What Killed 3D Movies?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2024
- Ever since the dawn of motion pictures, filmmakers have been thinking of new gimmicks and tricks to get audiences to go see movies. 3-D movies are far from the first gimmick audiences got tired of quickly. Though movies like James Cameron's Avatar show signs that 3-D can work in cinema, most movies that utilize 3-D to tell stories don't work quite as well. But how did 3-D become so popular, only to fade as quickly as it did?
#3d #movies #nerdstalgic
SOURCES:
www.life.com/arts-entertainme...
www.theguardian.com/film/2009...
www.acmi.net.au/stories-and-i...
gizmodo.com/from-shock-chairs... - บันเทิง
![[HIGHLIGHT] หมีLIVEปะ? | EP.171 เห็นแต่ในจอ วันนี้มาต้องขอคารวะ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPWLxa0e_Z8/mqdefault.jpg)
So we're just going to skip over the masterpiece that was Spy Kids 3D?
I am shocked this didn't get a mention. Innovation at its finest.
I had it on DVD - branded 3D glasses included
When someone mentions 3D this is exactly what my mind goes back to every time. I am sure much of it likely doesn't hold up, but in my memories the 3D effects in that movie were insane.
Sharkboy and Lavagirl was also made in 3d.
I can’t even find the 3D version anymore
Spy Kids 3D is gimmicky but it should be acknowledged that it helped usher in the early resurgence before Avatar released.
Comforting to know the "hated by critics" "loved by audiences" phenomenon goes way back.
it goes alllll the waaaaaaaay back
It goes back as far as critics do
3D MOVIES NO LONGER AROUND
@@brandonscott5544 WOW
Ya. General audiences don't have great taste. They will love cookie cutter objectively bad movies like Multiverse of Madness and dislike masterpieces like Blade Runner
I blame most of it on bad projection. Most theaters don't calibrate their 3D showings, so what you're seeing is about 30% darker than what the image should be
I agree with that. I have seen 3d even Avatar of the water in the theater and still seemed to doze off a little due to the darkness of the glasses. Even watch 3d on my tv and it is not unusual for me to doze off too. However my 75 inch tv 4K I don’t have a problem.
Very pleasantly surprised by the content of this video. Clicked thinking it was simply a reflection of why the 3d craze of the 2010's failed and got a full lesson in the history of 3d throughout the medium.
I thought exactly the same thing. On that note when Avatar came out it was such a huge box office windfall all the studios wanted to cash in as it was easy money to do a simple post conversion. But audience grew tired of it and I know I would choose the non 3D option not to save money but it just doesn't enhance the viewing experience in any way. So it faded away. Now the only 3D are animation.
@@jonfreeman9682just wondering what small TH-cam they decided to jack this video from.
Tron: Legacy was the only movie I'd seen that used 3D as part of the narrative, shifting from 2D to 3D when they move to the digital world. It felt similar to the use of colour in the original Wizard of Oz.
Too bad it didn’t crank it up more.
The movie would’ve lent itself to the platform amazingly…but the 3D was somewhat disappointing.
Had it matched the other effects in this film, I’d have been happier.
The problem was the movie itself wasn't that great. There were long periods of exposition where nothing happens and the limited action scenes didn't take take advantage of the 3D effect like on the bike ride.
The original Tron was impressive because it's purpose was to exploit the special effects avaliable in the 80s as much as possible. Tron Legacy was not that: Most of the time it felt like just a room with the lights out and glowing furniture.
Let’s not mention the horrible ghosting in this movie by the extreme contrast between light and dark. If you want a good movie for 3D, check out dr strange and ant man.
Yes!!! Glad to see others talk about Tron Legacy.. that was the only movie that was true for 3D!
Another factor is that a significant portion of people cannot watch 3D/VR because it gives them vertigo and headaches. Meta found this out the hard way when even their employees refused to wear the headsets.
I got motion sickness from those moving seats. I'd never had motion sickness before in my life! And I can see someone having an allergic reaction to pumping scents into a theater.
I get them from headsets, but not from theaters. My guess is because headsets have the image so close to your face.
There's also a group of people that the effect doesn't work on. My wife who was born with a squint, that was corrected before she was 10, simply doesn't see the world in the way most people do, because her brain had to work around her squint, and the effect fails completely as a result
It also tends to fight with eyeglasses. I have myopia and astigmatism, and I can't watch movies without corrective lenses. Putting 3D glasses on instead of my prescription lenses gives me a 3D blur; putting them over my glasses makes mud. The same thing happens to several other people I know who wear corrective lenses. It's bizarre to me that so many filmmakers like Scorsese and Spielberg wear glasses themselves, and yet they don't think excluding the large swath of audiences who need glasses to function could be an issue. Why should I pay extra for a movie I can't even see?
The last time I went to a 3D movie in theaters, I kept the 3D glasses in my lap, lifting them up to hold them about a foot away from my eyes during a couple of 3D-heavy scenes so that for ONCE I could see what everyone was so excited about. I wasn't impressed.
Meta’s employees didn’t want to wear the headsets because there’s no benefit from working in “the meta verse”. Motion sickness in VR is actually very uncommon, and almost no one suffers from it when using a real VR headset (i.e no strapping your phone to your face) and playing low-intensity games where player movement is accomplished by the player walking around with their actual legs or teleporting. The only reason you keep hearing about motion sickness being a huge problem with VR, is because people who have never tried VR, are repeating what they’ve heard from other people who have never retried VR.
