P3D Re: 3D movies for the masses...

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 14:30:20 -0700
>From: Gecko <gecko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D 3D movies for the masses...

> ...If a feature film were done by Spielberg, Lucas, or Cameron and
>released in theaters in 2D, (but actually filmed in 3D) then filmgoers
>wouldn't have a preconceived notion of the 3D film.  If the film is a
>success, then maybe a year later, rerelease it in 3D, it's original
>form.

>I think it would draw a larger crowd in 3D, and being a success the
>first time would assure movie theaters for success of it's 2nd run.

>Comments?

I think the challenge is for such a 2D movie to become popular. Viewers
will be puzzled: "what's a tumbleweed doing in the foreground of this
scene? And why's it floating in front of a pirate ship?"
(Obscure reference to some recent posts on P3D. :-)

More seriously, Marvin pointed out that commercial 3D movies have tended
to make some "gimmicky" use of 3D, that usually ends up distracting
the viewer from appreciation of the movie other than as a 3D gimmick.
If you see such a movie in 2D, you can usually get a pretty good idea
that it was originally shot in 3D. SCTV regularly made fun of this in
its "3D" segments.

Long ago, a large body of knowledge was built up on how to film a 2D movie
that would attract huge audiences, movie after movie. I'm not convinced that
anyone's ever done that for 3D movie photography - I suspect that as a
first approximation, it should extend the idea of orthostereo to moving
pictures - most of the movie should not involve flashy 3D tricks, and you
shouldn't see points of view, etc. that you wouldn't see in real life.
Perhaps an extreme test of a truly great 3D movie might be that several
years after watching it, you remember it favorably, but have trouble
recalling whether you saw it in 2D or 3D. In other words, 3D used in a
movie in this way would add to the realism, without being obtrusive.

Occasionally in 2D moviemaking there's an innovation, such as the one in
which the camera position and focal length change together, so that the
subject in the foreground appears to remain the same size, but the background
appears to be moving toward or away from the foreground subject. This seems
to have been standardized as a way to register surprise or shock.
Similarly, occasional innovation and judicious addition of limited special
effects could add to the experience of a 3D movie. And there can continue
to be specialized 3D movies that are pure gimmick - like many music videos
already do for 2D.

A few well-made movies in which the use of 3D is *extremely* low-key
(compared to current 3D movies) and yet provides some benefit to the viewer
might help to change the public perception of 3D for the better. In the
absense of such a change in public image, I'm not sure that release of a
3D version of a popular 2D movie would have the desired effect. When some
of the stained glass windows from the Middle Ages were cleaned, some people
dismissed them as cartoon-like, ignoring claims that they were now closer
to the original design than they had been before the cleaning. To reduce
the risk of similar dismissal of a 2D/3D movie, I believe it would help
to lay some groundwork in advance of the stunt, to help reduce the tendency
to dismiss 3D out of hand.

John R


------------------------------