Pajiba

So on the one hand, I agree with not only the sentiment he's conveyed about 3D, but also the tone and candor with which he expressed it -- but on the other hand he's remaking "Monster Squad."

Hmph.

You know what? I'm going to be a female praying mantis on this one. I'm going to devour his face while fucking him.

This is the second time I've heard of Bay voicing skepticism regarding 3D, and I'm still trying to sort out my feelings about something intelligent coming from that man.

I've wondered for a while now just what, exactly, was revolutionary about the way Avatar was made. Cameron dubbed his capture process "performance capture" (rather than "motion capture") because it put so much emphasis on recording the facial performances of the actors and not just their grosser body movement. However, it appears that he decided to use a series of strategically-mounted small cameras to record the facial performances so that animators could then use the performance as they animated the CGI characters. Is that revolutionary? That sounds like animation, not performance capture.

The best I've come up with about what was revolutionary was that they developed a system wherein Cameron could look in a monitor on "set" that would show his performers as low-rez versions of their CGI characters in real-time, with the CGI backgrounds and other elements composited into the camera display. This sounds like it could modestly revolutionize VFX shot composition, in that it would allow the filmmaker to set up the VFX elements while shooting principal photography, but that's only a slight improvement over current pre-viz composition.

I guess one revolutionary move was Cameron getting some of the "whiz kids" from the current Wacom/Photoshop generation of concept designers to produce some vehicle designs that looked slightly more like an industrial designer's functioning vehicles than some night school hacker's poorly- constructed insect-machines.

In summary I was, and I was surprised at this, more immersed and visually impressed with Avatar in 2D than I was in 3D. Michael Bay (who does shit out 2D movies) got mah back on this one.

Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me all murdery.

I mean, on the one hand, I enjoy some stuff in 3D. I saw Alice and liked it (fuck off), I saw Coraline in 3D and loved it. But how is that going to work with something like Precious or The Hurt Locker? And did I read here or somewhere else that distributors are telling theater owners that if they don't agree to show the 3D version, they're not getting the 2D version?

Your car analogy is excellent, Steven. I would add, and it's not an original sentiment, but that makes it no less true, that if everything is special, then nothing is. If every movie comes out in 3D, then what is there to compare it to? I would also, however, point out that when Beowulf came out (remember that one? yeah, not so much, huh?), there was mass hysteria over how it was going to change the entire industry, and that no one would hire real actors anymore because why when you can just animate them? and that hasn't happened. I was reading an article in my local Sunday paper about how this was the "biggest sea change since talkies," and all I could do was roll my eyes, because (as in the example above) this is what they say every single time some new fad comes along.

Yes, this seems like a bigger problem with the studios apparently willing to force the issue with theaters, but they haven't taken the consumer into the equation. Not everybody wants 3D. Not everybody likes it. Not everybody can even see it (there are many rather common eye issues that make it difficult if not impossible). Not everybody is going to pay for it in every movie they see. I don't think it's time to panic just yet.

Wait, I just realized... I agree with Michael Bay. Oh, shit. I lied. It's definitely time to panic.

Hey Laredo, I just have to mention this:

The "performance capture" is the only revolution Avatar introduced, because it doesn't use animators. The facial movements of the actors are put directly into the computers.

Aaaand that thing with the CGI Monitor on set isn't from Cameron, that was invented by WETA during Lord of the Rings, is was in the specials somewhere. It took some good thinking, a broomstick and a block of wood and some motion capture tape.

For the rest, I shiver to say that I'm behind.. Bay. (My eyes suck, so Avatar was maybe 10% 3D for me..)

*Starts looking for a piece of rope and a sturdy ceiling beam*

I absolutely refuse to see anything in 3-D that wasn't shot in 3-D. This conversion process post-shoot is bullshit. Avatar was very impressive, but I'm still first and foremost interested in good storytelling. And regardless of how cliche you think Avatar was, its story was still obviously very stirring, as evidenced by these people around the world dressing up like Na'vi.

Going to the movies is too expensive as it is, and if the studios want to kill the golden goose (an inclination they have shown time and time again), they can be my guest. But I'm allergic to goose, and I won't eat it.

Kudos to Michael Bay (for once), but I still plan never to pay to see one of his movies at a theater again.

"Remember minidiscs?"

Yes.

"They were smaller, sounded better and held more music than CDs. No one disputed those things, what they disputed was that the benefits knocked it up over the threshold necessary to bother consumers into converting."

Exactly. I had a friend who ran a record store (way back in the day, obviously) and when minidiscs came out asked me what I thought of them. I'm a minor-league Luddite, so it had been only a year or so before that I'd given in to the CD revolution. Even so, I said, "So you're asking people who just spent a lot of money on new hardware and rebuilt their music collections [from vinyl] to spend MORE money on new hardware and rebuild their music collections again. All that and the minidisc is, obviously, easier to steal? That's DOA."

And for a change, I was right.

Not so sure about 3D. I figure in 20 years we won't have a choice. With any luck, I'll be dead way before "Serbian Film X" comes out in 3D, of course, like the previous eight.

Buy something expensive, ,. EE is in the bank.

like a good little christian robot i've got a promise ring. i'm saving myself for the right movie - i want Tron to pop my 3D cherry and be my first.

be gentle, Dude...

Do you think its naive to assume that taking the consumer into consideration will affect the financial decisions of the movie industry? Take your car metaphor, and gasoline. Remember all those let-the-consumer's-voice-be-heard, don't buy gas today forwards...people still 'have' to drive. Families need escapertainment. It doesn't matter what you build (or what you charge) they will come.

Any thoughts?
P.S. Please excuse my hyphens

"There are a few directors out there insisting that the move to 3D is inevitable, no different than the move to color or to digital recording. Actually, there’s a huge difference, those innovations were driven by filmmakers not by studios. Artistic decisions were made that were successful enough to drag an entire industry with it"

Ehh....no. You should check your film history on this one. The move to color was a big studio move., espescially the push to making ALL movies in color. This happened as a reaction to the competition created by television. Same goes for widescreen and sound film.

jumbo chart you admit

Thats pretty eye-opeiningi! I look forward to reading more of your posts.