3D movies ruined 3D movies
You 3D movies sure are contentious medium
Just the other day I was thinking about how grateful I am that 3D movies died.
Brilliant
@@MsAmber82 YOU MADE AN ENEMY FOR LIFE!!
Lol. I was going to say, the video didn’t really say what killed 3d movies. Just talked about how much they sucked. I guys that’s our answer.
I absolutely agree. 3-D is great when done well to enhance the story. Gimmicks are cool for a time, but wear off quickly. I really dislike that studios jumped on 3-D as much as they did. It lessened the experience, and made most people hate the format because it was often done badly.
3-D needs to be built into the film from the ground up rather than as an afterthought. I can think of only 3 films that I remember seeing that really benefitted from 3-D: Avatar, The Desolation of Smaug, and Dredd.
It should be just another tool a filmmaker uses to tell the story, like colour or sound before it.
Agree. A lot of films were poorly and unnecessarily converted into 3-D in post as part of the craze. Many of the 2010s 3-D action films added in scenes/shots that were meant to 'showcase' the 3-D by having something rush/explode out of the screen meant the sequence became gimmicky and unwatchable at home.
Future A.I. editing can do it a lot better and we'll see superior 3D 15 years from now.
It also depends on how many movies are converted. Dr. Strange is a conversion but it almost feels like it was shot that way.
Another film for me that really benefited from it, was that animated Christmas Carol adaptation from 2009. Since it was already leaning on the creepy factor, the 3D helped enhance it.
On the other hand, it was useless for Pixar's Brave. In that case, it muddled the detailed textures and hardly anything pop-out of the screen. I remember going with my family and we all agreed we should have seen the normal version.
@@melissaharris3389yep well-done 3D gave the impression you could walk into the screen, poorly done gimmicky 3D tried to put the screen in your lap.
"The Life of Pi" was the 3D movie in the mid 2010s that wowed me the most with how beautiful the cinematography was.
This is the only movie I've ever seen in 3D actually and it was pretty awesome
that movie was for kids, that was the main problem, 3D movies for kids all the time
Coraline in 3D is just stunning and was actually shot in 3D, so it works. You can genuinely feel immersed inside a model with the characters
oh yeah, that was an amazing experience and one of the first modern 3d movies that came out as far as i remember.
Even so, its 2D version is so much better. Same goes for Avatar, Gravity, almost all 3D-animated movies, that are actually shot and compatible with 3D. The 2D version is far superior without the need to wear sun glasses indoors.
The effect just doesn't work. Something is out of focus. Your natural instinct is to focus on it, but you can't, because it's not out of focus for your eyes, it's out of focus for the camera. The whole experience is just distracting and the colour range is sub-par as the projector has to work to overpower the sun glasess you are wearing.
It's just great that this finally seems to be a thing of the past.
Coraline was not shot in 3D and very obviously post converted. It does look good though!
@@twantheunisz9281 I saw every single bonus feature from the DVD and they explained how they shot it in 3D lol
@@sadasela they may very well have shot it in 3D but I can tell you for sure that they didn't end up using that in the final product. there's some obvious rotoscoping flaws and some transparent objects have the background in the wrong stereo space. These are telltale signs of a 3D conversion.
I loved The Adventures of Tintin in 3D. It just made so much sense, and had that Spielberg charm.
as someone who wears glasses, 3D has always been a rough gimmick for me. I've almost never had 3D glasses accessible to me that would fit around my glasses comfortably.
I remember when you could buy 3D frame attachments for glasses.
Same here. I'm glad it's not as popular anymore.
I still have some 3D flip ups for my glasses, very comfortable. I had a 3D TV but it finally died, still have a 3D Blu Ray player.
I've been looking things up about 3d, they are planning a "glasses-free 3d" much like how the Nintendo 3DS did, there are still things they have to work out with it, I believe, like making it so you don't have to sit exactly in one spot to see it, and, of course, the price, making it affordable for the average person
On a screen that big, I have no trouble just taking my glasses off & only using the 3D glasses...
I remember back in 2008-2013 they were everywhere. Almost every movie was in 3D and some of them were actually made in that way
2008 I don't remember a single movie in 2008nwad 3D 2009 AVATAR first one
@@RobertK1993I remember some horror movies being 3d like final destination around that time and the big movie franchises like Harry potter
I recently purchased a projector which has 3D as an afterthought. It works very well and has none of the issues 3D had ten years ago. It's a great shame 3D is dead as the technology is now ready.
Which projector?
@@Jon-lp6qu Optoma UHD42. The 3D has no crosstalk, no flicker, bright, good colour.
Does it work with the theater glasses?
@@unityedits3722 no. Active ones, but no flicker.
All home projectors as of now work with (battery activated) active glasses of which there are 2 types. Xpand sell high quality active glasses.
HUGE fan of 3D! My favorite use of 3D is:
Hugo
Avatar
Gravity
How to Train Your Dragon
These movies are so good in 3D, that I would actually argue that if you haven't seen them in 3D, then you haven't actually seen the real movies.
Hugo is massively underrated
I’d like to suggest Harold and Kumar’s 3D Christmas. 3D is mostly a gimmick in the movie, but the movie knows what it is. It’s pretty funny and a visual treat too
I wish i saw Accross the Spiderverse in 3D now!
@@cbandit7715 there actually isn’t a 3D version, apparently it wouldn’t look too much different because of the animation style
@@unityedits3722 They did release Into the Spider-verse in 3d, so it would be similar to that.
