite).
Love your content!
I think a big thing that I've noticed with people I bring to 3D movies, is attention. It takes a lot, and I mean a LOT, more effort to watch a 3D movie. Its such a minutely subjective thing, color sure people see colors differently than each other but know the concept well enough to communicate through it. Seeing 3D, actually seeing in stereoscopy is actually really difficult for some people. Sure people can tell when something is in front of something else, or how shadows and light are affected in 3D space, but very few people I talk to actually understand how seeing 2 pictures can create a 3D image.
So when you watch a 3D movie you have to focus a lot of attention on what is and isn't 3D for it to matter. The change is so minute sure for someone like me that loves it and would rather go blind in both eyes than ever just one, I can see the differences and rewatch the same 3D movie over and over. A regular person gets the same information from the 2D picture.
This was actually the first issue I noticed with Avatar my bio-Mom got huge headaches from it, because Avatar isn't designed super well for 3D. It puts too many scenes out of focus and expects you to know where to look when that scene changes. So if you're looking in the background during one scene, it could cut to the next and suddenly that part of the screen is super close and out of focus, unless you know that the cut is coming and preemptively focus on the next focal point, it does hurt your eyes and you're playing catchup the whole time. Animated movies are really great for this, because unless they actively take parts out of focus, things tend to stay in a fantastically super-focus state, so you can look where you want
I think the only thing that could cement 3D into theaters like widescreen and color did, would be glasses-less and seamless 3D. aAphysically impossible feat. It would have to just exist as our real vision does, so people who can't see it never notice, people who get headaches from the change of focus can focus where they like, and only the people really looking for it notice, but beyond creating holographic plays I don't know a way that technology could ever handle all the possible interpretations of 3D
I think you overlooked the fact that, in most normal cinemas, the 3D picture is so dark. As little as 4 foot lamberts compared to the industry 2D standard of 14 fL.
The first time I was exposed to 3D was Monster Vs. Aliens when someone was hitting a paddle ball towards the screen, and I vividly remember the paddle ball popping out of the scream.
Any part of a movie which has no function except attract the audience becomes a gimmick: nudity, music, visual effects, etc. But 3D can be used as narrative tool, like in the chinese film 'Long's day journey into night". Great video, thanx!!!
For me the problem is the crazy cost. People were willing to pay more when they hadn't seen it before but now still some theaters' costs for 3D is almost double for a movie coupled with the fact that an average person doesn't know the difference between captured 3D and post converted 3D, the result is a product that is way too expensive that everyone's seen awful post converted versions of.
I used to hate watching 3D because there was no 2D option at the time I wanted. It's way better when all the start times are 2D. It might be less innovative but leads to an overall better viewing experience. Cheaper price, don't have to wear uncomfortable glasses, doesn't wear your eyes down, doesn't distract you with something coming at you. I have only seen like 2 films that were really used 3D effectively, but even then, it didn't add that much to my experience. It wasn't a must see thing. Just a little different but not necessarily better.
At the end of the day, no glasses or moving chair and water spraying at you is better. Just sit still and watch a nice wide-screen movie with a nice sound system. It's everything you need without what you don't need.
3D CAN work well - very well, even - if it's in just the right kind of movie.
This might be a double whammy of people calling me a tasteless goon, but I still remember just how much I enjoyed seeing Prometheus in 3D IMAX.
It's not a great movie, but its strong suit was spectacle over anything else, and 3D can be really good for those kinds of movies. The flying scenes over the planet conveyed a powerful sense of motion, and
oh
my
god
the scene with Shaw inside the medical pod felt so much more claustrophobic and frightening than it ever has on any 2D rewatch.
The boxing bell sound is a brilliant choice
8:03 Your infographic features “The Nightmare Before Christmas” when it came out in 1993? Did you just call it close enough lol
Haha, nope - Disney actually re-released it a few times in 3D starting in 2006.
It's weird to watch this now, when we don't even know if movie theaters in general will survive the 2020's, much less 3D films.
I remember back in the 1980s when a couple of local TV stations aired 3-D movies from the 50's and you had to buy the paper glasses at gas stations. It seemed like a gimmick, but one that added a lot of charm to the movies. It's a fun way to kill a couple of hours, but I wouldn't have wanted to watch every movie like that.
My Experience.
I went to watch Thor Ragnarok but it wasn't available in the regular theatre due to technical difficulties, So I went to a much smaller but still 3D screen. Watched it, enjoyed it and came home. The next day since my friend wanted to watch the film we went to the regular theatre with bigger screen and sat in the middle close to the screen. Now, it's not the biggest screen in the world(since I live in a small city) but it's a wall-to-wall spread screen. And to watch 3D in that big screen was a complete different experience for me since I was watching the same film. Now that I think about it, I agree with Mark that the effect wears out in 1st 5 min coz in the film when thor arrives and titles comes at the screen. It adds nothing to the experience. Also, I've noticed that just for the marketing the 3D films have a totally different opening sequence just for the 3D experience. Like why do you need opening credits coming outta screen in furious 7, or why open a film with an action sequence when the stort could've just worked fine(thor ragnarok is an exception). I don't hate 3D but I'd still like it to be an option.
Agree 100% that They Shall Not Grow Old was a perfectly appropriate use of both colorization and 3D. But colorizing It's A Wonderful Life is a travesty and it hurt me to see even a glimpse of that here, even if only for illustrative purposes. Keep up the great work!
Great work as usual but I'm honestly surprised you didn't spotlight the price issue more often in modern 3D especially is America's constantly troubled economy and well before the Corona virus hit our shores.
Woah, I just noticed that the multiplex you reference in this video looks awfully familiar. Every time I visited my parents I made sure to stop in for a $4.99 matinee. Long live Tinseltown!
Shit, dude. What did you do to the production value??
Well done.
I would argue, VR finally brings true stereoscopic video, but no uses a stereoscopic camera. They just use a 360 or 180 video and offset the eyes by a couple degrees, and that creates a really bad FOV for the viewer.
Yeah having two eyes is a gimmick
I prefer native 3D over 2d but I do hate how dark movies get using glasses
I wonder what the demographic numbers are on 3D booms. I was 12-14 during the early 2010s 3D resurgence and if memory serves most of the movies I saw with my friends during that time were in 3D, while most of the movies I saw with family were 2D. Plus, there was a brief trend of popping the lenses out of Real-D glasses and wearing them. So I wonder how much of it was, as many things are, a teenager driven trend.