Probably the most memorable 3D shot I've seen was in the Amazing Spider-Man, during the very first scene of Spider-Man swinging. You see a first-person view of him landing on the side of a reflective building, and the 3D literally made it seem as if the theater screen was a window to New York City. It's stuck with me after all this time.
Weird. I've watched hundreds of 3D movies and The Amazing Spider-Man is the only one that made me check to see if I accidentally put the 2D version on.
@@toddjones1480 I can't speak for the rest of the movie, my comment was mainly about that one shot in particular :P
I didn't realize 3D cinema was so old. I do remember it being all the rage when I was growing up in the early 2000s though. Sharkboy & Lavagirl comes to mind lol. Thank you for another informative episode.
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
I have a 3-D Blu-Ray player and my 3-D films of Hugo and Coraline are still some of my favorite films.
Seeing Avatar: The Way of Water in IMAX 3D was truly the most immersive movie experience I’ve ever witnessed! And this is coming from a movie guy that has seen way too many films on the big screen 😅
Right?! Side note, I have talassophobia (phobia of the deep sea), so I was a little afraid to watch it in IMAX 3D, as much as I wanted...
Well, I went, saw it and I was so mesmerized by the immersion that the deep sea sequences didn't trigger my phobia. I was a sobbing mess of happiness during the first sequence 😭😅.
The IMAX even used my statement about it on the movie's marketing, it was fun 🤗😄. Hahaha'.
@@RodrickMarsMoon that’s so cool! Yeah I can understand how being out at sea isn’t for everyone 🤷🏻♂️ But the way the movie made the sea look so alien yet so realistic was simply incredible in IMAX 3D 🤩
Same, and I had the same experience with the first Avatar movie. I remember when the movie finished and we left the theater in kind of a daze, like being shell-shocked. These movies show the power of 3D to transport you into the world of the silver screen, and when you suddenly leave it, you get jolted something awful. The problem with 3D movies is two-fold: they are incredibly hard to do well (I think only Cameron ever pulled it off, with the Avatar movies and Sanctum)... and they do not work at home. That is why 3D TV died: physics dictates that the "depth budget" you have is directly proportional to your viewing distance. There's enough of it in the cinema, not at home. Maybe VR movie viewing will bring back some enthusiasm for 3D releases, though.
Coraline in 3d was amazing. It felt like you were in a playset.
Almost any movie with an alternative art style can be a good candidate for 3D.
Ah, the joy of Sensurround. Back in the day I remember running the booth at the UA Syosset D150. It was a Tuesday. The film was Rambo 3. The manager came in and told me that the surround sound wasn't on. I checked all the amps in the sound rack, then turned on a couple of breakers that weren't marked. Everything seemed fine, so I went back to my crossword.
A little while later the whole building shook like crazy and the audience was cheering and screaming. The manager rushed in and yelled "Turn off the Sensurround!" Apparently the Sensurround was still hooked up, and when Rambo blew up the bad guys with a rocket propelled grenade, something triggered the Sensurround amps (The amps had their own 30 cycle oscillator that drove the speakers, triggered by a some inaudible cue in the soundtrack).
After the show, the manager took me down to the front of the auditorium and pulled back the sound-proofing curtains, revealing a half-inch wide, 7 foot high crack in the concrete block's mortar, explaining that it had been there since the theatre showed Towering Inferno.
James Cameron did it so well that nobody else has any better ideas to make it worth it.
I watched Mission Impossible in 4DX a couple weeks ago, in Cairo - we don't have it here in Hamburg, Germany. It was really worth it, the effects blend really well with the movie, although I didn't smell anything. But it gets you much closer and much more invested in the movie. Can only recomend it!
FALLOUT in 3D was mind blowing.
My mom never saw a 3D movie.
MI: Fallout was her first 3D.
She loved it.
She was disappointed that 7 wasn't 3D
It’s crazy how cyclical the world is. Back in the day people were worried theaters were gonna die to television, now it’s streaming. I truly do not think theaters will ever die
I think there's a place for cinema because people want to go out with friends and family to get the giant screen experience.
All I know is that with current ticket prices I go to the cinema maybe 2 or 3 times a year and only on discount Tuesdays at that
@@zionistsarewarcriminals And home cinema is much better than in the old times together with being available very soon and not 1-2 years later. I used to go to the cinema nearly every week. Now it's only for the (for me) important movies (Star Wars, Dune...) 1 or 2 times a year max. But with that frequency I don't care that much for the prices.
Studios only financing dull projects with really bad writing is killing cinema.
Tron Legacy was amazing in 3D, the real world was in regular 2D and changed to 3D when they entered the virtual world, the aesthetic was perfect for this and made the transition spectacular. I also liked Avatar and Gravity, but everything else was meh.
I wish I could have watched Tron2 in 3D. For me, Avatar was the best 3D movie.
It was a really cool concept when I was a child I loved seeing 3D movies the issue was that I had chronic migraines as a child and 3D made me violently ill. 😂
I'll never forget seeing Spy Kids in 3D, it was a magical experience. I ended up seeing the Mario movie in 3D because it was the only time time slot available for me, took a motion sickness pill beforehand and everything went smoothly.
I saw The Phantom Menace in 3D once and the pod race part was absolutely insane.
I was wondering if somebody was going to mention this, I saw it in 3D too, I really wish George, or at least Disney, kept the idea of converting all films to 3D, but I guess not
@@colt45604 Lucas was going to do all of them. One each year. Disney put a stop to that. The messed up thing is the 3D conversion of Episode 2 was already done.
I especially remember then blurry bar obscuring half the screen in one scene. Ridiculous.
I’m a little surprised you didn’t mention “high frame rate” which was done most famously by the “Hobbit” movies. Granted, it was met with mixed reviews, but it enhanced the 3D nicely, which is why I think James Cameron used it for the “Avatar” sequel! Also, I’m curious to see if more studios are going to utilize 70 mm IMAX film after the success of “Oppenheimer”. I’ve seen people raving about the experience in theaters, but it’s WAY more cumbersome than digital.
Nobody is gonna be using 70 IMAX film. It's just too hard to shoot and in my opinion, it's not worth it. You can make amazing looking epic movies with digital cameras. Look at Dune, Blade Runner 2049, Avatar, etc.
Doubt it. Nolan has shot his other movies in 70mm and they also have been quite succesful. I think most of the studio heads see Oppenheimer's succes comes from Nolan's cult of personality and barbenheimer (double movies are gonna be pushed more). Nolan is like Tarantino because both are given free rein over their movies because studios' know that people will watch their movies because of them.
"High frame rate" is 48 fps. Compare that to TV is 60 fps.
It is only high compared to 24 fps, which used to be the movie norm because it had once been chosen as the slowest rate that wouldn't flicker. Yet, every 24 fps frame is shown three times so as to not appear to be flickering.
I still love 3D and wish it were still big
It's not big but it's standard, millions pay to watch movies in 3D in theaters, unfortunately youtubers are frustrated filmmakers who saw 3D as another obstacle in their way to "make it". So this is what we get, a minority opinion getting more engagement.
Out in the real world, 3D movies are still shown and people still buy tickets and theaters still get packed.
@@azv343 That is true. Of the last five movies I saw in theatres, three were in 3d.
Hugo is still the best 3D movie. And I think the effect worked well for some natural history documentaries: Kingdom of Plants with David Attenborough.
I still think that the necessity of glasses is what keeps 3D from outgrowing its use as a gimmick. If movies could feature 3D without glasses, filmmakers could choose to use 3D whenever they believe it's necessary, and the film could transition between 2D and 3d seamlessly. It's like colour film. We take colour for granted, even though many movies don't really need colour to tell their story. And certain filmmakers use both colour and Black & white in the same movie to tell a story. Think of Oppenheimer.
For Avatar I have to say the immersiveness of the movie sets it apart from others. The colour format and the sharpness of the CGI, when sitting near to the screen wearing 3D glasses, you feel like you are part of that world for those 3 hours. So, that's another selling point of Avatar that makes people go back to watch it multiple times. It's not just watching a movie but experiencing it.
I studied geology in college and we had to use stereoscopes fairly often for projects. Some students would become physically ill because of the strain on their eyes--this same effect is pretty common for 3D movies too. Another downside for them.
@@sem_skywalker that is what they do. The point I am making is that there are people who will not see 3D movies because of their health, meaning fewer 3D movie ticket sales.
@sem_skywalker yeah, you have a really great point. 3D films should certainly be treated with more of the respect and care 2D movies have always received.
I never meant to imply that 3D movies should not be made (especially for such a small population’s sake). They’re a very unique medium in film that doesn’t get the recognition it deserves.
I was only trying to think of reasons why they may have not been as popular as they could be, but really, the factor I considered is probably not one that has made much impact on the matter overall.
There's also people who need corrective lenses and find that wearing the 3D glasses over or under their own too cumbersome, and a surprising number of people whom the effect doesn't work for, as well as some feeling motion sickness from it. So you lump all those people together with those who feel eye strain and that's a sizeable chunk of people who don't, or can't appreciate, the value of more expensive 3D movie tickets when the cheaper 2D standard is available. I'm guessing that might come close to 5% - 10% of moviegoers who simply cannot or will not enjoy a 3D movie due to their conditions. That might also partly explain why the 3D tickets are priced as high as they are, to make up for that loss in total attendees. There's definitely multiple factors involved in why 3D movies lost their popularity, and I think the people who experience discomfort from eye strain, motion sickness, wearing the glasses over their corrective lenses, or simply don't have the ability to see in 3D shouldn't be excluded from that list of factors simply because 2D alternatives exist. Those people are definitely a contributing factor.
I might be the only one that's sad that 3D TVs aren't a thing anymore. Playing Gears of War on my XBox 360 in 3D was amazing.
It’s a shame that 3D died when it did, since home 3D had gotten really good. 4K solved the loss of resolution that comes when displaying in 3D mode, and the glasses were cheap, light, thin and didn’t need to be charged. CGI movies look great in 3D, the extra dimension adds to the realism in the same way that color does for regular movies; not necessary, but it is replicating a sense that we have in our real lives.
I am a 3D addict. Last count I own 278 movies on 3D Blu-ray. It never gets old for me. Old titles from the 60's or MCU movies, 3D makes them come alive for me. But your video is honest. Grateful 3D was back for as long as it was.
Same here. Maybe not as many as you have but I have been building my collection for some time. I hope 3D will make a comeback in another decade once studios stop shoving it down and use it only when the movie is envisioned that way.
I lost count at 300 3d blu-rays. Probably at or over 400 now. 😂 😎
Not sure how many I have. I still use 3D Vizio TV’s for my home viewing.
Its nice to hear that the love for 3D is still alive
Yup i love 3d i have Lg 3d tvs a 55 and 47 for backup.....3d looks way better at home
Guardians of the galaxy 2 is by far the best 3D experience ever. I own the 3D blu ray and watch it over and over and over!
I've noticed in the 3D versions of Vol 1 and 2, there are parts where the 3D effects jump over the wide-screen bars, like a bonus easter egg.
@@thrillhouse1560 yes! The screen breaking effects are wonderful! James Gunn uses aspect ratio brilliantly aswell. I find it funny when people complain about 3D conversions while the best 3D experience I've ever had has been a conversion!
@@twantheunisz9281 Although filming with a 2 camera rig gives a more natural 3D look, most films need to be filmed with a single camera and converted post-production anyway due to special effects being added, or simply the rig is too large to use in interior shots.
@@thrillhouse1560 don't forget that conversions actually offer extra dimension and full control in post over how the 3D effect will look. They almost always have more defined shapes and solitidy over natively shot 3D films.
@@thrillhouse1560 Watch Transformers: The Last Knight. Not saying it was a great movie, but it was filmed using an IMAX 3d digital camera for most of the shots. So, it looks great. I saw it in an IMAX theatre in 3d. Best looking 3d movie I ever saw. No conversion necessary.
So, it is just a single camera rig, although larger than usual.
when you mentioned "emergo" and "smell-o-vision" i immediately remembered reading about what theaters did with Wait Until Dark at the climax scene, where they dimmed lights then eventually turned then all off to match the scene
But why would someone keep lights on while the movie is playing?
@@user-zd2kl9yg4v i don't know, the movie came out in 1967, long before i was a movie goer. i don't know if there was something different about theaters then that I would be unaccustomed to.
my favorite to this day is Ice Age 3 3D, the movie had great moments with the 3D being properly implemented
I remember the 3D craze from the early 1980s. I even went to the movies to see Jaws 3D.
those movies are only called 3D but are not really good 3D at all ... that started after Avatar...
One thing I heard with the polarized 3D, and since hearing it I couldn't unsee it, was that 3D movies of that type were way darker than they usually would be. Most edits of movies often had their brightness balanced for regular 2D, and the conversion to 3D generally halved their brightness, making some darker movies very difficult to watch and causing strain on people's eyes as they had to squint to make out details. The movies that best worked with 3D often ended up being brighter animated movies which were smoother and lower on detail.
A big part of that are the theaters themselves not projecting the film to the director’s standards. They’re supposed to be projected brighter than a standard film for that exact reason. (My guess is it’s a cost-cutting measure. Theater projector bulbs cost $500-$1,000 each! A brighter projection would wear them out faster.)
It's a gimmick that comes and goes. In the 50's it was a gimmick, then went away, then in the 80's, then went away, then in the early 2000's, and is once more fading away. Only time will tell when 3D comes back, usually in a couple decades or so. I think the reason why 3D now is starting to go is because there aren't enough movies that put in the effort to make the 3D something that will enhance the movie, instead its just something slapped on by studios and they call it a day, in the end it becomes nothing more than a gimmick like the previous decades.
Gotta love comments that tell you exactly what the video said...
Avatar in 3D was amazing. That's about the only movie I have seen where 3D was actually integral and implemented in a non-gimmicky way.
Gravity was also a great 3d experience
Which plays a part of why Avatar doesn't hold up
@@ninjanibba4259 13 years later and Avatar Way of Water 2.3 Billion and 1.2 billion in digital sales says otherwise.
@@Bird-Birdy-Love and it got forgotten all the same and no one can ever tell the plot nor do they get brought up, they suck and they're unoriginal, it only makes money cuz it's a James Cameron movie and that's it
No one cares about them
Avatar way of water brought me back to that feeling the 1st movie gave me. No other 3d movies come even close to them. It really adds so much compated to watching at home in 2d
Hey Nerdstalgic, very indepth and well researched video essay. Hatts off to your hardwork and dedication. ❤
I absolutely love these videos on cinematography and the history of movie making. Keep up the great work man
I just assumed it was because there were too many 3D movies that audiences just didn't like all that much 🤔
I was never a big fan of 3D movies, but I still wish they made 3D TVs. Just so we had the option since some people like myself still have 3D blu-rays. Some movies use 3D really well, but most don't.
They would be great for gaming since one person can watch and the other can play, perfect for families and college students. Problem is that they were always more expensive than two cheap TVs that could do the same thing. If they could make a cheap 3D TV, I think they could make a good niche
Sadly the glasses always hurt my eyes. So probably the only 3d movie I actually enjoyed through my eyes hurting was Spy Kids 3😅!
I still remember seeing as a kid an advertisement on TV for Freddy's Dead in the early 90's which was advertised on 3D which I thought as a kid was cool, I even got the 3D glasses when I purchased it on DVD, I remembered renting movies on video cassette which stated in 3D, mostly horror movies, as I got older I wasn't too impressed with 3D as it felt more of a gimmick, that is until I watched Avatar which is truly immersive and which added to the storytelling without detracting from it, I remember when 3D TV's were a thing and how TV manufacturers and big box stores tried to sell you on it and how there were 3D Blu-rays movies to go along with it but I never really caught on the 3D TV hype. On a different note on speaking on about theatre gimmicks I remember watching a documentary saying that they used to zap audiences with a slight electric shock for older horror movies of the 1950's/1960's to give them a bit of a fright which you couldn't do today as it would anger audiences, the way theaters can thrive like they used to is to stop streaming or have movies breathing room in theaters more, like they used to, instead of straight away a month or 2 later going to streaming, many audiences are just not showing up knowing they can wait for streaming to which I'm not one of them, I prefer the theatrical experience and like to own my movies on physical media formats like Blu-ray, 4K UHD disc and if there's no other option DVD, even though it's very low res.
I really like seeing a film in 4DX. And i've seen almost all new 3D releases this year like GotG vol. 3, The Meg 2, Scream VI and Elemental. Animated films look fantastic in 3D.
I'm a suckered for 3D. Even bad 3D. I'm a fan of it. I agree that it shouldn't be on everything. It's not always necessary. But if I see that it's available in 3d and 2d, I'm picking 3d. As for my favorite 3d movie....thats a tough one. I enjoy it all.
Avatar really use 3D to its earnest. That magical 3D experience is hard to express in word.
No mention of the amazing 3D quality of nature documentaries.
The doc by Cameron used the medium fantastically. That’s generally the case for the nature documentaries. They almost never disappoint.
Wernor Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams was absolutely one of the best uses of 3D I've seen, the cave walls had texture and you could see how the ancient humans used the features of the cave in their artwork. It was absolutely magnificent, and done with a 3D camera throughout, not post-processed.
I think Avatar films are the best 3-D ones. Like you said it's more that a gimmick. I was fortunate enough to see the 2nd one in 3-D and because I hadn't seen a 3-D film in years I forgot how good it was (The fact that it was made for 3-D also helped). It was a totally immersive experience and it didn't even feel like 3 hours. It was so good that I saw it twice, which is very unusual for me. I don't think 3-D should be for every movie but It's an awesome thing to have once in a while. Because when it's over done, It looses its magic.
I love 3D - Done Properly.
Avatar, Tron: Legacy
The Great Gatsby
Titanic 3D
Dredd 3D
Piranha 3D
Jurassic World 3D
Love the experience
That being said - I prefer expanded aspect ratio (films shot in or designed for IMAX)
I’ve never seen either of the Avatar movies, but the best implementation of 3D I’ve ever seen was Tron Legacy. The movie starts in 2D and transitions to 3D when he enters the computer world, then returns to 2D at the end when he re-emerges. The effect was amazing. My favorite part of the movie is the final sunset scene, because it’s filmed in traditional 2D, and yet it’s more beautiful than any of the cool digital CGI 3D graphics from most of the rest of the film. And thematically, that’s the point the movie is trying to make. It’s just… *chef’s kiss*
I've seen 3 movies that were enhanced by 3D. Tron legacy has been mentioned several times already. The other two were IMAX films.
One IMAX film was about the Monterey kelp beds. The underwater shots were exactly like swimming through a forest with the kelp coming out towards you.
The second IMAX film was filmed from ultralight planes. The ground actually receded into the distance ahead of you.
In addition to entertainment, I love to application of 3D to the educational space. Multivariate calculus could be difficult to interpret at times while looking at vectors on a white board that were supposed to be oriented in space. Without something to indicate the z dimension, the two dimensional projection of an arrow receding into space just looks like a shorter vector.
3D is unimaginably great in theatres if it's done in 48 frames per second or higher!
Needless to mention Avatar 2 was phenomenal!
You could see avatar in 3D?? I didn't know thar
3D movies are far from dead. In the past year we've had Avatar 2, Elemental, Puss in Boots, and Ninja Turtles.
All excellent 3D experiences.
Great video on the history of 3D, even tho I think a massive part of Avatar's success is in it's immersive techniques, giving the audience a more non-verbal experience, packed with physicality and a tactile sense of the environments and actions of the characters.
We have learnt some lessons. 3D should be watched on screens above 100 inches. Kids under 5 should not be left unattended watching 3d movies and should be given a break every 45 minutes. Good projectors such as Sony double the bulb output for 3d to prevent a gray picture. Post converted films can be poor because the film studios do not spend the $10m it costs to get it right. Jurassic Park is an example of a lot of money being spent to convert the 2d to 3d and it works!
Dune
I love 3D films that were shot for 3D using 3D cameras. I've never seen a post conversion that comes close to the image quality of Jaws 3D. The effects shots are pretty silly, but the live action material was shot at Sea World and shows real depth to the image and care in the composition.
Post conversion really doesn't work. It's fake so they take composite layers and stack them to create the illusion of 3D but the stacking doesn't give gradients in depth and feels like you're looking at a diorama.
I honestly thought you were talking about those couple of years where 3d TV's were all the rage.
Neither me or any of my friends ever asked for 3D or hoped for a 3D release. In every case, when I heard a movie would be 3D, I felt a massive letdown.
Why the fuck would you be disappointed? It's literally just an additional option to experience the film in a different, more immersive way.
@@mind-of-neofind it weird as hell for people to be mad that there are other options that does not necessarily change your experience
@@Rayutomoto Hugo 3d was literally advertised as a 3D movie experience. The movie falters and is missing like 80% of the charm if not viewed in 3D. It was designed for that medium. That is what this guy is talking about. I know you are probably a young lad but there was a time when things were only shown in this Medium for no reason what so ever. No other options. Just 3D.
@@mind-of-neo No, it literally wasn't an option. In some cases, it was literally the only format available. Do you literally understand?
@@Rayutomoto Find it weird that you respond to the comment about being mad when that wasn't what I said. Maybe you're just projecting your own feelings.
I love all things stereoscopic, films, View-Master, and VR. If Apple Vision Pro proves successful, 3D will be here to stay. All those who got to play with the Vision Pro demo at WWDC23, most of them loved the 3D Avatar: The Way of the Water movie clip and Apple’s first 3D spatial camera promotional birthday and dinosaur portal clips.
Prometheus was shot in 3D and was really beautiful in the theater.
It’s crazy how we went from “ooh something is jumping out at you” 3D to just 3Ding the whole movie. I love watching older 2000s movies and the actor reaches out at the screen to grab something and I think what a big moment that had to be at the time.
My problem with the medium is that I can't actually watch 3D movies in theaters. I've been wearing glasses since I was four, with rather thick lenses, and 3D glasses don't fit over them. If I go to see a 3D movie, I have to choose between seeing a blurry mass of colors in three dimensions, or watch an uncanny valley version of the movie.
You can buy clip on 3d glasses for not much money. But there are two types. One for IMAX and one for other 3d movies. The non-IMAX ones are the same as passive 3d TVs. I have that at home. I bought a couple of clip on 3d glasses for when people who wear glasses come to my place to watch a 3d movie.
@@my3dviews huh. Didn't know those existed. Neat
Weird, I was JUST thinking about what happened to 3D movies last night...
I love the concept of 3d. Cameron understood that it wasn’t so it could pop out at you but that you could look into the screen at depth. It was a window to a world. Pandora was the perfect way to utilize 3D. I still hold that 3d media will be the standard. But it will never be standard until the glasses are removed from the process. At home 3d is great with a good tv and film, but the glasses necessitate your attention. How many times do we put on something on the tv and we do other things? We look at our phones, we make a snack, go to bathroom, clean the living room. Having glasses requires you to watch (which is why a theatrical experience works for 3D consumption). It’s what I love about it and loathe about it. I love that I get fully committed to the screen, but it’s what a lot of casuals don’t like. If the screen were simply 3D and filled with depth, nobody would mind. I love the medium, I just hate som many have just dismissed it. Give it time, it will return.
Something nobody remembers now, but in the early 80's the John Wayne Western "Hondo" was shown on television in 3D. They had a deal with Burger King to distribute the 3D glasses, I still have a pair.
Avatar 1 was amazing and an experience unlike anything I had ever seen!
I thought it was very overrated. I don't get why people like it so much. What made it so unique for you?
@@rhamlet5290 many did apparently. :-) The music, the AMAZING 3D, the story...actually everything. I really loved it and still do. Even with the "it's just a retelling of Pocahontas!" tropes lol.
@@DrDiscoursein my defence for the story,it's just some stories are meant to be told over in new creative ways an I think avatar did exactly that💯
@@firebros9492 you could be right and I think it's a good call tbh since they did it so well. :-)
Yeah, I agree. It's such a shame 3D gets as bad of a rep as it does. There's plenty of great movies out there that use 3D to enhance the story and deliver an unforgettable experience. But the 3D technology itself gets dumped on because of the high concentration of films that have jumped on the 3D bandwagon, many of them absolute stinkers. What's funny is that nowadays where 3D interest is at an all time low, 3D movies have gotten exponentially better than they were 10 years ago.
OMG EMERGO! For years, my mom used to tell me about EMERGO, and I thought she had made it up. She said that one point someone reached up and pulled down EMERGO 😅. I couldn’t find it in the internet but it’s real, thank you 🙏
I remember going to a planetarium that had a simulated thunderstorm with wind, rain, deep booming thunder, and flashing lightning. The clouds were projected on the dome ceiling. This in the 80s.
One of the most unique experiences was to see the Hobbit trilogy in High Framerate 3D. I thought it was stunning as there was no ghosting and it was suuuper smoooth, but most people criticized for feeling like a videogame. Sadly those remain the only HFR movies I have so far ever seen. Wish more, especially action movies utilized the higher framerates.
It was a disaster, watching was like being presented everything that causes nausea and headaches at once.
Extremely poor
Implementation of 3D itself making most movies not worth the higher price.
And size the 3D was the main draw in many of them the script suffers even worse than usual since there was less emphasis on an actual story.
Coralline and avatar used it right. Films like my bloody valentine , final destination and Alice in wonderland were blatant cash grabs
I'm so glad the 3D fad is almost over and you can see most shows in 2D again. Wearing those glasses was an aweful experience every time and the 3D effects rarely added anything to the movies. Most of the time they distracted from the actual cinematography, making the image darker and the edges blurier.
I watched the Solo movie with my buddy in 4DX. What a trip. We had both hit the bar beforehand to get in the right mindset for a B-movie. Once it began, we couldn't stop laughing; it felt like a rollercoaster ride. The mist maker was broken in front of both our seats, so we kept getting sprayed with water squirts instead of mist. I don't feel the need to go again, but boy was it a novel experience.
The Ice Age!
The death of 3D was the glasses. What a ridiculous inconvenience. And then the 3D effects sucked, and you had to try and fit goofy glasses over your prescription glasses.
Is it really the glasses? The 3DS produced 3D images without glasses. While being surprisingly effective, most people still preferred playing in 2D.
3D is not immersive enough and you need to focus o particles parts or everything will look blurry, unless the tech has advanced since I last tried it
I once saw a 4d movie and there was a scene where a rat runs between someone's legs toward the camera and the seat had a thing that would shoot out and wave around a little rubber hose thing between your legs like a rats tail.
Kind of a lot for one specific gimmick but it definitely got a rise out of everyone!
As a kid at an aquarium, they had SpongeBob in 4D. You could get sprayed with water and air and your chair would feel like it was jumping. It was terrifying and memorable. My grandmother was the only smart one because she sat in a normal chair and only experienced it in 3D
Although I did see an MHA movie with a rollercoaster of a chair and I thought that was fun.
Dredd and Tron Legacy my favorites. Saw in theaters 3D, and have the 3D blu ray discs.
I couldn’t be the only one that got dizzy watching 3D movies.
My personal opinion, 3d helped kill the theater experience. Instead of making the atmosphere more inviting with better seating and such the focus towards 3D drove a lot of people out.
That part!! Resources could be better used on improving the overall theater experience that makes us want to go in the first place.
If you wear glasses, this whole 3D experience wasn't that much fun. Just let to reflections and I definitely preferred watching the movie without 3D glasses. Plus the prices of course.
Besides, I always had the impression, that certain scenes or shots were just in the movie to show off the "cool effects" without any value to the story.
I will always choose a regular showing over 3D.
Except for Cave Of Forgotten Dreams, that was excellent.
Spy kids 3-D will always be my favorite 3-D movie!😊
I am a huge fan of 3D. I think that "The Walk" (starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is especially effective in 3D. And I thought that the re-release of "Jurassic Park" in 3D was great fun.
I saw the batman in screen x. That is definitely a format that needs to accounted for when filming if they want to use it. Catwoman and gordon were having a conversation on the main screen while batman was just awkwardly stood off to the side
I just bought my first projector last week and came with 3D. The one nice thing about coming late to the party is 3D versions of movies are about $5 on eBay right now. I've been stacking up.
Huge 3D fan and actually, my favorite 3D movie is the most recent Avatar movie. The high 3D quality projected in an IMAX theater was insanely good and added a really unique and cool element to the movie!
I think one day we'll have 3D movies in a different form. Either holograms that make you feel like you're there or virtual reality. I think that's how movies or whatever movies become will be consumed in the future one day.
1:06
It's awesome how much better you see the real distance of this picture because it allows to see it in 3D
For me it was my eyeballs feeling like they were on the verge of imploding after 3 hours of Avatar.
I hated this trend because I wear glasses. So if I went to see one of these, I either had to take my regular glasses off which presents the obvious problem of making it hard to see the movie. Or wear them atop my regular glasses, which gave me a splitting headache every time. Do not miss this craze.
I still remember when I was in grade school, I went on a field trip with my classmates to see a movie in 3D, I don’t remember what movie I saw, but I do remember getting sick from the 3D effects and I had to leave the the trip early. I still to this day don’t understand why I ended up getting sick from watching a movie that was in 3-D.
I don’t remember all the details of this, because I was so young when it happened.
I saw Tron: Legacy in 3-D, and there was a grand total of 1 shot where I could actually see the effect. What's worse, that shot was just a couple of characters standing still in front of a moving abstract background. I don't think I've bothered with 3-D since then.
Since you mentioned that movie, I felt that I had to comment. I saw Tron Legacy 3D in the movies, and I always said that if you didn't see it on the big screen in 3D, you were missing out. Don't know which scenes you were referring to, but everybody's entitled to their opinion. I also thought that the Avatar movies were great in 3D. Lots of other movies, not so much. 3D is definitely over-rated today. I'd much rather see a more interesting picture on a real Imax screen today.
Avatar was the first and last 3D blockbuster film for me. Having glasses on top of your prescription glasses thst keep falling off just isn't worth the trouble imho.
Essentially, James Cameron forced a 3D roll-out before the tech was actually ready. Same with digital projection really, which up until 2015-ish wasn't bright enough for large format screens. Nowadays with laser projection, increased bandwidth, options for higher frame rates and improved post-conversion (which despite whatever Cameron tells you is actually vital to every 3D production) 3D could actually deliver a quality experience despite the glasses. People like to blame the death of 3D on the studios alone, but the majority of post-conversions by major studios was actually pretty solid. Most people just watched it on crappy realD or Masterimage-systems with low contrast, low brightness and an abundance of ghosting.
This was a very informative video, I really enjoyed it. And you went eight whole minutes before saying "liderally". I think history has shown us that this trend will likely come again, maybe around the 2040s.
I am speaking only for myself; but I first encountered 3D movies in Vancouver, Canada at the Expo ‘86 World’s Fair. Each Province had an exhibit area that spotlighted what they had to offer. I believe it was Ontario that had the 3D movie I remember the most. A camera crew mounted the huge 3D camera on a tower attached to a fast boat. Canadian Geese were trained to follow the camera and boat while in they were in flight. I would like to say the images of the birds was positive in that they popped out of the screen and appeared in your lap. The most memorable image had you traveling in formation with the birds. The lead goose was right in your face looking at you eye to eye. Looking beyond the bird’s head you could see the other birds flying nearby wing on wing in formation . All the movies I saw that day were positive in the way I just described. Years later my wife and I drove up to Los Angeles to watch a 3D documentary. The LA and movie and other 3D IMAX movies I have seen since were negative to the original I just described. The movie relief I remember is not as dramatic and you look into the scene as. If it were being displayed on a theater stage. I do not think the 3D movies I have watched in 3D since do not gain much from 3D projection. A large IMAX super bright image is good enough for me. IMAX movies often open with a positive image I just described then dial the 3D way back. It is hardly worth the effort. Just say’n.
This reminded me of spy kids 4D, which was the worst movie experience ever. They gave you a scratch and sniff card that you were supposed to scratch and sniff at certain scenes and every single one was a fart, puke, or burp smell